One of the workshops organized at PSI - APRECON
October last year was on "MNC interventions, investments and trade
agreements." HARVEY PURSE, a Trade Justice Campaigner for Australian
Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET), talked about their campaign on
TPPA which the Australian
government was negotiating a with the US, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Singapore, New
Zealand and Vietnam, and where the "agenda is being set by giant US
corporations and based on US free trade agenda of liberalization, deregulation
and secrecy." AFTINET is a national network of community
organizations, trade unions and individuals concerned about trade agreements
that restrict the ability of governments to regulate both investments and key
areas of social policy.
Mr Purse informed
APRECON that US corporations have made public submissions to oppose commitments
to workers’ rights, and use the TPPA negotiations to undermine local jobs and
fair employment conditions for government contracts. The US business agenda is
about more rights for corporations, but less rights for workers, and less
ability for governments to make laws in the public interest. Local
consultations may also be deemed as a barrier to trade as MNCs are based
offshore and have no onshore capacity.
Mr Purse also
said that in the health sector, giant US pharmaceutical and tobacco
corporations are lobbying to impose US intellectual property laws which give US
pharmaceuticals more rights to charge higher prices for longer periods for medicines;
restrict the ability of governments to provide medicines at affordable prices;
and give US tobacco corporations the right to sue governments millions of
dollars when they try to protect public health through regulation.
These provisions can also allow US corporations to sue governments for millions of dollars over health and environmental legislation which they can argue as barriers to trade. In 2010, for instance, Philip Morris filed a claim against Uruguay challenging tobacco advertising restrictions introduced by Uruguay health authorities which were based on WHO recommendations.
These provisions can also allow US corporations to sue governments for millions of dollars over health and environmental legislation which they can argue as barriers to trade. In 2010, for instance, Philip Morris filed a claim against Uruguay challenging tobacco advertising restrictions introduced by Uruguay health authorities which were based on WHO recommendations.
Japan may
participate in TPPA, and this is expected to slow down the negotiation process,
as the entry of a new country in general will slow down the process.
In 2001, the Pacific Island
Countries signed two regional trade agreements – Pacific Island Countries Trade
Agreement (PICTA) and Pacific Agreement in Closer Economic Relations
(PACER). In 2009, Australia and New Zealand convinced the Pacific Island countries
to commence discussions on PACER Plus, a regional free trade agreement.
For the much smaller and vulnerable Pacific nations, PACER Plus could be a social, economic and
environmental disaster. Any free trade agreement that covers trade in goods,
services and foreign investments need detailed research on impacts,
consultations and capacity-building.
During the discussions, a Japanese colelague informed that there was no official disclosure by the Japanese government about free trade agreements, and that if Japan enters the TPPA, it needs to be cautious. Mr Purse then suggested that Japanese unions can link up with existing international networks, including farmers' organizations, in Japan. The US will propose that Japan reduce its subsidies to agriculture.
During the discussions, a Japanese colelague informed that there was no official disclosure by the Japanese government about free trade agreements, and that if Japan enters the TPPA, it needs to be cautious. Mr Purse then suggested that Japanese unions can link up with existing international networks, including farmers' organizations, in Japan. The US will propose that Japan reduce its subsidies to agriculture.
Advice from Bobet Coral
