|
Press
statement |
|
|||
|
|
What’s
the deal? In
the SNR! campaign on the WTO in 2003, we raised the issue of information
disclosure. We demanded that negotiations in the WTO on possible new
agreements, which would have far reaching implications on livelihoods and
jobs, are matters of public interest. The negotiating agenda therefore of
the Philippine government should be subjected to public scrutiny and
debate. Today,
we raise a similar concern over the lack of transparency over these
bilateral trade negotiations. Very few Filipinos know that the government
is negotiating an economic partnership agreement with Japan, or is
negotiating under ASEAN with China and India, or that studies have already
been done on a possible US-Philippines Free Trade Agreement. These
agreements remain in the realm of government technocrats and the business
community. Information
and documents regarding these agreements have not been made available to
the public to generate the kind of informed public debate over these
agreements that we think is necessary. We do not know what is expected
from deals with economic superpowers like China, Japan, India, and the
United States under these bilateral and regional trade agreements. At the
very least, the government should make an effort to let the people know
what agreements we are entering into. The
dangers of bilateral FTAs The
public must be warned that the proliferation of bilateral free trade
agreements is yet another alarming facet of the global trade
liberalization agenda. Hidden from view by regional and global
negotiations and considering their secrecy, they do not attract attention
and scrutiny. Yet, they are being used as channels to get faster, deeper
free trade and investment commitments than is possible and allowable in a
malfunctioning World Trade Organization (WTO). Bilateral
negotiations are more daunting, wide-ranging and more detailed than the
multilateral approach. As is often the case, highly developed economies,
which have more resources and budget for marathon technical negotiations,
enjoy the advantage in the bilateral talks and are able to maximize their
interests. The
emerging trend is that the developed countries are more demanding in
bilateral negotiations than at the multilateral level. In the area of
services, the current model of EPA go further than the General Agreement
in Trade and Services (GATS), which theoretically gives developing
countries the option to gradually liberalize and to exclude some sectors,
for example, the health and education sectors, from the liberalization
process. EPAs, on the other hand, call for reciprocal and progressive
liberalization of all service sectors as soon as possible. On the other
hand, only a few developing countries committed themselves to the
deregulation of the services sector under the WTO. Through
the EPAs and bilateral free trade deals, developed countries are trying to
bring in new issues (e.g., investment, transparency in government
procurement, competition policy and trade facilitation), which were
roundly rejected during the WTO negotiations. In fact, the rejection of
these new issues led to the collapse of the Cancun negotiations as the
developing nations did not want to negotiate on new issues before the old
issues have been exhaustively settled. The
case of JPEPA The
negotiations over a Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)
is now nearing completion. Unfortunately, the terms and documents being
negotiated under JPEPA (especially the list of product coverage) and other
free trade deals in the pipeline are not publicly available. The JPEPA
negotiating process lacks transparency and is unfair! It is disturbing the
way the Philippine government has been fast-tracking this highly secretive
negotiation process. Given
the dearth of information, civil society participation in these emerging
trade agreements is sorely lacking. Apart from some token consultations
with select private sector stakeholders, government has not provided any
venue for more substantive discussions and deliberations on these
important trade issues and developments. As a result, very few people even
know about these bilateral and regional trade agreements. Possible Constitutional Violations But
given its “FTA plus” nature, the Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership
Agreement (JPEPA),
is in danger of contravening or virtually supplanting at least five
provisions of the Philippine Constitution:
National
treatment—the requirement that foreign investors be treated no less
favorably than domestic investors, regardless of the circumstances—is a
fundamental principle of EPAs and bilateral free trade pacts. This
provision limits the array of options and actions that could be taken by
national governments in protecting their economies. Thus, the EPA with
Japan will override not only our laws governing foreign investment but the
Constitution itself.
EPAs will virtually “denationalize” the control of land,
natural resources, and public services such as water, energy, health,
education, and other vital public services.
By extending “national treatment” to foreign investors, the
agreement would lead to the near total loss of national control over
investment and deprive government of its ability to conduct industrial
policy and undertake strategic planning. Government’s
failure to adequately inform the public so that they can have meaningful
participation in trade negotiations is in itself a violation of the
Constitution. We are committed to promote a broad process of participation
by all stakeholders, which allow them to become informed so that they can
analyze cost and benefits, develop proposals and present these to
government officials. The
false choice between Bilateral agreements and WTO agreements Raising
our serious concern over the bilateral approach does not imply, however,
that we are amenable or contented with the current multilateral approach
to trade liberalization under the WTO. In fact, the two approaches
complement each other. It is not really a question of what approach is
best or optimal to promote and facilitate trade. Needless to say, both
approaches espouse the same neo-liberal, free trade dogma that threatens
the viability and survival of small and large enterprises. It
is in this context that the Stop the New Round! Coalition reiterates its
opposition to further trade and trade-related liberalization whether
through bilateral and regional trade agreements or the WTO. We
urge the government to seriously rethink its mindless pursuit
of bilateral free trade agreements.
Initial government projection shows that the government stands to
lose PhP16.9 billion in foregone revenues starting this year (PhP15.37
billion in potential Customs duties and PhP1.54 billion in value-added tax
payments) if the provision calling for the tariff elimination of select
commodities under the JPEPA would be approved. It is indeed
incomprehensible why the government rabidly pursues bilateral free trade
while the country is experiencing its worst fiscal crisis in decades.
We
are calling on the Philippine Congress to investigate the economic impact
of the various bilateral free trade deals being pursued by the Executive
branch. The Legislative branch must now act to defend Philippine national
interests not only in the WTO negotiations, but more importantly in
bilateral and regional free trade talks, particularly in the ASEAN Free
Trade Area (AFTA), the Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement and
the RP-China Free Trade Agreement. The
protection of domestic markets and local sources of livelihood should be
the guiding principle in determining the Philippines’ decision whether
or not to participate in any form of trade agreement. #
# # |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
HOME | ABOUT APL | PRESS STATEMENTS | POSITION PAPERS | BASIC DOCUMENTS | RESOLUTIONS | AFFILIATES | LINKS |
||||
|
Alliance of
Progressive Labor (APL) 2004 |
||||
