F.T.A = For Thaksin's Apetite (Not Fair and Free Trade Agreement)
( Last edit 2009-05-18 )
Dangerous advice on free trade pacts
During Thaksin, the PM and Kantathee the FM, September 2005
From : http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/20Sep2005_opin24.php
There is great danger in Razeen Sally's advice to Thailand ("Too many free trade agreements, far too little domestic reform", Bangkok Post, Sept 15). Pursuing the unquestioned but highly questionable goals of reform and liberalisation, Dr Sally's article assesses which kind of trade policy will best achieve this. He doesn't think much of Thailand's FTA strategy. Neither do we. But Dr Sally's criticism is that the FTAs signed so far don't achieve sufficient reform. FTA Watch faults the agreements because they are beggaring Thais.
Dr Sally may in fact recognise this. He coyly notes that despite the limited scope of the Thailand-China early harvest agreement, it has had an appreciable impact in the sectors covered. The "appreciable impact" has been to wipe out northern Thai producers of garlic and red onions and to cripple the sale of temperate fruit and vegetables from the Royal projects.
The FTAs with Australia and New Zealand will bankrupt the Thai dairy industry. (At least that's what the dairy farmers themselves think; the Thai government says they will just have to become more competitive.)
Dr Sally picks out the Thai-US FTA as the most important for Thailand. But this is likely to include far more than trade. Investment, government procurement and competition, issues that have been kept out of the WTO, have sneaked back onto the table. But Dr Sally's liberalising agenda comes unstuck with Intellectual Property Rights. All previous US FTAs with other countries have included what is called TRIPS-plus conditions. This ties countries into even stronger protection of IPRs than WTO rules require. This restricts trade. In Thailand's case, this could mean longer patent protection for drugs, decreased opportunities for compulsory licensing and parallel imports (allowed by the WTO), and ultimately Thai HIV/Aids patients not being able to afford life-saving drugs so that investors can enjoy healthier profits.
In preference to FTAs as a way of ensuring reform, Dr Sally argues for unilateral liberalisation of the Thai economy. Many producers in the agricultural, industrial and service sectors have voiced strong concerns whether they are going to benefit at all from the supposed quid pro quo in FTA negotiations with developed countries, particularly Japan and the US. Dr Sally seems to be suggesting that we shouldn't bother negotiating. Just give away the farm.
But there is one point on which we do agree. Dr Sally says that the negotiating process needs a change of attitude on the part of the government. Consultation with parliament, NGOs and the wider public has been lacking and the negotiators need to consult and coordinate better.
We trust that Dr Sally will be making his views known to Nitaya Phibulsongkhram, one of Thailand's chief FTA negotiators. In a recent seminar, it was suggested that there should be public hearings on FTAs and parliamentary approval before they are signed. Mr Nitaya did not think so. These are not Thai traditions, he claimed, and there is no need for Thailand to copy foreign countries. Indeed, Thailand does not have strong democratic traditions. But they must be built.
“Sovereignty Not for Sale”, say Thailand’s civil society in opposing the government’s free trade agreements (FTAs)
This Article was written in 2005 During Thaksin, the PM and Kantathee the FM
From : http://www.ased.org
Over the last year, the Thaksin administration has moved quickly to negotiate free trade agreements with eight countries and one regional group, among them economic powers like the United States (US), Japan,India, Australia, and China.
But the government is facing increasing criticism from local community groups particularly small-scale farmers,academics, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), media and local industry.
The critics assert that the benefits of the bilateral free trade agreements would go to a small group of businesses and investors close to the present administration while Thai society as a whole would suffer.
The Thai government signed an FTA with China in October last year and with Australia in May 2004; the agreements with US and Japan could be completed this year while an FTA with New Zealand is expected in the first quarter of 2005 and become effective in 2006.
However, the most controversial of all the FTAs is the one being negotiated with the US.
The Thai-US FTA emerged at the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Council) meeting in Mexico in 2002 and was given shape in the APEC meeting Bangkok in October 2003 with the US President Bush announcing the Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative (EAI) to direct ASEAN countries to move towards FTAs with the US.
The US has already concluded FTAs with a number of countries over the past few years, including Australia, Chile and Singapore. It has also implemented regional free trade pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and the Central American FTA. The proliferation of bilateral FTAs of the US has raised concerns that the trend may undermine multilateral trade institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Thailand, one of 10 members in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(Asean), is the 18th largest trading partner of the United States, with two-way trade exceeding US$21 billion last year.
Thailand’s trade officials are promoting the agreement as beneficial to Thai investors as further business opportunities open up in the vast US market which imports goods and services worth about US$1.5 trillion annually.
A senior US economic official, who asked not be named, stated in Thailand’s English-language press that, “Thailand now exports around $15 billion to the US, which is 1 per cent of the US market. So what it means is that with the FTA, Thailand can have the potential to increase access to the US.”
Under the Thai-US FTA, it is likely the US agricultural goods that will have an advantage over Thai products include meat, milk, dairy products,vegetable, fruit, maize and soyabean. But Thailand could risk losing out in terms of intellectual property rights, as well as in the telecoms, automotive and agricultural sectors.
The actual implications of the Thai-US FTA for farmers, local communities,consumers and the general public are yet to be fully understood largely because the government has maintained a great deal of secrecy in the process of negotiations.
According to Thammasat University academic Prof. Dr. Rangsan Thanphonphan,the situation is exacerbated since the Thai government does not have to get the approval of parliament for bilateral trade negotations and therefore has not released details of the agreements or negotiations to the public.
However, the larger effects of the trade agreement can be traced out since the Thai and US negotiators have made it known that the Thai-US agreement would be modelled along the lines of the US trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. The agreement would be a comprehensive package covering industrial goods; farm products including those with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); services including banking, insurance and telecommunications; and intellectual property rights.
The foremost critic of the free trade agreements is FTA Watch, a broad-based alliance of Thailand’s farmers and local community organisations, academics and activists from Universities, research institutions and independent organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
FTA Watch has stated that the public information on the free trade agreements is one-sided coming mainly from the government and a group of large-scale industrialists poised to benefit. At the same time, many sectors of society such as farmers, consumers, research institutions, and even Thailand’s Senate are ignored and are not able to fully understand or participate in the content of the negotiations.
FTA Watch has warned that the free trade agreements with the US would result in Thailand losing sovereign control over crucial sectors of its economy: the US would demand control of the public services sector including energy, transport, and education; open Thailand to huge multinational banks like Citibank and Bank of America to become directly involved in investment, banking, insurance and currency transaction rules, and; seek corporate monopoly on intellectual property rights including seeds and drugs.
According to Witoon Lianchamroon of the Bangkok-based environmental NGO Biothai, the US would make Thailand to sign additional versions of the World Trade Organisation's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), or so-called “TRIPs plus” – this would force Thailand to accept the US patent regime, facilitate transnational corporations to take-over the natural resources of Thailand and obtain monopoly rights through patents over living organisms. Biopiracy would increase as US companies try and patent Thailand’s unique rice varieties and traditional medicine cures as well as many undocumented medicinal plant resources.
Moreover, the US-Thai FTA envisages opening trade in genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and biotechnology products. At present, US multinational companies own more than 90% of the world’s biotechnology especially on corn, soybean, potato and other crops including rice that is crucial for Thailand. Once the FTA takes affect, farmers would be forced to buy GM seeds at hugely more expensive prices than at present and also would not be able allowed to save or exchange the seeds for planting or breeding in the future.
There is also concern that the FTA would lead to amendments to Thailand’s national laws including on drug patents. Jakkrit Kuanpoth, an expert on intellectual property rights at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, said the government had to weigh the pros and cons of patent registration very carefully.
“It is necessary to strictly evaluate patent criteria based on people's needs for medical access before rushing into the implementation of laws which favour the original manufacturers in rich countries,” he said.
Critics of the agreement also assert that the FTA is dangerous since it would guarantee that US investors could sue the Thai government if its policies undermined their business or profits, and also ensure that they could settle any dispute in a “special trade tribunal” rather than the courts thus undermining the kingdom’s judiciary.
Eventually the welfare of consumers as well as essential public utilities such as water, electricity, education and hospital treatment for the poorer sections of the people would all be lost as prices become unaffordable as these sectors are taken over by transnational corporations. The costs for many items from software to essential medicines will increase sharply for the average Thai consumer.
In its statement released on 17 February 2004, FTA Watch called on the government to halt all the trade negotiations and “support an independent institution to undertake in-depth research into the impacts of the various FTAs being undertaken with other countries on important issues such as intellectual property, biotechnology and information technology, the opening up of the agriculture, health, investment sectors, and the impacts on the financial authority and sovereignty of the country.”
The Elephant, the Rabbit, the Cobra and the Gold
This Article was written in 2006 During Thaksin, the PM and Kantathee the FM
Every time I visit Bangkok I see it. "Power is nothing without control" reads an advertising billboard for a transnational tyre company near Chulalongkorn University. This February, Pirelli’s slogan summed up the US philosophy for its proposed bilateral free trade and investment agreement with Thailand.
On 12 February, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick sent a formal letter of intent to begin negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Thailand within 90 days to US Congress and Senate. Actual negotiations seem likely to start in June, but just days ago, Thai Commerce Minister Watana Muangsook led a large official delegation to Washington to meet with US politicians and trade negotiators in order to prepare the ground for FTA talks.
A US-Thailand Agreement, modelled on recently-signed FTAs with Singapore and Chile would advance the US Enterprise for ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) Initiative (EAI). This envisages a network of bilateral FTAs between the US and individual ASEAN countries that are committed to domestic neoliberal reforms and free trade and investment. Not to mention the “war on terror”.
While Thaksin’s government promotes Thailand, through its agricultural/food production and exports, as “kitchen of the world”, Australian National University academics Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite warn: “Bilateralism is like cooking an elephant and rabbit stew. However you mix the ingredients, it ends up tasting like elephant.”
It is clear what the elephant wants from this relationship.
The Secretariat of the recently formed US-Thailand FTA Business Coalition comprises the US-ASEAN Business Council, representing US corporations with interests in ASEAN, and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the USA’s largest industrial trade lobby group. NAM boasts: “Our voice is not compromised by non-industry interests.”
FedEx, General Electric Company, New York Life, Time Warner and Unocal are US-Thailand FTA Business Coalition corporate chairs. Steering Committee members include: AIG, Cargill, Caterpillar, Citigroup, Corn Refiners Association, CSI, Dow Chemical, Ford, National Pork Producers Council, PhRMA, PricewaterhouseCoopers, SIA, UPS, and the US Chamber of Commerce.
The US Chamber of Commerce wants “a comprehensive FTA with Thailand” to address “contentious trade issues” like intellectual property protection, customs administration and “permit market access for U.S. firms into certain restricted Thai industries, such as telecommunications and financial services.” The US wants the Thai government to crack down on “intellectual property violations”, not least, counterfeit software, clothes, and auto parts.
Liberalizing Thailand’s agriculture sector is another top US priority. Ernest Bower, President of the US-ASEAN Business Council and former McDonnell Douglas executive, believes:
“a US-Thai pact could form "the precedent and the template" for future FTA talks with Southeast Asian countries having large farm sectors.” A White House factsheet notes: “An FTA would particularly benefit American farmers, who currently face tariffs in Thailand averaging 35 percent in addition to an array [of] non-tariff barriers.”
The US also wants greater “transparency” and expanded access for US goods and services to Thailand’s government procurement market.
Then there is investment. To qualify for an FTA with the US, Thailand signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement in October 2002. Under the 1966 Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations, US businesses already enjoy equal treatment to Thai firms in many sectors of the economy, with a few exceptions. These existing privileges will be greatly expanded – especially in the services sector - and phased into the FTA.
Zoellick wants Thailand to eliminate “unjustified trade restrictions that affect new US technologies” in agriculture. A ban on the import of genetically-engineered (GE) seeds for commercial planting has been in place since 1999, and in April 2001 the Thai government decided to stop GE field trials, including Monsanto’s ongoing cotton and corn experiments. Last November, Monsanto announced that it wanted to make Thailand its regional base for GE Round Up Ready corn and bt corn by 2006, urging that the government lift its ban.
While the US heavies Thailand over its GE ban, pirated goods and sundry intellectual property violations, many Thais wonder who the real pirates are. Attempts to patent Thailand’s fragrant jasmine rice have met with outrage and stiff opposition from farmers and others concerned at the apparent ease with which Thai biodiversity and traditional knowledge is being appropriated by others. The FTA would require Thailand to allow patents on animals and plants, further facilitating biopiracy by US companies and researchers.
US corporations and officials applaud Thaksin’s privatization program, viewing the FTA as a means to advance and lock this in. But popular opposition, led by tens of thousands of state enterprise workers rallying regularly, caused Thaksin to postpone the privatization of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). This may also delay provincial and metro electricity authorities’ privatization plans. The state enterprise workers’ union warns that privatization will mean higher rates and overseas ownership.
Advisers on the EGAT sale include Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase and Co. Planned sales of other state-owned enterprises include the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, Provincial Waterworks Authority, the Government Pharmaceutical Organization, the Port Authority of Thailand, the Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand. The FTA also threatens the subsidized pricing practice of state enterprises in transport, electricity, drugs and fuel.
We can be sure that the US will not offer tariff-free or quota-free access to any major Thai farm exports. Conversely, Thai farmers would face a further flood of subsidized US agricultural imports once tariffs are eliminated, threatening both their livelihoods and food sovereignty. This could lead to contamination by genetically-modified US crops and seed as has happened in Mexico under NAFTA. Many Thai critics of the US FTA point to the dramatic impact of the first phase of an FTA with China which took effect last October. With the removal of many agricultural tariffs, a flood of cheap Chinese fruits and vegetables threatens to ruin many Thai farmers in the rural north.
Organized by FTAWatch (www.ftawatch.org), a coalition of Thai organizations and academics against the FTA, the packed forum at Chulalongkorn where I spoke last month was entitled “Sovereignty Not for Sale”. “Sovereignty” resonates strongly in the only South East Asian country to escape physical occupation by European colonial powers. Thai law generally prevents foreign individuals or companies from owning land. The realization that the FTA could remove these restrictions is anathema to many Thais.
At the February forum, Camila Montecinos, of GRAIN-Chile described the US approach on bilateral FTAs as the imposition of a blueprint rather than a genuine negotiation: “it is not really an FTA, but a Charter of Guarantees for US investments and investors.”
Even the mere expectation of a gain or profit, or the assumption of risk is covered in the definition of investment and therefore subject to a possible investor-state dispute brought against the government by an aggrieved US investor. An “investor” would not need to be an actual investor in order to launch such a dispute – but could merely be one that intends to invest. She pointed out that the US FTA template’s “transparency” provisions grant US investors and enterprises information and lobbying rights that nationals do not have – governments have to inform them before passing new laws or regulations, or applying certain policies, and allow them to lobby against them.
Dr Jakkrit Kuanpoth, of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University’s School of Law explained that the FTA would restrict even narrow options available to the Thai government under the WTO’s TRIPs (Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights). It would extend the 20 year patent term by a further 5 years, and limit the circumstances for issuing compulsory licences, (which authorize private or state use of patents without the consent of patent holders) and prevent the revocation of patents on public interest grounds.
This “TRIPs-plus” approach would increase social and economic costs and exacerbate the public health crisis, while making Thailand’s self-sufficiency in technology impossible. Around a million people live with HIV/AIDS in Thailand. According to a 2002 UNAIDS report AIDS is Thailand’s leading cause of death. The Thai Government Pharmaceutical Organization produces cheap reliable generic drugs including one of the cheapest anti-retroviral drugs in the world, GPO-VIR, which the government hopes will reach 70,000 people this year who otherwise would not afford treatment. Under the FTA, Thais can wave goodbye to hopes of accessible treatment.
The US-Thailand FTA is another example of neoliberalism and US military/geopolitical interests advancing hand in hand. Zoellick argues that the FTA “would further enhance our broader relationship with Thailand. We are partners in the global war on terrorism, and the extensive ties between the US and Thai militaries bolster US strategic interests in the region.”
Thaksin’s government sent troops to Iraq, and captured Jemaah Islamiah militant Hambali, accused of masterminding and plotting terrorist activities, delivering him to US authorities. Domestically it continues to marginalize, militarize, and criminalize the mainly Muslim south which John Brandon of the International Herald Tribune (February 10 2004) sensationally labels “Southeast Asia's soft underbelly” of “terror”.
Over a century after Siam annexed the Islamic Kingdom of Pattani in 1902, resentment of the government’s neglect of the country’s South – one of the country’s poorest regions - and its refusal to recognize the culture, language, and ethnicity of some six million Thai Muslims remains high. With a wave of attacks on government buildings and military bases, the heavily militarized, predominantly Muslim, provinces of Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat near the Malaysian border are now under martial law. As unrest continues, so too do reports of human rights violations carried out by state security forces.
This April/May, Thailand hosts the 23rd annual “Cobra Gold” joint military exercise, involving US and Thai troops (and soldiers from Singapore, Mongolia and the Philippines). It remains the region’s largest joint military exercise involving US troops.
One can understand why Thaksin is a willing ally of Bush. A former Lieutenant-Colonel in the Thai Police, he became a multimillionaire telecommunications tycoon. He is the self-styled CEO of “Thailand, Inc”, and Top Cop. A division of his Shin Corp. media and telecommunications empire, Advanced Info Service, has the largest cellphone customer base in Thailand. He also owns iTV, Thailand’s largest commercial broadcaster. “Democracy is the means to an end," he says, "not the end itself."
Thaksin consolidated his power base by filling key government and military posts with family and associates from Shin Corp. But with fallout over a government cover-up of the Asian bird flu outbreak, the situation in the South, and mounting opposition against privatization, his popularity is plummetting.
Thaksin’s party commands an absolute majority in Thailand’s lower house, and can pass a trade agreement merely on a yes/no vote with a joint meeting of Senate and the lower house. A number of academics, NGOs, senators and the opposition have challenged the anti-democratic and secretive process of negotiating and signing FTAs. Chulalongkorn Law Professor and FTAWatch member Jaroen Compeerapap argues that Thailand’s Constitution requires any deals affecting Thai sovereignty to be approved by two-thirds of Parliament.
But Thaksin maintains that this FTA and others would not be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Thailand has concluded, or is pursuing bilateral FTAs with Australia, China, India, Bahrain, Peru and Japan. Thongbai Thongpao, human rights lawyer and senator, writing in the Bangkok Post (22 February 2004), asks: “If the government has nothing to hide, why don't they let Parliament scrutinise all proposed bilateral free trade accords?”
The FTA is Cobra Gold’s economic soulmate. Thailand will be swamped with poisonous cobras –the US corporate variety - which will slither off with the gold.
There is an antidote to this kind of cobra venom. Strike before it bites.
As Thaksin’s popularity falls, mounting opposition to this deal and his domestic economic reforms - could raise the social and political stakes against its successful conclusion from the Thai side. US interests in Thailand like the Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto and Embassy staff are nervously eyeing this opposition.
In a US election year where Congress is unlikely to approve new trade agreements it is tempting to feel that we have a little more breathing room. Soundly defeating this deal before it is signed could put a precedent-setting spanner in the works of US bilateral free trade and investment ambitions. To achieve that goal, US global justice activists should target this agreement and join hands with their Thai comrades already engaged in this struggle.
From : ZNet Commentary www.zmag.org