Leis, Free trade talks

The nation’s farmers openly oppose a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that will shackle them by putting them into competition with subsidized American products, which would invade our market, creating more unemployment and annihilating farm economies that don’t have government support. The University of Panama asks to be excluded from the FTA negotiations, which could harm the future of public education. Several civic, religious, labor and citizens’ groups organize the National Alliance for Life (ANAVI) to oppose the FTA and neo-liberal policies. Educators convene a national march against the treaty, while university students close the streets in protest. Many citizens express their worries about the secrecy of the negotiations and how the country may be affected.

All of this is an expression of a malaise and a rejection by important sectors of the population of negotiations which, at their bottom line, look to create not only commerce but a framework of conditions for the country’s development.

“The imposition of an FTA not only consolidates and deepens the opening of the market for goods, but also encompasses elements such as the opening of service sector markets, government purchasing, the financial services business, investment, the movement of professionals, intellectual property, labor relations and the environment.... You’re dealing with a series of measures that would permit the multinational corporations not only to openly take over our markets, but also to bring privatization, liberalization and deregulation --- including of the labor market --- to its extreme, creating at the same time the institutional forms necessary to give those changes continuity. Thus, a central element of the treaty is that it attempts to impose so-called dispute resolution mechanisms, which are, in the end, designed to remove the examinations and judgments of the problems in the treaty from the ambit of national legislation, with the aim of putting us in a supposedly international and neutral sphere, but which in reality is irreparably rigged in favor of the multinationals, principally those based in North America. We totally reject the Free Trade Agreement for whispered mercantilist logic, which attacks human rights and is one more instrument for neo-liberal policies....” says the ANAVI.

The international organization OXFAM poses the necessity for fair trade. The problem is not that international trade inherently conflicts with the needs and interests of the poor, but that the prevailing rules are made in favor of the rich. The human cost of unfair trade is immense. If the countries of Africa, the south and east of Asia and Latin America increased by one percent, respectively, their share of international exports, the resulting increase in their incomes would free 128 million people from poverty. This reduction in poverty would help to improve other areas like infantile health and education.

When the developing countries export to the markets of the rich, they encounter tariff barriers four times that which the rich countries encounter. These cost the developing countries $100 billion annually, double what they receive in aid.

Another problem is linked to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its rules on intellectual property, investments and services protect powerful interests, at the same time imposing enormous costs on developing countries.

It’s necessary:

• To put an end to the use of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to force poor countries to open their markets;

• To create a new international organization in charge of stabilizing prices of raw materials at levels compatible with reasonable living conditions for their producers, and to change business practices so that companies pay fair prices;

• Democratize the WTO so that the poor countries can make their voices heard;

• Establish new intellectual property rules that guarantee the poor countries access to new technologies and essential medicines, and so that farmers can conserve, exchange and sell seeds;

• Improve the quality of investments and working conditions in the private sector; and

• Prohibit rules that oblige governments to liberalize or privatize the basic services that are vital to the reduction of poverty.

But what is to be done?

Panama must suspend the FTA negotiations and seek Latin American alliances that give us bargaining power against the powerful countries, thus guaranteeing self-determination, human development, equity, the environment and democracy, the five main points of Vision 2020.

Also in this section:
What they're saying about Ronald Reagan
Weisbrot, Reagan's legacy
Leight, Dissenting on Reagan on Latin America
US State Department, Human trafficking in Panama
Greenpeace, Skimp on the shrimp
Carson, Chávez has no magic wand
ICFTU, Labor rights in the Americas, 2003
Jackson, Now that Navarro won by that huge margin...
Leis, Is a Free Trade Agreement in Panama's interest?

opinion

The Free Trade Agreement:
does it suit Panama?

opinion

The Free Trade Agreement: does it suit Panama?

The Free Trade Agreement:
does it suit Panama?