More on AUSFTA

Talked to Carl on the phone yesterday. Complained about how much I was missing him, how things weren't moving as fast as I wanted them to, insofar as job transfers were concerned, and how I was falling ill because of my obsessing over things I have no control over. Again, my sweet could only remind me to take it one day at a time, and be patient.

I did tell him I was amusing myself with this diplomatic row between the Philippines and Australia. We talked about it for a bit and he did enlighten me with an explanation of that part of the Aussie psyche which deals with the Yellow Peril Syndrome. He defines this as an unfounded fear of a takeover by Australia's Asian neighbors. Ridiculous as it may sound, it seems that landlocked Aussies actually are terrified by the fact that they are alone as a non-Asian nation in the Asia-Pacific region. I broached my theory that Australia's present leadership is seeking a stronger presence in that region. Carl says it's not farfetched.

Below are "clippings" from articles in an Aussie paper. I like the SMH. It's easy to read, the op-ed writers are very down-to-earth in their writing style and clear in their views. Suffice it to say, I find these Aussie sentiments quite refreshing.

From the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, online edition:

No free trade in so-called free trade agreement
By Ross Gittins
July 19, 2004

Citing Peter Urban, Australia's consul-general to the US from 1989 to 1994 and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's chief economist in 1995 and 1996:

The area where the United States retains a global competitive edge is in services and goods embodying intellectual property - software, films, music, many capital goods, pharmaceuticals etc.

And the last thing the US wants for these IP goods and services is free trade. The fact is, the US wants monopoly or oligopoly pricing for these goods and services, not competitive pricing.

The US has been pursuing its IP trade agenda quite single-mindedly for more than the last decade. xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx [T]he US has a culture of aggressive use of patents (and patent enforcement) and the US patent office is granting very broad patents (for example, on double clicking) for IT.

The result - the US government and US industry are looking to trying to use IP protection as a major element in their strategy to protect the position of the United States as a major economic power.

xxx xxx xxx

We (i.e., Australians) are significant consumers of IP goods and services. Indeed, Australia's fast uptake of IP has been a major driver of our rapid productivity growth over the last decade or so.

For this to continue, Australian industry needs access to these goods and services at competitive prices. Yes, it is in our long-term interests that US producers of IP earn reasonable returns. If they don't, they will reduce their investment in new IP.

It is not in our interests, however, to help the US institutionalise its market power in IP markets.

The bottom line: AUSFTA is just another case of that hoary old marketing ploy of "bait and switch". We were promised a real FTA but that's not what we will get if we sign this FTA.

Sovereignty lost in the trade-off
By Alan Ramsey
July 31, 2004

Consider reality, not make-believe. The so-called FTA is not a trade agreement, free or otherwise. It is a political deal with George Bush. What the United States Congress, at Bush's bidding, has given the Howard Government, in gratitude for embracing the lies and manipulation that took both countries into Iraq, is a signed piece of paper, no more and no less. Its immense value is that it enables Howard to spin an electoral illusion to seduce voters, as well as use as a cudgel should Labor challenge it. It is, Howard prays, the key piece in his election strategy to stay Prime Minister.

A plague on both their houses on the FTA
By Margo Kingston
August 1, 2004

Citing Ex-Australian ambassador Tony Kevin's stunning commentary:
Latham’s fateful choice, and Peter Beattie’s cargo cult economics

This FTA isn’t about protecting Australian jobs or capital. This shonky deal is about John Howard trying to salvage something politically from the mess of his Iraq policy – to try to convince credulous voters that he has plucked some alleged economic benefit for Australia out of the tragic and shameful Iraq invasion imbroglio.

But he hasn’t. The Emperor has no clothes. There is not enough real benefit in this FTA for us. Even Vaile wanted no deal in the end – why are we all burying that recorded fact?

Ironically, the structure of this agreement – the small print - offers good prospect of benefits for US exporters and investors. Zoellick knew a good deal when he saw one. They are being offered preferential access to Australia’s national garage sale. Lots of good stuff to sell – but only one buyer, thank you – big, rich and white. You can see who will win there. No wonder the US Congress fell over itself to vote for this deal. As Zoellick murmured quietly, Australia offers "the low-hanging fruit", The Canberra Times' Jack Waterford reported the US diplomat as saying to him? "We like you Aussies, because you are such an easy lay". Thanks again, John, for taking such good care of us. There is no net benefit to Australia in this FTA. There is only farmer disappointment, and unacceptable risk, and loss of sovereignty. We do not need this so-called Free Trade Agreement.

Political drama without a happy ending
By Alan Ramsey
July 31, 2004

Megan Elliott, executive director, Australian Writers Guild: "What is in this agreement for the US? One might ask how much bigger a share of the Australian audiovisual market do US companies want? Or is this free trade agreement more about setting a precedent for negotiating with the European Union? We have now had the opportunity to study the text of the agreement and we have found there is no economic benefit to the audiovisual sector at all. Australia will not gain any greater access to the US market ... [And] the agreement will severely constrain the ability of this and future Australian governments to determine cultural policy, giving the US government a much stronger role in determination of that policy. We will be moving from a position of being solely in charge of our own cultural policy to one where we must consult the largest cultural producer in the world..."

This is a mere taste. The detail of what the proposed FTA means for Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme and its consumers - the real detail - is a nightmare by comparison.

Picking the low-hanging fruit first
by Brian Bahnisch

What's in it for the Americans?

First of all there are strategic geopolitical considerations. You do not have sign up to every military adventure, but you do have to behave. New Zealanders need not apply. The US does see trade in terms of national security, indeed in terms of consolidating their hegemonic position in the world.

Second, the US will always act to further the interests of its corporations.

Third, this FTA is said to be the first with an advanced economy. (I'm not sure where that leaves Singapore!) As such it is important in setting standards for further deals, both bilateral and multilateral.

Anti-US? Most Australians would call it Anti-Bush.