US-RP free trade talks and the protests against them

On July 10 through 16 a third round of closed-door Panamanian-American trade talks was held here. Various real or supposed details leaked out in the press and a relatively small protest movement appeared to be gathering support.

At the heart of the opposition to a free trade pact are farm groups that are demanding the exclusion of rice and 15 other key agricultural products from the bargaining table. US rice growers are heavily subsidized, as are many other American farmers, and their counterparts fear that they would be run out of business if they tried to compete with subsidized imports coming into the country duty-free or subject to only nominal tariffs.

The farmers have been staging a series of tractor motorcade protests in the smaller cities that serve as agricultural supply and market centers, places like David and Chitre and Chepo.

Some of the bigger farmers are among the most prominent in posing objections. For example, the president of the National Poultry Producers Association of Panama (ANAVIP), Roberto Toledano, citing American phytosanitary regulations that tend to keep Panamanian products out of the United States and American tastes that put a premium on chicken breasts while prompting the dumping of thighs and drumsticks on other markets, argued that all poultry products must be kept off the bargaining table if Panama is to continue commercial production in this field.

The US Trade Representative’s report on the environmental implications of the US-RP talks, a link to which appears in the Cool Internet sites feature of this issue’s review section, hits at the enormous gap in the two countries’ positions on agriculture. It rather glaringly skips over US phytosanitary regulations and the ecological effects that changes in these rules might have in the United States. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that the Americans do not contemplate any changes, for example, in the rules that keep most fresh Panamanian fruit out of the United States (for fear of Mediterranean fruit flies).

On July 15 the expected labor-left coalition that has been most vocal in opposing a free trade deal marched to the presidency to register its protest. The protest wasn’t particularly massive --- only two or three thousand people attended --- but the various rival labor unions and radical groups did put in their appearances for a show of unity.

Panama’s major professional groups are also lining up against free trade. Most notably in the past two weeks, Panama’s bar association, the Colegio de Abogados, objected that the US insistence of including professional services in the talks may mean that American lawyers will get to practice here without reciprocal treatment for Panamanian attorneys in the US.

One cautious cautionary statement may turn out to be the most powerful protest of all. In their semi-annual July meeting, the Panamanian Episcopal Conference that brings this country’s Catholic bishops together issued a mild mannered communique pointing out that adequate public information and a debate that involves all affected sectors --- two things conspicuous by their absence in the process so far --- are necessary for any good outcome to the talks. The political costs of ratifying a free trade pact would go up if these objections lead the church to oppose it.

There are also Panamanian groups and individuals that strongly support the concept of a free trade agreement, especially in the business sector. Yet with the exceptions of the American Chamber of Commerce and the Panamanian Industrialists Syndicate, business leaders are tending to qualify their remarks on the subject with a lot of “ifs.”

The local banking industry is pressing for Panamanian banks to be allowed to conduct business in the states of New York, Florida, Louisiana, Texas and California. This country’s tourism interests want to see Panama declared a “distant port” where passengers can embark on a cruise ship headed for the United States. Panama is looking to break the restrictions on drydock and other maritime services for American-flag ships.

The one thing that Mireya Moscoso has most often pressed for as part of the free trade negotiating process is not even being considered. The prize she sought for Panama in a hemispheric trade pact was the location of its administrative headquarters here. But now the process has become bilateral rather than multilateral, the location of the headquarters of a multinational organization can't be decided in talks between just two of the many countries involved. Moreover, even if he could do so, President Bush would be unlikely to risk losing Florida in the November election by favoring Panama's bid over Miami's.

In addition to a broad new opening of the Panamanian market to US agricultural produces, the Americans are also looking for changes in Panamanian government purchasing rules --- including Panama Canal purchasing --- and stronger intellectual property safeguards.

Although the talks have been closed to the public, the daily newspapers here are publishing tales of deadlock on many key issues.

A fourth round of talks is scheduled for August 9 through 13 in Tampa. Originally it was contemplated that an agreement could be hammered out in just four sessions, but if that plan holds, look for opposition to center not only on the content of a final deal, but also on general suspicion of any far-reaching agreement negotiated by an unpopular outgoing administration.

However, members of the Torrijos team have been present at the talks as observers, so failure to reach a final agreement before the change of Panamanian administrations would probably not mean a return to square one in the negotiating process.

Also in this section:
Business & Economy Briefs
US-RP free trade talks: if not much light, a bit more heat
US consulate's advice on Panamanian real estate and commodities

business

US-RP free trade talks continue, protests small but growing

US-RP free trade talks continue,
protests small but growing