Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
International Trade Agreements
Picture Credit: Hannah Arem Neoliberal ideology claims that international trade is an important factor for the development of poor countries and their integration into the global economy. Rich governments' promotion of these ideals has led them to develop an array of new trade agreements such as the FTAA and CAFTA. These bilateral, multilateral, and regional accords strongly affect people at all levels of the economy--from growers and workers, to processors and consumers --by regulating pricing, tariffs, export levels, and methods of production. Though supporters claim that trade agreements bring sustainable development and economic integration, this is not the case. Rich countries maintain protections of their own exports, while their competitors in poor countries agree to open their markets. Beneficial norms, such as human rights or environmental standards, are set aside. This leads to a "race to the bottom," in which the only priority is cost effective production, at the expense of workers, resources, and sustainability. Due to these failings, the agreements tend harm development and pull poor countries deeper into poverty.
More Information on
International Trade and Development | US Economic Expansion | Movement for Global Justice | World Trade Organization | Globalization of the Economy
Articles and Documents
2008 |2007 | 2006 | Archived Articles
Multilateralism and Regionalism: The New Interface (November 30, 2005)
With an increasing number of regional trade agreements around the globe, this report tries to clarify the complex interaction between multilateral and regional arrangements. The report encourages trade between poor countries to strengthen their role in the global market. However, to foster development, governments should spread the gains of trade more equally among their populations. (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)
Nicaraguan NGOs, labor and agriculture associations fear the effects of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) on Nicaraguan society. If implemented, Katarina Wahlberg argues, CAFTA will threaten food security, increase unemployment and worsen labor conditions. (Global Policy Forum)2008
EU-India Free Trade Talks: In Whose Interest? (February 4, 2008)
“Official rhetoric” praises the free trade negotiations between the EU and India as occurring between two “allies.” In reality, the EU and India are extremely unequal partners, with India standing to gain much less from a free trade deal than the EU. The EU has supported India with development aid for decades, but this agreement on trade liberalization will “undermine poverty elimination, food security and social balance.” (World Economy & Development In Brief)2007
The EU Is Bullying the World’s Poor to Rush Into a Dubious Deal on Trade (November 19, 2007)
The European Union is pressing former European colonies to sign an Economic Partnership Agreement before the end of 2007. The EU is attempting to reverse its previous discriminatory trade practices with these countries and appease the World Trade Organization. African and Pacific countries report of massive lobbying and threats by the EU to withhold aid should the poor countries fail to sign the agreement. (Guardian)Everybody Is Pushing Free Trade on Africa (November 12, 2007)
The author of this allAfrica article urges Uganda and other African countries to oppose the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with the EU and instead use tariffs and subsidies to promote economic growth. Pointing to the success Korea and Taiwan had following such policies, the author argues that the African continent will not benefit from the free trade promoted by the Europeans, but from fair trade.''A Foreigner Cannot Develop Us'' (September 24, 2007)
East African governments and NGOs question the benefits of the economic partnership agreement (EPA) with the EU. These trade agreements have not encouraged countries to add value to their exports, so many countries remain dependent on unrefined primary product trade, such as coffee and sugar. They also face further barriers as the EU increasingly hinders imports of industrialized products from outside the Union. The African countries are also concerned that their industries will not be able to out-compete Asian imports. (Inter Press Service)New Warnings on FTAs (September 10, 2007)
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz warns that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) do not benefit poor countries. By regulating intellectual property, the FTAs restrict countries’ access to generic medicine, leading to the death of thousands of poor people from curable diseases. Stiglitz argues further that the FTAs threaten the sovereignty of poor countries whose governments may lose the ability to promote local businesses and to raise funds for development through taxes and tariffs. Countries such as the US are concerned not only with trade, but with promoting “a particular agenda.” (Star Online)Africa: Countries Stand Up to EU (August 28, 2007)
Leading up to the September 2007 round of negotiations of the Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU, sixteen Common Market Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) countries oppose the EU’s attempt to lower trade barriers which will open African markets to EU products. Such a decision would have devastating effects on African industrial capacity and tariff revenues. COMESA also draws attention to the absurdity of the EU using a relatively developed country such as South Africa as a standard for the African continent’s capacity to handle lost revenue. (Inter Press Service)US-Korean Food Fight (August 24, 2007)
This Foreign Policy in Focus article illustrates the negative economic effects of the US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA)on Korean agriculture. The FTA would seriously undermine Korean agricultural production and food safety laws, leading to a complete restructuring of the local agricultural practice. Korea’s National Policy Institute estimates that the country’s agriculture may well disappear within the next 10-15 years as a result of the new FTA. Washington has suggested that the FTA could function as a blueprint for other US trade liberalization agreements with countries across Asia, which would lead to similar adverse consequences.Sovereignty, NAFTA Loom Large at Summit (August 22, 2007)
At the annual NAFTA summit, the US, Canada, and Mexico discussed how to secure borders while allowing the free flow of goods and services across borders. But critics are concerned that NAFTA constitutes a “super-government” with no accountability to citizens who are directly affected by the agreements. In the US for instance, some fear that the decisions made by the Bush administration at NAFTA “may actually undermine the security and sovereignty of the US.” Meanwhile Mexico is concerned that the US is meddling in its internal affairs. (Christian Science Monitor)Nationwide Protests Rock Peru, Bush Seeks Allies in Latin America (July 19, 2007)
Peruvian citizens are protesting in large numbers after Peruvian President Alan Garcia signed on to a free trade agreement with the US. While Garcia’s shift toward neo-liberal economic policy benefits the national economy, it has not improved conditions for the majority of Peru’s population, which “survives on less than a dollar a day.” Many analysts argue that the Bush administration is trying to secure free trade agreements with Latin American countries including Peru, Colombia, and Panama in order to counter Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s leftist influence in the region. (Toward Freedom)Signing Away the Future--Summary (March 20, 2007)
This Oxfam report finds that rich countries are using regional and bilateral trade deals to attain “enormous irreversible concessions” from poor countries, making these agreements far more damaging to development than anything proposed under World Trade Organization negotiations. Arguing that these deals have “grave implications” both for the environment and for economic growth, Oxfam calls for trade rules that recognize the rights of developing countries and work to reduce poverty.Iran Deal Clouds Free Trade Plans With US (February 7, 2007)
The Bush administration has put a free trade deal with Malaysia on hold after Kuala Lumpur signed an energy agreement with Iran. This Inter Press Service article argues that the US – desperate to isolate Iran over its nuclear program – is attempting to pressure the Malaysian government to abandon its deal with Iran. However, Malaysian Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz stated in response that the free trade negotiations will not be “held hostage to any political demand.”2006
ACP Calls for More Development Aid from EU (December 10, 2006)
Under World Trade Organization rules, the European Union’s preferential trade agreements with 79 countries of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are “no longer legal.” Gathering in Khartoum for its heads of state summit in December 2006, the ACP group discussed the January 2008 replacement of the preferential EU-ACP trade agreements with EPAs (Economic Partnership Agreements), where parties have to open their markets reciprocally. The summit issued a statement calling for more EU aid to compensate for lost tariff revenues and finance investments in infrastructure to prepare domestic industries for increased competition. (Agencia de Informacao de Mocambique)Doha: Dormant but Dangerous, The EU's Treacherous Trade Strategy (December 2, 2006)
Despite the official suspension of the WTO negotiations, “it’s a mistake to believe that nothing is happening under WTO auspices,” says Susan George of Transnational Institute in this piece. The EU trade commissioner has been holding GAT (General Agreement on Tariffs)-related negotiations - one of them hidden from the European Parliament - ultimately serving to limit countries’ possibilities for regulating entry of transnational corporations into their markets. On a parallel basis, the EU tries to “cover the world” with bilateral trade agreements promoting “total market access in all areas for European transnationals,” says the author.Patents versus Patients: Five Years After the Doha Declaration (November 14, 2006)
The ‘Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ asserts that WTO members must allow poor countries’ to produce generic medicines to protect public health. Five years after its enactment, Oxfam reviews the agreement, and finds that rich countries display a very poor record of honoring their promises. Through free trade agreements, the US negotiates “TRIPS-plus” rules that increase patent protection and undermine poor countries’ public health safeguards, while EU countries let their companies benefit from the US negotiated rules. Oxfam calls for rich countries to stop pushing for stricter intellectual property rules, for poor countries to resist TRIPS-plus rules, and for the WTO to review the impact of TRIPS on public health.EU Move Could Bring Disaster to the Poor (October 4, 2006)
This Inter Press Service article reports on the disturbing announcement by EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson that the EU must pursue a policy of “opening markets abroad” and will start negotiating a new generation of bilateral trade agreements. Following the collapse of the World Trade Organization Doha Round of negotiations, the EU thus sadly seems to embrace a unilateral approach of using economic might to force agreements upon individual poor countries. Agreements that mainly benefit western corporations while causing losses of jobs and income in these countries.ALBA Venezuela’s Answer to “Free Trade” (October 2006)
This paper published by Focus on the Global South analyzes the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) as a substitute to the neoliberal US-supported Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and other Latin American integration efforts such as Mercosur. The ALBA initiative – organized by Presidents Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales of Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia respectively – aims to promote regional integration through “social welfare and equity” rather than trade liberalization. The authors conclude that the widespread support ALBA receives in the region demonstrates that the majority of Latin Americans no longer have faith in the neoliberal model that has left so many mired in poverty.Arrested Development (August 10, 2006)
Given the “corrupt system of campaign-contributions-for-subsidies” in US politics, it came as no surprise that the Doha trade negotiations failed to produce the promised development agreement. In fact, former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues, poor countries feel relieved that they steered clear of a “development” agreement maintaining the status quo or making them worse off. World leaders must now avoid creating a myriad of unfair bilateral trade agreements. Particularly aiming at Europe, Stiglitz strongly appeals to governments not to follow the US example of unilateralism in the international trade system. (Guardian)Publication of a Mission Report on the Effects on Human Rights of the NAFTA (May 11, 2006)
NAFTA has had detrimental consequences on multiple sectors of the Mexican economy. NAFTA grants more power to transnational companies, while reducing the bargaining power of the common worker. The full report by the International Federation for Human Rights addresses the shortcomings of current labor policy in Mexico and calls for reform.A People’s Trade Agreement (April 29, 2006)
The Presidents of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia signed a People’s Trade Agreement (PTA) proposed by Bolivian Head of State Evo Morales. Opposing most existing free trade agreements (FTAs), the PTA considers trade and investment not as ends in themselves but rather as “potential paths to development.” Most FTAs lead to exploitation of natural resources and destruction of poor countries’ small and medium size industries. To transfer economic benefits to the people, the PTA states, governments should regulate foreign investors and transnational companies on their territories. (Quest for Peace)Blame NAFTA (April 13, 2006)
As the discussion on US immigration law heats up, AlterNet looks at the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which originally promised to reduce illegal immigration through fostering development in neighboring Mexico. Although increased trade and foreign investment reflect NAFTA’s “smashing success”, Mexico’s population suffers from its negative consequences, such as decreased real wages. In addition, few Mexicans benefit from an exporting industry that imports 97% of the parts processed in its factories.Oman Pact Boosts US Agenda in the Middle East (January 21, 2006)
The US has signed another free trade agreement with a Middle-East country, this time with Oman. This agreement will promote US corporate interests in the region and increase the pressure on bigger countries like Egypt and Saudi-Arabia, to join a Middle-East Free Trade Area (MEFTA). Trade-watch groups fear the agreement will harm development and make the region more economically dependent on the US. Inter Press ServiceThai Farmers Fear Free Trade Deal with US (January 6, 2006)
The planed free trade area between the US and Thailand would harm Thailand’s economy. By eliminating tariffs on agricultural goods, highly subsidized US farm goods will flood the local market and increase poverty among millions of farmers. In addition, the trade deal’s provision on intellectual property rights will prevent Thailand from providing cheap generic anti-HIV drugs to its 670,000 infected people. (Inter Press Service)
Archived Articles
More Information on Social and Economic Policy
More Information on International Trade and Development
More Information on the Movement for Global Justice
More Information on Globalization of the Economy
