I agree that the U.S. pioneered terrible rules in both of these areas and then helped spread those rules around the world. The drug war and copyright law, though, have both been spread by treaties:
(Some people have coined the term "policy laundering" to describe creating domestic policy by agreeing to a treaty demanding it, and then pointing to the treaty obligation as a reason that the domestic policy can't be changed -- maybe even within the country whose negotiators first proposed adding it to the treaty!)
I don't think there are many treaties that require states to engage in surveillance. There are civil rights treaties that can be interpreted to restrict it. The closest I can think of is that the Chicago Convention
says that civil air carriers must comply with immigration rules, which might be one legal basis for collecting ever more information in identity documents, and for requiring carriers to verify them and share information about travelers with states. (I guess there are similar rules in treaties about ships, too?)
Treaties don't negotiate themselves into existence.
As far as copyright law, the last two examples, TPP and ACTA, were both essentially negotiated in secret, by large corporate interests. After negotiating a treaty (TRIPS, say) the bueacrats get to propagate the skullduggery.
Wasn't the DMCA an example of policy laundering - raising domestic policies "up to the level required by treat"?
I think one of the big worries with "Intellectual Property" treaties is that they end up (practically) mandating deep packet inspection, which is surveillance by another name.
Why not? See that logo in the upper-right of the page? That's the UN logo. Know who elects its members? ECOSOC, another UN body. Know who nominates at least five of them? The WHO, yet another UN body.
A commission of ECOSOC is also responsible for the scheduling of drugs under the same treaty that set up the INCB.
"Independent" agencies are not unusual in governmental contexts. The FCC, FDA, and FTC are all prominent US examples. "Independent" doesn't mean they're not part of the government, they're just outside the direct control of other parts of the government.
Every time, for example, the FDA bans an import of <whatever>, headlines spring up both inside and outside the US about "the US" banning <whatever>, generally followed within the article by explicit explanation that it's the result of an FDA action. It is not unfair nor even misleading, the FDA is part of the US government, and on the world stage, the US is answerable for its actions.
