Not much free about this “free” trade agreement
By Michael Cebon | March 5, 2009
I guess I should write a bit about the Australia-ASEAN-NZ Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which was signed over the weekend in Thailand - it’s Australia’s biggest regional FTA to date.
The mining industry loves it since it will let them export more Australian minerals to Asia. And the Textile Clothing & Footwear Union hates it, since
Accelerating tariff reductions hurt Australian manufacturers and their workers, this FTA further reduces the scheduled reductions which were announced close to a decade ago.
But a much more significant question is: what do the 560 million citizens of ASEAN - those who will be most affected by this agreement - think of it?
The answer is that it’s extremely difficult to tell, because (and this is something no-one in the media has mentioned, as far as I can find) only 3 of ASEAN’s 10 member nations have any sort of democratic processes to speak of. (I’m counting Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand as democracies here, which leaves Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Burma/Myanmar, and Vietnam, which are all - more or less - dictatorships).
In Australia, while trade negotiators are not elected, they are constrained by an elected government and parliament who must justify their actions to Australian citizens. In Australia, an attentive and critical press and opposition political parties help to make sure any deal is really in the interests of Australian citizens. While these protections are not always successful – witness the passing of the US-Australia FTA which was clearly a damaging deal for Australia –the fact that checks and balances exist at least gives trade negotiations some legitimacy.
In dictatorships like China [and 7 of the ASEAN nations], unelected and unaccountable governments face no such “inconvenient” constraints. There is no system of checks and balances by which citizens might feel that their interests are properly protected from a government known for its high level of corruption. There is no free media and no opposition to scrutinise the deal which is negotiated. Indeed, there is no requirement that the dictators even consider the interests of the people over whom they rule.
What right does the Australian government have to impose a free trade agreement on the peoples of ASEAN, without any sort of systems in place to represent their views or interests (rather than the views or interests of their rulers) in negotiations?
And how many Australians want a free trade agreement with vicious, murderous regimes like Burma’s military junta anyway?
Topics: Australian Trade Policy, Bilateral FTAs | 1 Comment »
Obama’s Latest Free Trader
By Michael Cebon | February 27, 2009
Nichols says:
Locke has long been one of the Democratic Party’s most ardent advocates for free trade agreements that get high marks from multinational corporations but are condemned by human rights groups and labor, farm and environmental organizations.
As I’ve asked before on this blog, where will this leave Obama’s commitment to “fair trade” and to re-negotiating the NAFTA agreement?
Topics: US Trade Policy | 1 Comment »
Sydney Event: “Economics for Ordinary Folk” - March 28
By Michael Cebon | February 26, 2009
A plug for friendly Sydney-based NGOs AFTINET and AID/WATCH, which are co-hosting “Economics for Ordinary Folk”, a 1 day workshop aimed at skilling-up participants on economics and the impact of orthodox economic theories on the peoples of the world, particularly the majority world. It’s aimed at people who are concerned about issues of social justice and want to gain a better understanding of economics. Participants would ideally include students, activists, NGO workers and community members.
Speakers include: Professor Frank Stilwell (University of Sydney-Political Economy), Professor Jane Kelsey (University of Auckland - Law/Trade/Globalisation) & others.
When: 28th March 10am - 4pm
Where: Amnesty International, Level 1, 79 Myrtle St, Chippendale
Cost: $15 (student/concession) $25 (waged) $40 (passionate) - Some fee waivers available.
Tea and coffee will be provided. BYO lunch.
To confirm your place, contact campaign@aftinet.org.au or lara@aidwatch.org.au by Monday 16 March.
PROGRAM
10:00 - Registration
10:30 - 11:15
Basic Rundown on Economic Theory - What are the fundamentals behind contemporary economics? What are the differences between the predominant economic theories? What are the shortfalls of these theories?
11:20 - 12:05
Neo-liberalism 101 - A more detailed look into what neo-liberalism is and what its impacts are in the real world. From sweatshops to financial crises, is neo-liberalism on the decline?
12:10 - 1:05
Global Resistance and Alternatives - A look at what is the global justice movement and what alternatives exist how the opposition to capitalism/neo-liberalism exists. What role has fair trade and protests played in this?
LUNCH 1:05 - 1:40
1:40 - 2:25
Capitalism/Global Social Democracy - Global Financial Crisis and its impacts on economics, is capitalism dead, or will it just be nicer?
2:30 - 3:15
Australia’s Policies - How do Australia’s aid and trade policies reinforce current economic inequalities and pre-configure what ‘development’ means? What impacts are these policies having on Australia and other countries?
3:20 - 3:45
What you can do? - A discussion about what’s going on and what you can do to work towards an economically, socially and environmentally just future!
Topics: Events & Actions, Global Economics, Global Justice Movement | 1 Comment »
Food for the future
By Michael Cebon | February 26, 2009
Well worth a look (or a listen, if you download the podcast) is ABC’s Background Briefing from last week - entitled “Food for the Future”. Global Trade Watch contributed some statistics and opinions to the program.
Reporter Bronwyn Herbert uses the program to examine some of the issues around the global food trade, and the broader globalisation of food and food production.
Unfortuntaley the focus of the program is mostly on food safety and nutrition, from a consumer perspective: “who polices the safety and freshness, the nutrition and additives?”
It doesn’t touch on many of the arguably more important and controversial issues around globalised, industrial food production: the environmental impacts and the impacts on the world’s poorest people - the farmers struggling to survive on their traditional lands in the face of this corporate-controlled, global food system.
But for what it does cover, it does so really quite well - have a read/listen.
Topics: Australian Trade Policy, Globalisation & Food | No Comments »
The most amazing statistics on Development you’ve ever seen….
By Michael Cebon | February 25, 2009
Two absolutely fantastic short talks from Hans Rosling, A professor of global health at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute.
The first talk is here (2006), the second one is here (2007).
They were given at successive years of the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in California.
What stuck with me most after watching them was that changes in many important indicators of development - in particular child mortality - didn’t have a clear correlation to increasing economic growth or increasing wealth. China, for example, achieved almost all its 20th century decrease in child mortality during Mao’s reign, when economic growth was stagnant. After his death, when China opened up, overall wealth increased hugely, but child mortality has not decreased much as a result.
Topics: Global Economics, Global Inequality | No Comments »
WTO: The round that “no one knows how to end”
By Michael Cebon | February 24, 2009
For those interested in what is going on at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) while the financial crisis is hogging all the headline space in the business pages, the answer is: not a lot.
But the Third World Network published an interesting historical analysis of the so-called “Doha Development Round” a couple of weeks ago.
The article gives a good overview of some interesting WTO history, concluding that
Some of the most malignant features of the international trading system in recent years have gone undiscussed. In particular, as promoted at the WTO, under the banner of “free trade”, the neo-mercantilist interests of the US and EU have been sought to be advanced, and has repeatedly met with rebuffs from the majority of the membership.
With the US and the EU unwilling to reduce their heavy subsidies to the agriculture sector, but wanting market opening in developing countries for their agriculture products and exports, as well as drastic tariff cuts in industrial tariffs in the major developing countries, and on top of it for “zero tariffs” in sectors where the US has the dominant advantage, the Doha negotiations have reached an impasse.
Topics: Global Economics, WTO | No Comments »
Why is Australia still importing illegally-logged timber?
By Michael Cebon | February 24, 2009
Yesterday’s edition of Melbourne’s The Age newspaper had a worrying article about the influence of extreme pro-free-trade bureaucrats in derailing new laws aimed at restricting illegal timber imports into Australia.
Apparently the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been trying to undermine the Rudd Government’s election promises to require “disclosure at point-of-sale of species, country of origin and any certification” and “identifying illegally-logged timber and restrict its import into Australia”.
The article also quotes Alan Oxley, who runs Melbourne-based consultancy ITS Global, and is known far and wide for his work organising conferences to promote the denial of climate change, lobbying on behalf of Malaysian logging giant Rimbunan Hijau (implicated in widespead illegal logging & human rights abuses in PNG) and for setting up a business lobby group for the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Follow the above links to pages from Sourcewatch, and online watchdog which has some good background on Oxley & his company.)
If you’re reading this and would like to do something, please consider emailing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd or emailing or phoning - (02) 6277 7500 - Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and demanding that they commit to fulfilling their election promise to restrict imports of illegally logged timber into Australia.
Topics: Australian Trade Policy, Events & Actions, Globalisation & the Environment | 1 Comment »
Australia-US FTA still a drain on Australia’s economy
By Michael Cebon | February 10, 2009
Martin Feil kicks another goal in The Age today with an excellent article assessing the economic impact of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) four years after it took affect on 1 January 2005.
As the Parliamentary Library noted in December, the AUSFTA has increased Australia’s merchandise imports from the US and reduced our exports, increasing the overall trade deficit with the US.
Feil builds on this analysis, noting that
The trade deficit numbers relate to trade in physical merchandise. They do not include income payments and payments for intangibles such as royalties, management fees, technical service fees and dividends. . .
Analysis of merchandise trade doesn’t take into account the potentially most devastating areas of one-way Australian market penetration created by the USAFTA.
The ABS economic indicator for 2007-08 shows Australia’s “income” deficit in the balance of payments has increased from $37 billion in 2005-06 to $45 billion in 2006-07 and $50 billion in 2007-08.
This is the statistical area where we simply don’t know what is going on, except that we are paying out much more than we are receiving. If we are supposed to become a service economy, the income flow needs to be the other way.
Global Trade Watch join’s Feil’s call for a full government review of this “free” trade agreement, especially in light of Kevin Rudd’s recent admission that the Global Financial Crisis has “called into question the prevailing neo-liberal economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years - the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem which has now been visited upon us.”
If free trade is not a central neo-liberal economic orthodoxy, I don’t know what is.
Topics: Australian Trade Policy, Bilateral FTAs | No Comments »
Wrap-Up from the World Social Forum
By Michael Cebon | February 10, 2009
The World Social Forum finished up in Belem, Brazil last week. If you don’t know much about it, the WSF was started in January 2001 as a stark alternative and counterpoint to the World Economic Forum – an annual meeting of CEOs of the biggest corporations and the most powerful governments in the Swiss town of Davos.
The WSF brings together tens of thousands of activists, social movements and NGOs from around the world to discuss and debate the world’s problems and possible solutions, from the bottom up.
As usual, Inter Press Service has produced a fantastic series of articles and interviews from this years WSF, which are well worth a read.
There are interviews with activists, lots more interviews, calls for the WSF to Evolve, and even some criticism of the WSF.
Apparently, unlike previous Forums, the 2009 WSF also produced a host of resolutions - including the Declaration of the Assembly of Social Movements.
Topics: Global Justice Movement | 1 Comment »
Ideas for the G20’s agenda on the Global Economic Crisis
By Michael Cebon | February 1, 2009
In April, the leaders of the G20 group of countries will meet again in London to discuss responses to the global economic/financial crisis which is still unravelling. Dani Rodrik’s Blog links to an interesting new initiative: the Global Crisis Debate - a partnership between the VoxEU website and the UK government aimed at generating ideas for the April 2 summit of the G20.
The debate has 5 themes
- Development (Moderator: Dani Rodrik)
- Macro (Moderator: Philip Lane)
- Regulation (Moderator: Luigi Zingales)
- Institutional reform (Moderator: Francesco Giavazzi)
- Open markets (Moderator: Richard Baldwin)
While much of the commentary the so far is fairly conservative, Rodrik provides the lead commentary for the Development section, and it’s definitely worth a read. Rodrik uses the opportunity to put forward an ambitious agenda for global economic policy reform, including:
- Reform of the lending policies of the IMF & WB
- A crack-down on tax havens and tax evasions by corporations and the rich in the West
- A Tobin Tax on currency speculation which would raise billions of dollars which could be spent on development assistance, green technology promotion and fighting tropical diseases.
(Let’s hope somebody reads it and takes notice!)
Among other articles on the site that are worth a read is the response to Rodrik from Nancy Birsall from the Centre for Global Development which argues that before any serious economic policy changes (such as those Rodrik suggests) happen at the global level, there first needs to be reform at the IMF and World Bank – giving developing countries a real say for the first time. Birdsall says that this will only happen if developing countries collectively put their feet down and demand it.
But the big question in response to this is: will the US government – which maintains a veto over the decisions of these institutions and has done so for 60 years since their inception – relax its hold and allow this to happen? Ultimately, the answer lies in President Obama’s hands….
Topics: G20, Global Economics, IMF & World Bank | 2 Comments »