You understand that fast-track simply means that the treaty has to be voted yes/no, not that it is immune to a vote (i.e. democratic scrutiny).
The idea that the negotiation has to be done in secret has nothing to do with fast-tracking. If there’s a democratic deficit, I’d say it resides there, rather than in the fast-tracking yes/no vote process.
And what country in the world is going to negotiate with a country that is going to change the terms of the treaty after negotiation? And would the USA accept a treaty that would be changed by the other country after the negotiations were concluded?
Negotiations should be a lot more open, but in the end, an up/down vote with no amendments is the only way to have a treaty. Can you imagine if the US congress got to amend Kyoto or the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Certainly it would mean no more arms control treaties.
Negotiate as long as you like, and let’s make them open. But after negotiations with the other parties are finished, you either sign or you don’t. And yes, “don’t” may well be the right answer for many of these treaties.
(I’m also beginning to realize that “fast-track” has morphed in popular imagination into meaning everything bad and secret about the negotiating process rather than the simple mechanism for voting on trade agreements under US law, so we may be arguing at cross-purposes. I am, of course, referring to its legal meaning.)
