[Ip-health] [Fwd: [A2k] Stiglitz on FTAs]

[Judit Rius Sanjuan]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--

--
Judit Rius Sanjuan
Attorney
judit.rius@keionline.org

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
www.keionline.org / www.cptech.org
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 18  Fax: +1.202.332.2673

--
Delivered-To: judit.rius@keionline.org
Delivered-To: a2k@lists.essential.org
From: "Teresa Hackett (eIFL)" <teresa.hackett@eifl.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
To: A2K list <a2k@lists.essential.org>
Subject: [A2k] Stiglitz on FTAs
Sender: a2k-admin@lists.essential.org
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:09:06 +0100

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=3D9510

Stiglitz: FTAs advantageous to US

Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz
believes that no country should enter into free trade agreements with
the US, as none of the developing countries has benefited greatly from them=
.

----

<SNIP>

Q: What about free trade agreements (FTAs)? We are concerned about being
less attractive to foreign direct investment, and now we seem to be
moving along the path of signing bilateral agreements with other
countries, especially the United States. What are your views of
bilateral agreements between developed countries and developing
countries? Are we better off without them?

A: Overall, bilateral agreements have been a disaster, for the
developing countries and for the global trading system. The global
trading system is based on principle of non-discrimination, which is
called the most favourite nation principle. These FTAs are creating a
world in which there are two groups - the first consist of =93my friends
who can get in free=94 and the other, consist of countries that have to
pay tariffs. So, it is a disaster.

Secondly, bargaining between the United States and developing countries
is not bargaining. Especially under the Bush (administration), it has
been a take-it-or-leave-it situation. The provisions, the way I see
them, have not benefited most of the countries in significant ways. In
fact, these countries lost a great deal, especially access to
intellectual property.

They have more difficulty accessing to knowledge and particularly,
generic medicine. So, there are thousands of people dying in developing
countries because of the trade agreements with the United States. They
don=92t want to talk about it that way, but that is what is happening.

Q: Should we walk away from these agreements?

A: Yes. The good news is, the tariffs now are so low, that they no
longer serve as an impediment to trade. If you have good infrastructure
and educated people, they will come to Malaysia (to invest). The tariff
of 3%-5% is not going to make any difference to the friendly business
atmosphere, which Malaysia has.

Q: So, that means FTAs are not about trading goods?

A: It=92s not about trading goods; it=92s about losing sovereignty. And it=
=92s
about helping American drug companies. It=92s about America pushing for a
particular agenda. It has not benefited any country. In fact, the free
trade agreement with Mexico was the strongest, but the gap between
Mexico and the United States increased in the first decade.

They are not free trade agreements. They are not about free trade, but
they are advantaged trade agreements. And they managed to advantage the
United States at the cost of the developing countries.
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k