[Ip-health] NYT Letters: Trade deals hurt access to meds

[robert weissman]

Ellen Shaffer and Tony Avirgan today have letters in the New York Times
responding to a pro-trade agreement column. Ellen and Tony's letters
both emphasize the access to medicines issues. Their letters, and the
original Times editorial, follow below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/opinion/l27trade.html?_r=3D1&ref=3Dopinio=
n&oref=3Dslogin

December 27, 2007
The Drawbacks of Free Trade Pacts

To the Editor:

Current trade agreements preclude and sometimes reverse the very safety
net you propose to ameliorate their damage, as new Congressional leaders
recognize. Trade pacts undermine access to affordable medicines and
offer new levers of power to the drug, tobacco, alcohol, health care and
processed food industries. These industries dominate United States
federal trade advisory committees and influence trade policy to promote
the bottom line over health.

The public, the candidates and The Times are right to call for
affordable health care. We also need a new, sustainable trade model that
does not destabilize public health benefits where they exist or are
emerging among our trading partners. These are the genuine keys to
prosperity.

Ellen R. Shaffer
San Francisco, Dec. 23, 2007
The writer is co-director of the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
Health.

*

To the Editor:

In =93Trade and Prosperity=94 (editorial, Dec. 23), you equate opposition t=
o
trade agreements like Nafta with protectionism. While there are
protectionists among the opponents of so-called free trade agreements,
most opposition is based on the fact that these agreements have little
to do with the exchange of goods and much more to do with empowering
corporations to override national laws protecting workers and the
environment in other countries.

Agreements like Nafta and Cafta extend patents well beyond the
provisions set out in United States law, inhibiting the ability of other
countries to combat public health crises such as AIDS. These are the
reasons that there is such widespread opposition to free trade
agreements not just in the United States, but also in countries with
which such agreements are promulgated.

Tony Avirgan
Silver Spring, Md., Dec. 23, 2007
The writer is global policy organizer at the Economic Policy Institute.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun1.html?ref=3Dopinion

December 23, 2007
Editorial
Trade and Prosperity

With most polls showing that voters believe trade with other countries
is hurting the American economy, it is not surprising that there has
been a lot of posturing about the perils of trade on the campaign trail.

Democrats have been most tempted by the protectionism. John Edwards
likes to talk about how trade agreements like Nafta =93have hurt workers
and families while helping corporate insiders.=94 Senator Hillary Clinton
has suggested that the economic theories underpinning the cause for free
trade no longer hold, and has said she would review all of the United
States=92 trade agreements.

Even Republican candidates =97 normally staunch supporters of expanding
trade =97 can sound skeptical. =93I don=92t want to see our food come from
China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from
Europe and Asia,=94 complained Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney defends
globalization=92s record of improving living standards, but cannot resist
drawing an applause line by adding that the government should negotiate
better with other countries to make sure =93the American worker gets a
fair shake.=94

It would be unfortunate for the United States if the winner of the 2008
election elevated skepticism toward trade from a red-meat sound bite on
the campaign trail to a new wave of protectionist policy.

Many Americans are experiencing economic anxiety. Wages for most workers
are going nowhere. It is a sad fact that despite enormous gains in
productivity over the past few decades, the wages of typical workers are
only marginally higher than they were a quarter of a century ago. But
throttling trade =97 say, by reconsidering existing agreements =97 would
hurt a lot more people than it helped. There is scant evidence that
trade has played a big role in holding down typical workers=92 wages.
There is abundant evidence that it has contributed substantially to
America=92s overall economic growth. It offers American producers access
to foreign markets. It multiplies choices for producers and consumers.
Foreign competition spurs productivity growth at home.

Trade, like technological change, can produce wrenching dislocations
that hurt some workers. But trade barriers are not the proper tool to
deal with these changes. What is needed is a bold strategy to rebuild a
functioning safety net, deploying some of the vast wealth this nation
has gained through globalization to assist those hurt by the forces of
economic change. This will allow Americans to embrace globalization,
rather than fear it.

The planks of this strategy include health care reform, to ensure that
workers who lose their jobs do not also lose access to affordable health
insurance, and a form of extended unemployment insurance for all
displaced workers, not just those hurt by trade. More progressive
taxation =97 using tools like the earned income tax credit =97 should be
used to address the stagnation of incomes. And more should be spent on
the continuous training and education of workers throughout their lives.

It is unclear whether the next president will have the vision to carry
through these changes. The Republican candidates=92 posturing on trade has
been pretty much substance-free. But considering the field=92s uniform
approach to economic policy, in which all taxes are bad and most
nondefense spending is worse, it is unlikely that a Republican president
would be interested in investing in such an expansion of America=92s
social safety net.

The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, tend to be on the right
side of the discussion on issues like universal health care, education
and social spending. But all of them have included hints of defensive
trade policies amid their proposals. Barack Obama has offered the most
resistance to the easy path of blaming imports from foreign countries
for the woes of the American middle class. =93Global trade is not going
away, technology is not going away, the Internet is not going away,=94 he
said in New Hampshire. =93And that means enormous opportunities, but also
means more dislocations.=94

But Mrs. Clinton proposes a =93timeout=94 on future trade agreements,
including the World Trade Organization=92s global trade negotiations, and
a reconsideration of existing deals =97 including Nafta, a cornerstone of
Bill Clinton=92s presidency. Mr. Edwards also talks of =93redoing=94 Nafta.
All the Democratic candidates agree that trade agreements should be
amended to attach provisions about minimum labor standards.

These changes would do virtually nothing to protect American workers
from the disruptions wrought by trade, technology and other economic
forces. A protectionist agenda would hurt them.