[A2k] The US/Malaysia trade pact

[James Love]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-usmalaysia-trade-
pac_b_19584.html

Huffington Post
The US/Malaysia trade pact
James Love, April 22, 2006

The United States is considering a new trade agreement with Malaysia,
a country with a rising middle class but also a significant number of
poor persons, particularly those living in rural areas. In all
similiar agreements, the Bush Administration's US Trade
Representative (USTR) has sought measures that increase drug prices,
mostly through tough intellectual property rules that go considerably
beyond the obligations in the World Trade Organization (which are
already pretty tough).

The USTR has asked for public comments on the negotiations. People
have until May 12 to file comments (See instructions here. I filed
these comments on Friday, asking that the USTR change its approach to
something more positive -- a chapter on Access to Knowledge (A2K).
Jamie
----

21 April 2006
Testimony of Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech) on the proposal
to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Malaysia.

CPTech proposes a chapter in a US/Malaysia FTA on Access to Knowledge
(A2K). This framework is a different and we believe a better
treatment of issues that have been addressed in chapters on
intellectual property rights in previous FTA agreements that the
United States has negotiated with other countries. We have addressed
these topics previously in our March 27, 2006 comments on the US/
Korea FTA agreement, which are attached below.

The general approach that CPTech presents is to shift the focus of
the trade negotiations from ever-higher standards for intellectual
property protection to an agreement that promotes research and
development, the production of public goods, and access to knowledge.
We believe this new trade framework has greater benefits for US
Citizens, and will also be received more warmly by Malaysia than the
traditional US demand for tough intellectual property rules on
medicines and other knowledge goods.

We note that Malaysia is a signatutory of the WTO TRIPS agreement,
including the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, and
it is already struggling with its TRIPS obligations, in the context
of protecting access to medicines. There is no justification for
advocating trade agreement provisions in Malaysia that would increase
the prices of medicines. There are, however, compelling reasons to
ask Malaysia to make appropriate contributions to support medical R&D
and global public knowledge goods, particularly if Malaysia can do so
in ways that contribute to its own development and which address
issues of particular concern to Malaysia.

The United States is the largest government funder of R&D on tropical
diseases, including diseases that present very serious problems in
Malaysia. Like the US, Malaysia is concerned about emerging public
health threats like SARS or Avian Flu. Like the US, Malaysia is
struggling to find affordable treatments for AIDS. The United States
is often seeking partners in tasks such as the HapMap Project or the
Human Genome Project. The United States is funding countless research
endeavors involving the creation of databases, publishing and
translating academic science, the building of tissue and other
materials libraries, and many other things, some of which generate
valuable intellectual property rights, and others that enter the
public domain. These are expensive, and paid for by US taxpayers.

If the United States proposed that the US and Malaysia together
should discuss areas where Malaysia could itself increase its
contributions to and participation in research and development in
areas of health care priorities, Malaysia would likely see this as a
favorable alternative to the TRIPS+ rules the United States has
obtained in other trade agreements. Since high drug prices in the
Malaysian economy are likely to lead to rationing of access to the
economic elites in Malaysia, they are also unlikely to generate much
in the way to new R&D, particularly for areas of medical priority. An
agreement to support priority medical research would very likely
provide greater benefits to US citizens in terms of improved health
care outcomes or lower taxes than would an agreement that ensured
that Pfizer, Roche, GSK or other companies stronger (than required by
TRIPS) marketing monopolies.

If the point of trade policy is to strength the marketing monopolies
for a handful of global pharmaceutical multinational firms, than the
TRIPS+ provisions make a lot of sense. But if the point of the trade
policy is to advance the interests of everyone in the United States,
there should be a willingness to consider alternatives, particularly
given how much resentment the TRIPS+ agreements are generating toward
the reputation of all US citizens and businesses, and how little they
actually generate in terms of new R&D in areas where it counts.

Other suggestions for how an A2K Chapter might work are elaborated in
the attached testimony on the US Korea FTA negotiations.

James Love

Attachment:

CPTech comments on the US/Korea FTA negotiations
27 March 2006

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/globalization-in-a-good-
w_b_17974.html


---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton