[Ip-health] New York Times Editorial on TPA

Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:13:20 EDT

--part1_164.1139e35b.2a718bb0_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please see the following editorial in today's New York Times.  We put in bold 
key parts.
Dolores y M. Fabiana

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

July 25, 2002, Thursday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 16; Column 1; Editorial Desk

LENGTH: 267 words

HEADLINE: A Fairer Trade Bill

BODY:
House and Senate members are meeting to decide on final language for the
Trade Promotion Authority, which instructs the White House on American goals
for international trade agreements. The first two accords likely to be
affected are those with Chile and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Two
particularly offensive measures need to be rejected.

One would allow companies to sue in secret trade courts when government
actions -- even legitimate environmental ones -- reduce the value of their
investment. The North American Free Trade Agreement allows investors to sue
governments if they are subject to acts "tantamount to expropriation." A
Canadian company is now suing California for $970 million because the state
is phasing out a gasoline additive found to contaminate water wells.
Companies have won such cases, and these special courts have even overridden
a Mississippi jury. Just the threat of a suit is discouraging governments
from imposing necessary environmental regulations. American trade officials
acknowledge the problems, but the identical rules have popped up again in
the draft text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The trade authority
must prohibit such rules. The second mess the conferees need to fix concerns 
rules governing poor countries' ability to get affordable medicine. Last 
November in Doha, Qatar, Washington agreed to more flexible language. But 
drug companies have reinserted old formulas into the new bill. The standard 
must be the Doha declaration, with no references to negotiating goals that 
erase its gains.

--part1_164.1139e35b.2a718bb0_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Please see the following editorial in today's New York Times.&nbsp; We put in bold key parts.<BR>
Dolores y M. Fabiana<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company<BR>
The New York Times<BR>
<BR>
July 25, 2002, Thursday, Late Edition - Final<BR>
<BR>
SECTION: Section A; Page 16; Column 1; Editorial Desk<BR>
<BR>
LENGTH: 267 words<BR>
<BR>
HEADLINE: A Fairer Trade Bill<BR>
<BR>
BODY:<BR>
House and Senate members are meeting to decide on final language for the<BR>
Trade Promotion Authority, which instructs the White House on American goals<BR>
for international trade agreements. <B>The first two accords likely to be<BR>
affected are those with Chile and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. </B>Two<BR>
particularly offensive measures need to be rejected.<BR>
<BR>
One would allow companies to sue in secret trade courts when government<BR>
actions -- even legitimate environmental ones -- reduce the value of their<BR>
investment. The North American Free Trade Agreement allows investors to sue<BR>
governments if they are subject to acts "tantamount to expropriation." A<BR>
Canadian company is now suing California for $970 million because the state<BR>
is phasing out a gasoline additive found to contaminate water wells.<BR>
Companies have won such cases, and these special courts have even overridden<BR>
a Mississippi jury. Just the threat of a suit is discouraging governments<BR>
from imposing necessary environmental regulations. American trade officials<BR>
acknowledge the problems, but the identical rules have popped up again in<BR>
the draft text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The trade authority<BR>
must prohibit such rules. <B>The second mess the conferees need to fix concerns rules governing poor countries' ability to get affordable medicine. Last November in Doha, Qatar, Washington agreed to more flexible language. But drug companies have reinserted old formulas into the new bill. The standard must be the Doha declaration, with no references to negotiating goals that erase its gains.</B><BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_164.1139e35b.2a718bb0_boundary--