The trade dispute between the United States and several countries in Europe, Asia and the Caribbean over Internet gambling has been embarrassing, expensive and now, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, a national security secret.
At least that’s what Ed Brayton, a freelance writer who opposes the government’s anti-gambling measures, found when he tried to get a copy of the agreement the United States has reached with the European Union, Japan and Canada on the issue. The accord spells out what trade concessions the United States is making to compensate those countries for U.S. laws and regulations that try to prevent Americans from wagering on foreign gambling Web sites. The latest law, enacted in 2006, prohibits U.S. banks and other financial institutions from processing any Internet gambling transactions.
Antigua and Barbuda, a former British colony in the Caribbean, touched off the dispute in 2003 when it brought a case to the World Trade Organization arguing that the United States’ efforts against gambling on foreign Web sites were an unfair trade practice because it exempted domestic horse racing Web sites. The WTO sided with the tiny Caribbean nation, which has yet to reach an agreement with the United States on compensation.
Other countries have, though, and Brayton filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative after the deal was announced in December. He says he just wanted to know precisely how much the United States was conceding in the December deal to maintain its gambling ban. The agency’s chief FOIA officer, Carmen Suro-Bredie, replied that the USTR was withholding the agreement because it was “classified in the interest of national security.”
In announcing the agreement with the EU, Japan and Canada, USTR spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said it “involves commitments to maintain our liberalized markets for warehousing services, technical testing services, research and development services and postal services relating to outbound international letters.”
She did not respond to requests for more information about the deal.
Brayton says he’s planning to appeal the denial, which would force the trade office to explain why the agreement implicates national security. He says he suspects the agency may have something else in mind: hiding what could amount to billions of dollars in trade concessions.
“I can’t even imagine a reasonable explanation other than that in the furthest reaches of my imagination,” he says.