TPP talks in Singapore rocked by leaked document
By Dr Patricia Ranald (AFTINET
Convener)
I arrived in Singapore after a week in
Bali at the World Trade Organisation talks, at which the US tried but did not
succeed in blocking developing countries, led by India, from taking measures to
ensure they can make basic food available for the poorest in their countries. A
compromise was reached which means that developing countries can continue to do
this. AFTINET working group member Peter Murphy was also at the WTO meeting and
has done a longer report.
Many side meetings were held during
the WTO meeting. Australian Trade Minister Robb finalised the Korea-Australia
Free Trade Agreement, news of which was sent out last week with a request
for AFTINET supporters to contact Cabinet Ministers involved in the decision
about signing it. The US also held bilateral meetings with TPP countries in
Bali and set the agenda for the TPP talks.
The TPP negotiations here in Singapore
are of course still secret, and governments are not making any public
statements. The US has set the agenda of bilateral and small group meetings.
They are desperate to pressure others to agree to their proposals so they can
announce that the agreement is on track to be finalised by the end of the year.
Two
internal documents from a country in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
negotiations were leaked to Huffington Post
and Wikileaks and published on Monday. The documents are a chart outlining the
positions of each of the twelve countries on many issues being discussed in
Singapore, and an account of the state
of negotiations at the end of the Salt Lake City round late last month. These
raise doubts about the target of finishing the negotiations this year, and show
deep ongoing divisions and resentment at US pressure.
On
the controversial US proposals for longer patents which would result in higher
prices for medicines, and stronger copyright, the commentary says that
“countries must be prepared for attempts deployed by the US to force closure of
different areas of the intellectual property chapter during the Singapore
negotiations.”
The
commentary also says that Australia has worked with Japan and the US on a
revised version of the controversial annex which deals with government
regulation of medicine prices, including Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme, while most other countries are opposing it. This seems to indicate
possible concessions on the PBS by Australia, despite government assurances to
the contrary. We cannot really test these assurances until the text is released
to the public.
Trade
Minister Robb said last week that Australia was prepared to agree to give
investors the right to sue governments over Australian laws which they claimed
harm their investment, which we have experienced in the Philip Morris case. He
said this was on the condition that there were exceptions for health and environmental
laws and that the US would give increased market access in return. The
commentary reveals the so-called exceptions may only be part of the preamble to
the investment chapter and not legally enforceable.
The
chart itself shows that while Australia has rejected most of the US patent
proposals, it appears to have agreed to broader criteria for granting of
patents, which could include patenting of living organisms. It is also worrying
that the government appears to have agreed with the US refusal to support
proposals from the World Intellectual Property Organisation, which assist
developing countries to get access to cheaper generic medicines. Most other
countries have agreed to support these proposals.
The talks are scheduled to finish on
Tuesday evening, which will be early morning Wednesday Australian time. AFTINET
will report on the outcome of the talks.
Media Coverage:
- Dr Patricia Ranald and Dr Matthew Rimmer on ABC Radio National PM ‘Leaked docs show long negotiations ahead for trans-Pacific trade deal’
- Dr Patricia Ranald on ABC Radio National Drive program ‘New leak from Trans-Pacific Partnership talks’
- Sydney Morning Herald: ‘South Koreans free to sue thanks to new free trade agreement’
- Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Coalition blocks Senate from secret details of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal’
- Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Leaked memo shows steep concessions for Pacific trade deal’
WTO gets second chance at Bali
By Peter Murphy
Farmer, trade union, women and other
civil society organisations who were focused on trade justice at the Bali World
Trade Organisation Ministerial were disappointed in the ‘package’ that was
adopted, while the WTO itself was elated.
At the extended close on December 7,
2013, Director-General Roberto Azevado declared it was the most significant
decision since 1995. He even said, “For the first time in our history: the WTO
has truly delivered!” But the outcome was a squib.
The Bali Package dealt with a tiny
agenda compared to all previous Ministerials, so its significance is far more
political than economic. It kept the WTO alive as a global trade and investment
negotiating forum, when the extreme neoliberal demands of US and European
corporations had almost killed it.
Unfortunately, the Package includes a
commitment to return to the full agenda of the misnamed ‘Doha Development
Round’ by the end of 2014. Note that the Doha Round was launched in December
2001, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the USA, and the
previous Uruguay Round was concluded way back in 1994!
What is in the ‘Bali Package’?
First, there are reservations.
A group of ALBA countries — Cuba,
Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela — recorded serious reservations at imbalances in
the Package which favour richer countries.
The key issues addressed in the Bali
Package are Food Security, Trade Facilitation and Least Developed Countries.
The first was a vigorous pushback by
poor agricultural countries against the harshest aspect of the Agreement on Agriculture
of 1994. The second was a high-handed demand by the richest countries on poor
ones to adopt their customs procedures. The third is a long overdue helping
hand to the poorest countries.
Agreement on the Agriculture part of
the Bali Package required sorting out two issues. Much of the focus was on US
objections to food security programs in developing countries where governments
bought food at subsidised rates from farmers for stockpiles, and in some cases
distributed from these stockpiles at subsidised rates to their poorest
citizens, not for export. India’s program was the lightning rod.
Under WTO rules these subsidies could
only amount to 10 per cent of the value of production at 1986 prices, and many
countries were breaking this tight limit. The Group of 33 developing countries
wanted to amend the Agreement on Agriculture so that they would not be
challenged legally if these programs broke the limit. The US was only willing
to allow such a shield for two to four years. And of course, the US and Europe
were determined that their own massive agricultural export subsidies would not
be cut. These direct payments to farmers make their exports cheaper and have
undercut local food production in many developing countries.
The outcome allows for the shield from
complaints to exist until a permanent solution is agreed, with a work program
set up aiming to produce a permanent solution in four years. This represented a
modest win for food security and social justice over narrow market concerns
from the USA.
The second issue in the Agreement on
Agriculture involves the ‘Cotton Four’ – Burkina Faso, Benin, Chad and Mali –
who have been asking for duty free and quota-free access for their cotton into
rich country markets since 2001. The subsidised US cotton industry held out
against this, and the Bali Package only allowed for more negotiation and linked
this request to an overall negotiation on Agriculture. Another setback for
social justice.
The objectives of the Trade
Facilitation document are to speed up customs procedures; make trade easier,
faster and cheaper; provide clarity, efficiency and transparency; reduce
bureaucracy and corruption, and use technological advances.
Part of the deal involves vague and
unspecified assistance for developing and least developed countries to update
their infrastructure, train customs officials, or for any other cost associated
with implementing the agreement.
This is a mandatory agreement, and so
many countries are now obliged to prioritise customs procedures over basic
public services like health, education and housing. This is a burdensome
imposition by advanced countries who have taken decades to develop their
current customs procedures.
The “LDC Package” is meant to provide
duty-free, quota-free access for least developed countries to export to richer
countries’ markets. This is voluntary, not mandatory. While many countries,
including Australia, have already implemented this, the Bali Package only
exhorts other countries to extend this access to more products. Another bit of lip
service to social justice.
