Source:
Transnational Institute
Despite the official propaganda, the China-Asean free trade agreement that came into effect on January 1, 2010, will benefit China, but is likely to disadvantage the Asean Countries. By Walden Bello. January 2010.
[see more]
Within the last decade and a half, the processes of economic privatization, globalization and deregulation have been imposed through different mechanisms. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been the most important instrument to carry out these policies.
However, civil society and most governments from developing countries consider the WTO to be ‘one of the least transparent organizations’, which excludes less developed countries from its negotiations in order to favor the interests of wealthy countries. On account of these reasons, the WTO is one of the organizations whose work is more closely monitored by non-governmental organizations. At the same time, its ministerial meetings - the organization’s highest decision-making body – have been turned into events for mass protest by civil society movements.
Accelerating processes
Since 1995, when the US considered that the WTO negotiations were not being completed as rapidly as expected, negotiations started being promoted to form regional free trade areas. The first of these negotiations that managed to come to light was the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in 1994. The IMF and World Bank guidelines to develop economic programs in Latin America during the 1990s, have been setting the path to put the FTAA into motion. Although the US is an important market for Latin American exports, the problem lies in the surrender of sovereignty over the management of internal economic policy that is demanded in exchange.
A few weeks after the failure of the WTO meeting in Cancun in 2003, the ministerial meeting that negotiated the FTAA was held in Miami. Once again, civil society and demonstrations played an important role: protests were staged again, the maneuvering room was restricted and Brazil in particular defended conditions for its industry and agriculture, thus making agreement impossible.
The United States, in the meantime, moves gradually forward by means of bilateral or reduced regional free trade agreements . It has already signed agreements with Mexico and Chile, and is speeding up negotiations for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). In this way, parallel agreements are being implemented with the same format and characteristics of a FTAA that serves Washington’s interests. Along these lines, we will end up with a network of agreements covering all Central America and several Andean countries. At the same time, it tries to develop regional negotiations in Africa and Asia. The disease of the day would be ‘Acute treatyitis’, according to the title of a document published by the Grain organization that we offer in this report.
‘Our planet is wrapped in a thick weft of international, regional and bilateral economic and financial agreements and treaties that have subordinated or taken the place of the basic tools of international and national human rights law (including the right to a safe environment), national Constitutions, economic legislation directed to national development and labor and social laws that tend to alleviate inequalities and exclusion’. (1)
A very clear example of these statements is the use of FTAs by the US to impose intellectual property standards, which favor the short-term commercial interests of US pharmaceutical companies, at the expense of public health in developing countries. The Oxfam organization compares five US treaties: NAFTA, Chile, Singapore, CAFTA and FTAA, which are unnecessarily stringent on developing countries and go beyond the already damaging requirements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). (2)
Given the large number of negotiation processes that are underway, it is difficult today to follow all of them, particularly taking into consideration that they are generally carried out secretly. However, by acknowledging the already completed agreements it becomes possible to analyze their real goals and contents.
These treaties not only address economic matters but also have an explicit political content whereby developing countries are put in a situation of subordination. Several examples are given in different sections of this report. In the US-Morocco treaty, the United States expresses interest in ‘promoting more tolerant, open and prosperous Islamic societies’. Other treaties (such as the one with Thailand) are explicitly presented as a means to strengthen military ties and cooperation in the ‘war on terrorism’ (3)
---------------------
(1) "Human rights and bilateral treaties". Bilateral treaties on free trade and promotion and protection of investments: “arms of massive destruction” to national and international public law and human rights law. Joint statement submitted by the Europe Center – Third World, non-governmental organization with general consultative status and the American Association of Jurists. Commission on Human Rights, 56th period of sessions – July 26 to August 13, 2004. See full text . (Pdf format)
(2) "Undermining access to medicines: comparison of five US FTAs". June 2004, Oxfam. See full text . (Pdf format)
(3) Recent FTAs negotiated by the US include: US-Chile (2003), US-Jordan (2000), US–Morocco (2004), US-Singapore (2003), and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–2004) that includes the Dominican Republic. The US is also negotiating numerous FTAs with other developing countries, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA deadline 2005), Andean countries, Thailand, Panama, Bahrain and Southern African countries, with others remaining under consideration.
The proliferation of free trade agreements (FTAs), especially between developed and developing countries raises new concerns, which is why this page has been added with materials on this issue. Third World Network has examined a number of publicly available concluded FTAs and is continuing to do monitoring and assessment of FTAs under negotiation and the impact of those already concluded.
Information on Free Trade Agreements: NAFTA, Chile, CAFTA, Andean, Panama and FTAA. The U.S. Commercial Service depends on de U.S. Department of Commerce.
The vast majority of WTO members are party to one or more regional trade agreements. The surge in RTAs has continued unabated since the early 1990s. The web site provides information by date of entry into force, by type of agreement, by GATT/WTO related provision, by status in the examination process. It contains general documents on regional trade agreements, etc.
This web site makes available information about hemispheric integration and trade trends. It provides information on the Free Trade Area of the Americas process (FTAA), information classified by type of agreement, by signatory country and more items.
The Center Database and Archive contains a comprehensive collection of texts of bilateral and regional free trade agreements available on a single online site, as well as a database of free trade and customs union agreements text-searchable by provision or keyword.
Collective effort to share information and stimulate cooperation against bilateral trade and investment agreements that are opening countries to the deepest forms of penetration by transnational corporations. It provides information on several bilateral and regional trade agreements, reports and news.
Marred by controversy, there was a strong turnout to Costa Rica's first ever national referendum on October 7 to vote "yes" or "no" on the Central American Free-Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States. Despite several polls showing a majority against CAFTA, the results of the recent referendum came in at 51.6 percent for "YES", and 48.4 percent "NO". This is a bitterly disappointing outcome for thousands of Costa Ricans opposed to the CAFTA, particularly given the controversial tactics used in the lead up to the referendum. October 2007.
In Costa Rica the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States ran up against a huge opposition movement. The opposition stems from the fact that Costa Rica has developed extensive social services and the public knows that they have a lot to lose. Some of the nation's influential intellectuals have also dedicated themselves to study the agreement and share the analyses with the rest of the population. Finally, Costa Rica's somewhat effective democratic institutions have worked to delay the process in the Legislative Assembly, opening up more spaces for citizen involvement. October 2007.
On February 26, tens of thousands of Costa Ricans took to the streets in a demonstration to block ratification of the free trade agreement and reject approval to implement legislation demanded by the United States. Costa Rica is the only country included in the Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Central America, and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR) that has not yet ratified the agreement. A broad grassroots movement in the country is trying to make sure it stays that way. March 2007.
Social activists, trade unionists and others opposed to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) admit that they lost the first battle this year, but say the fight is just starting. December 2004.
The rules of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have been widely criticized by debt campaigners for embodying a model of development that is certain to maintain, if not worsen, the debt woes of its developing country members. In spite of this, CAFTA rules that directly govern the treatment of sovereign debt have received relatively little attention and exposure. In fact, by extending to sovereign debt the application of rules elaborated in the context of investment agreements and with the aim of protection of foreign investors (such as Most Favoured Nation, National Treatment and investor-state arbitration), CAFTA spares no effort to close all possible exits to the debt problems of Central American countries. (PDF format)
Many involved in the debate around the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) come to the table promoting the idea that the agreement will, as the agreement's preamble states, "create new opportunities for economic and social development in the region." But is that really the case? June 15, 2005.
A study reveals the possibility of underhand dealings in negotiations for the Central American Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Costa Rica, not only in administration of funds but also with regards to the organisations providing funds; relationships between the civil servants in charge of the negotiations and private companies with interests in the treaty; and ample opportunity for the funds to influence the final results of the treaty. July 2005.
Criticism of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) currently being considered by the U.S. Congress has focused heavily on concerns that the treaty would devastate Central American farmers who would be forced to compete with heavily subsidized U.S. agribusiness.1 In addition, many Central Americans fear that the deal would perpetuate a low-road approach to development based on low wages and lax environmental enforcement and undermine government authority to ensure basic services and access to medicines. These are all valid concerns, but there is yet another danger posed by CAFTA that deserves greater attention. June 2005.
The World Bank has designed, in agreement with the countries, a support strategy to ensure that this accord can be an effective instrument for economic growth and poverty reduction. The Bank's assistance strategy includes loans, analytical and advisory support, as well as grant funds. Aditional resources on Latin American Governments portals.
The World Bank has been conducting and gathering documents that help identify the main areas in which the Central American countries must concentrate their efforts in order to benefit from CAFTA, and to prepare themselves for the upcoming transition period.
Countries in Central America are losing the capacity to supply food from domestic stocks at reasonable prices everyday. CAFTA will accelerate this process dramatically. By Tom Ricker, policy coordinator for the Hyattsville, Maryland-based Quixote Center. April 2004.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated and signed in the early 90s, few people were thinking about its security implications. Environmentalists objected, fearing a corporate race to exploit natural resources and produce industrial wastes where environmental regulation and enforcement was weakest. Labor objected, arguing that companies would move jobs to where organized labor and workers' rights were most vulnerable. There was vague talk about improving trinational relations and promoting joint foreign policy agendas, but the goal of a broader North American alliance remained formally off the table in order to steer the agreement through a reluctant U.S. Congress. January 2009.
It's rare for the junior partners of NAFTA—Mexico and Canada—to have a chance to sit down and discuss regional integration without the dominating influence of the United States. Even when they do, of course, the U.S. is the elephant in the room. The University of the Americas in Puebla, Mexico hosted a conference recently on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) from the Canadian and Mexican perspective. Although most of the presentations were from academics, businessmen or government officials, the panel on civil society participation reflected on the long political history of the nearly 15-year-old NAFTA and its offspring, the SPP. June 2008.
On April 22, Presidents George W. Bush, Felipe Calderón, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper concluded a trilateral summit in New Orleans. The summit marked the fourth meeting of the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which has drawn fire in all three countries since its proceedings are not open to public participation or congressional oversight and working groups are made up only of government and large business representatives. The leaders' Joint Statement and press conference targeted the U.S. electoral process by responding directly to Democrats' recent criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The three leaders reiterated their unconditional support for NAFTA and the SPP, urged passage of the Colombia FTA, and argued for passage of the Plan Mexico aid package. April 2008.
In January 2008, agricultural trade between Mexico, the United States, and Canada will become completely free, with the end of the implementation period of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). All U.S. and most Canadian products will be able to enter Mexico without any duties. The same will occur with Mexico's exports to the other two countries. NAFTA's agricultural agreement (Chapter VII) promotes the total liberalization of agriculture and forestry in the region. NAFTA commitments related to agriculture between Mexico and the United States are the most radical of any trade agreement, since they include the liberalization of all agricultural and agrifood trade over a maximum period of 14 years. NAFTA is the first treaty to treat two developed countries and an underdeveloped one as equals. But compared to U.S. and Canadian agricultural sectors, Mexico's presents huge asymmetries in terms of economics, technology, production factors, and agricultural policies and supports. January 2008.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the most advanced experience of the US led free trade model in the world. The expansion of NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership reveals the road ahead for other nations entering into Free Trade Agreements. Unknown people, representing the interests of a narrow elite, are building an agenda that allows for virtually no public debate or input. June 2007.
Case studies on the impacts of NAFTA on Mexico, the United States and Canada and the potential implications of extending this model throughout the Americas in the FTAA. June 2003, pdf format.
This report is the result of a fact-finding mission on the effects on human rights of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The mission, conducted in Mexico between 22 and 31 of August 2005, looked specifically at the effects of NAFTA, ten years after its entering into force, on employment and working conditions in the Northern part of the country, in particular in the maquilas (free zones) and in the informal economy. As a consequence of the structural changes imposed by NAFTA, the Mexican national economy is becoming a consumer economy, dependent on American firms. May 2006.
Since the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, hard pressed trade negotiators have been called upon to incorporate clauses addressing environmental concerns such as deforestation, in various bilateral and regional trade pacts. Yet, as a success story, NAFTA’s history – economically, socially and environmentally – is spotty. January 2006.
The NAFTA Secretariat, comprised of a Canadian Section, a Mexican Section and a United States Section, is responsible for the administration of the dispute settlement provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Official web site.
As the debate over "free trade" rages on, all sides inevitably refer back to the deal that revolutionized trade and investment rules: the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now ten years old, NAFTA offers an important lesson for the rest of the world: there is no guaranteed link between trade and investment liberalization and improvements for workers or the environment. Institute for Policy Studies, 18 December, 2003. By Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh.
The same interests who got us into NAFTA are now pushing to expand it and lock in 31 more countries in Latin American and the Caribbean through the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and five Central American countries through a Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Reports on NAFTA and democracy, environment, health, farmers, workers' rights, etc.
Economics is a central element of US-driven military policy in the Middle East. A series of free trade agreements initiated by the US are currently being negotiated or have recently been signed throughout the region. From Bahrain, to Jordan, to Egypt to Saudi Arabia, these economic agreements aim to crack the long-standing boycott of Israel maintained by the majority of countries in the Middle East. These bilateral trade accords include a condition for countries to recognize Israel. March 2008.
In May 2003, Bush announced plans for a US-Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013. The US trade agenda for the Middle East is supposedly a "step-by-step pathway" to "deeper trade and economic partnerships" with the US. The US plans to integrate a series of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) into a regionwide free trade area. By Aziz Choudry.
Under MEFTA, Washington would engage country by country and then later link the nations in a major agreement that would include many Arab countries’ arch-foe, Israel, a nation that still has no relations with many of its neighbours because of its occupation of Arab territories. October 2004.
In May 2003, Bush announced plans for a US-Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013. The US bilateral trade and investment strategy in the Middle East certainly resembles an offensive. This February 2004, Washington concluded Trade and Investment Framework Agreements with the governments of Yemen and Kuwait, in March with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, as well as concluding negotiations with Morocco on an FTA, and holding the second round of FTA negotiations with Bahrain. May 2004.
European Union (UE) – Africa, Caribbean, Pacific (ACP)
Europe is negotiating new trade deals with African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries. A true partnership in trade could radically transform the lives of one-third of all people living in poverty, providing farmers and small businesses with sustainable incomes and workers with decent jobs. But Europe is choosing power politics over partnership. Through analysis of the goods, services, investment, and intellectual property chapters of texts concluded last year, this paper draws attention to aspects of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that put future economic development at risk and puts forward positive policy prescriptions. April 2008.
The warnings are grim. Cape Verde may lose 80 per cent of its import revenues. Three-quarters of Ghana’s industry may collapse. And African countries could end up even more dependent on trade with Europe than with each other. Such worries about the possible impact of ongoing “free trade” negotiations between Europe and its former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) are beginning to galvanize public debate in the region. July 2007.
EPAs mark a historic turning point in the history of trade agreements. But, writes Charles Abugre, any new trade agreement must help ACP countries to improve and diversify what they produce and export. This will require a radical rewrite of EPAs as they currently stand. 20 July, 2005.
Members of the Africa Trade Network (ATN), and other civil society organisations working on issues of trade and development in Africa, take the opportunity of the third ordinary session of the African Union Ministers of Trade in Cairo, Egypt, to communicate to the ministers the views on Africa's concerns and positions on the on-going trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation as well as within the framework of the Economic Partnership Agreements. June 2005.
African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the European Union face a 'hidden' threat to their ability to access affordable medicines for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. March 2005.
Conventional approaches might at first sight not link trade issues with debt cancellation. But trade relations happen to have a marked and direct impact on economies, their productivity, balance of payments, revenue income from duties and other related issues. March 2005.
Provides the ACP newsletter and contains a database with information on ACP organisations active in different sectors like lobbying and advocacy, research and trade.
Since 2002 the European Union (EU) and countries of the Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Group (ACP) have been negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) as part of the Cotonou Agreement. Negotiations of the first four of these issues were rejected by ACP countries in the WTO because of their negative implications for development. Under the guise of a 'development partnership' the EU is re-introducing its WTO free trade agenda through EPAs.
A challenge the European Union (EU) and its African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) partners in the Cotonou agreement, are still faced with, is the establishment of credible mechanisms and modalities for a genuine political dialogue. Grace Kwinjeh, November 2004.
Consistently, the EU has insisted that EPAs be based on a tight interpretation of WTO rules aiming for the elimination of all trade barriers on more than 90% of EU-ACP trade, within the shortest possible transitional time period. In addition the EU is demanding negotiations in the field of investment, competition, trade facilitation, government pro-curement, data protection and services. These negotiations were rejected by ACP countries in the WTO because of their negative implications for development. However, under the guise of a ‘development partnership’, the EU is re-introducing its WTO free trade agenda through EPAs. May 2004. Pdf format.
Statement of civil society organizations from workshop on negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the Pacific ACP states and the European Union, 7 September 2004, Suva.
The liberalisation of trade between the European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries will be detrimental to poverty reduction programmes and could even undermine the Cotonou Agreement itself. This is the conclusion of a new independent civil society study being published by Eurostep and its partners from five ACP countries. 7 september, 2004.
This website is meant as an instrument to monitor the trade negotiations between the European Union and the ACP countries which will take place between 2002 and 2008 with the aim of concluding Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).
APEC has 21 members: Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People's Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; Viet Nam.
The drastic effects of free trade agreements on working conditions in Chile were addressed this weekend at the Chilean Social Forum, held in the country's capital as a parallel event to the 12th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) Summit. November 2004.
At literally minutes to midnight on April 1, the United States signed a free trade agreement (FTA) with South Korean negotiators and rushed it to Congress. Congress now has 90 days to review the Korea, Peru, Colombia, and Panama agreements, before fast track authority expires on June 30. Any way you look at it, the clock is running out on free trade agreements. April 2007.
While the Bush Administration continues to push its free trade agenda around the globe there are signs of progress for communities of resistance, and signs that the Bush Administration itself is adjusting its priorities in the face of worldwide resistance to the Free Trade model. April 2006.
Proposal from the President Evo Morales concerning: A People's Trade Agreement "to achieve a true integration among peoples that transcends the commercial and economic arenas, recognizing the differences of each country, and at the same time prioritizing the protection of internal production and national companies. A treaty which holds, above all, the well being of the people and a respect for their history and cultures". April 2006.
In the face of mounting pressures to develop an alternative option to globalization—one that emerges from a developing world perspective and prioritizes egalitarian advancement, technological cooperation, and an end to global marginalization of the poor nations—there has been a new push to redefine political and economic arrangements springing from Bretton Woods. One component of these many recent initiatives is the idea of south-south cooperation. March 15, 2006.
The discussions at the East Asia Forum articulated the need to speed up East Asian trade integration. However it also highlighted that regional financial and monetary cooperation is just as important, especially in light of the present turbulence in international currency markets. By Martin Khor, December 2004.
Official web site. It contains documents from the process initiated in the 1994 Summit of the Americas to integrate the economies of the Western Hemisphere into a single free trade arrangement and updated information.
The sovereignty of the countries and peoples of Latin America is at stake. Choike in depth report on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) process.
Despite the official propaganda, the China-Asean free trade agreement that came into effect on January 1, 2010, will benefit China, but is likely to disadvantage the Asean Countries. By Walden Bello. January 2010.
A letter from Afro-Peruvian and Afro-Colombian organizations in Peru and Colombia, sent to Members of the United States Congress, opposes the free trade agreements with the US. Writing on behalf of 15 million Afro-descendant people, the groups are expressing their concerns about the negative impact the free trade agreements, as currently negotiated, will have on their communities. November 2006 (pdf version).
US free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, as well as the possible agreement with Ecuador, were negotiated under the promise of great opportunities in the world’s richest market, but the truth is that these agreements will have a devastating impact on the livelihoods of small farmers, public health, and the regulation of investment to protect the public interest. June 2006.
Letter that a number of US-based NGOs are sending to parliamentarians in the Andean countries that are negotiating an FTA/TLC with the US. The letter is a critique of the investment rules in the agreement, which are based on NAFTA Chapter 11 and other recent FTAs. September 2004. Pdf format.
Ecuador and other Andean nations should not accept international trade tribunal rulings on their tax policy for foreign oil companies, as this implies renouncing sovereignty, said activists at the first Social Forum of the Americas, meeting in Quito. July 2004. Pdf format.
While global trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) stagnate, governments and corporations are busy spinning a complex web of bilateral free trade and investment agreements (FTAs). "Fighting FTAs" looks at what this FTA frenzy is really about, how social movements are fighting back and strategic learnings emerging from these struggles. "Fighting FTAs" is a collaborative publication by bilaterals.org, GRAIN and BIOTHAI. February 2008.
It is generally recognized that bilateral agreements, especially between a developing and a developed country, are not the best option and that multilateral negotiations and agreements are preferable as they are less discriminatory and allow a better bargaining position for the developing countries. Analysis and documents on selected bilateral trade agreements.
If these agreements are negotiated in secret and their implementation becomes the responsibility of the executive branch of government, civil society and the parliaments of the countries involved will not be allowed to protest or to investigate properly what is going on. September 2008.
Mainstreaming gender into trade policy is an important matter: trade impacts on gender relations in a variety of ways. Gender impacts may be positive or negative, depending on the pattern of trade, the values of imports and exports, the sectoral distribution of exports and import competition, the skill level of male and female employment, labour market policies and institutions, laws and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, the gender division of labour in households, and the cultural pattern of male and female roles in the economy at large, including the unpaid economy. In this briefing paper, Irene van Staveren develops a tool for policy makers to mainstream gender equality goals in trade agreements. The proposed tool consists of a set of gender and trade indicators. The briefing paper discusses the methodology chosen for the development of the indicator; it presents eleven indicators, and illustrates their use in relation to the bilateral trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and the four Southern American countries, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay, associated in Mercosur. February 2007 (pdf version).
Latin America will be high on the European Union's global strategy in 2007, as the EU looks to strengthen its bilateral trade and investment relationships in the region. This was reiterated by the EU Trade Commission in its October 2006 strategy paper Global Europe - Competing in the World, which priorities the pursuit of free trade agreements that demand full liberalisation of financial flows, trade with and investment in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region. In a period of suspension of the WTO Doha Round the EU, acting under pressure from its transnational corporations, is aggressively pursuing free trade agreements with Mercosur, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) and Central America. Meanwhile, the Caribbean region is included under the banner of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being pursued with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. This TNI Debate Paper analyses the key issues which inform the context and agendas behind these "new generation" free trade agreements between the EU and LAC regions, and exposes how transnational corporations are setting the terms of the negotiations. This publication aims to support the campaigns of resistance to the corporate-driven EU free trade agenda while contributing to the search for alternatives and building another world where a just trade and investment regime will be made possible. January 2007. pdf format.
The negotiations for the European Union - Mercosur free trade agreement, that have been going on for nine years now, were speeded up in the face of the appointment of the new EU Trade Commissioner. Civil society organisations from the Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and Europe, have issued declarations demanding a halt to the negotiations. See also statement of European NGOs. October 22, 2004.
Free trade agreements between developed and developing countries continue to stir significant debate, especially on the benefits and costs for the developing countries. In his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur, the Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Jospeh Stiglitz strongly criticised FTAs involving the United States, saying they have not benefited developing countries that have entered into such deals. Stiglitz’s comments has been reinforced by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which warned developing countries to think carefully before negotiating bilateral trade agreements with developed countries. September 2007.
Japan is increasingly using free trade agreements (FTAs) to tighten corporate control over seeds and other forms of biodiversity that are crucial to food, agriculture and medicine. Two such deals, sealed with the Chilean and Indonesian governments, put Japan in the big league of nations using bilateral trade deals to make seed-saving on the farm a thing of the past. August 2007.
The quiet advance of trade and investment agreements between rich and poor countries threatens to deny developing countries a favourable foothold in the global economy. Driven by the USA and the European Union, these agreements impose far-reaching rules that place severe restrictions on the very policies developing countries need in order to fight poverty. March 2007.
In recent years, the US, Europe and other industrialised powers have been stepping up their efforts to sign bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment treaties (BITs). This increased attention to bilateral deals goes hand in hand with the deadlock in global trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). FTA Watch, with bilaterals.org, GRAIN and Médecins Sans Frontières, organized a workshop in Bangkok, Thailand, that brought together, for the first time, movements from many different countries which have been fighting FTAs and BITs. September 2006 (pdf version).
Feminist economists Diane Elson and Nilufer Cagatay write that an alternative way of ensuring that social concerns are central and not secondary to the macroeconomic policymaking process is to ensure that a “transformative approach” is incorporated. They write that “social policy needs to be mainstreamed into macroeconomic analysis by means of a rethinking of economics. This rethinking cannot simply consist of new technical exercises, which can present
us with ready-made formulae applicable to every context." Rethinking should embrace the concept of economic ‘agency,’ as it relates to responsibilities of the community and the society via micro, meso, and macro policies.163 This approach avoids the pitfall of advocating for economic reform as a ‘woman's question,’ while recognizing the importance of a broader feminist gender analysis. The latter incorporates social, economic, and political constructs in
view of the larger society and its function. Identifying an alternative economic agenda is the critical question that groups are struggling to answer. Better linking of social, political and economic policies seems easier than it actually is. In order to do so, it takes some reframing of the debate. This paper looks in depth into: Trade in the Americas, Common criticisms of regional trade negotiations, Why gender and trade?, Cross-cutting areas linked with gender and trade, Gender mainstreaming: finding women's voices in trade and provides a Gender and trade bibliography. January 2006, pdf format.
We are living in a post-TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) world. Almost every member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has had to reform their intellectual property laws in order to meet the minimum standards of protection that TRIPS prescribes. May 2006.
Traditional knowledge has come up in a dozen or so free trade agreements (FTAs) over the last couple of years. In numerous cases, specific provisions on traditional knowledge were signed. The pattern at play is simple. When facing the US, trade negotiators concerned about "biopiracy" try to put limits on when and how researchers and corporations can get patents on biodiversity or traditional knowledge in the United States. When the US is not involved, governments carve out space to define their own legal systems of "rights" to traditional knowledge. In all cases, however, FTAs are framing traditional knowledge as intellectual property – a commodity to be bought and sold on the global market. March 2006.
More countries are now engaging in bilateral free trade agreements with developed countries. Often, these FTAs contain issues that the developing countries have rejected in the World Trade Organisation, and oblige developing countries to cut their tariffs more steeply and open up their service sectors. The effects can be devastating, as the case of Mexican agriculture shows. September 2005.
This article reviews the way in which the regional free trade agreements: CAFTA and the future Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA) affect the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, increase natural resource exploitation, further degrade some of the most critical environmental regions on the planet, and erode the public's ability to protect our planet for future generations. April 2005.
The North-South economic and political divide is the overriding concern in international trade relations, with the rich North creating conditions that allow for the pillaging and primitivisation of the poor South. Southern governments, especially in Africa, are much weaker in regional and bilateral negotiations with the North than they are at the WTO simply because of their dependence on the North. By Riaz Tayob, October 2004.
Trade unions in a number of countries have become active in recent years in following their government's negotiation of trade agreements, and in pressuring their government to include provisions safeguarding workers' rights in those agreements. As a result, there are several examples of trade agreements treating workers' rights in various different ways. However, there are far more examples of trade agreements that make no mention of workers' rights.
With a deal being struck at the World Trade Organisation on 31 July 2004 to revive negotiations, will the move towards bilateral trade agreements slow down? By Martin Khor.
Intellectual property rights were important to chemical firms in nineteenth century Europe and to US and European pharmaceutical companies in the twentieth century. The relationship was one of mutual importance. Because these companies wanted intellectual property rights, especially patents, they took an interest in lobbying governments on their design. November 2003
This refers to an agreement between members of the ACP and The European Community, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000. It is an international agreement between 78 ACP countries and 25 countries of the European Union (EU). It consists of comprehensive provisions, dealing with aid, trade and political relations.
A set of economic practices and reforms deemed by international financial institutions (located in Washington, D.C.) to be helpful for financial stability and economic development; often imposed as conditions for economic assistance by these institutions.
The John Williamson's paper summarizes the 1989 agreement of World Bank and IMF on conditionality for financial support and coined the now famous phrase “Washington consensus”.
Partnership agreement between the members Of the African, Caribbean And Pacific Group Of States on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000.
