US-RP free trade pact a blow to economic sovereignty
MEDIA RELEASE
IBON Foundation, Inc., 3/F SCC Bldg 4427 Interior Old Sta Mesa, Manila
Tel. +632 713-2729, +632 713-2737 E-mail: media@ibon.org
References: Rosario Bella Guzman (Executive Director)
Antonio Tujan (Research Director)
March 18, 2005
A MODERN-DAY VERSION OF THE BELL TRADE ACT:
US-RP FREE TRADE AGREEMENT A BLOW TO ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY
IBON calls on the Arroyo government to discontinue any negotiation on the proposed bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) with the US, saying that the free trade pact is a blow to economic sovereignty and would bring the economy back to the era of the Bell Trade Act, which has stunted the Philippine economy to its pre-industrial level.
This is the reason why the Bureau of Trade Relations (BTR) has been refusing to make known even the existence of such agreement. IBON criticizes the Philippine trade representatives for denying and concealing the details of the FTA. Since last year, IBON has been requesting the BTR officials to reveal the details of the proposed FTA, but to no avail.
IBON stresses that an agreement that spells tremendous impact on the local economy should be made public. No developing country in Asia has signed a free trade pact with the US because of the extreme blow it would bring to their economies. In Thailand, widespread protests are escalating against the proposed FTA with the US.
Contrary to the Assistant Trade Representative’s statement that an RP-US bilateral FTA will boost the Philippine economy, the pact would only benefit the US and will perpetuate the age-old colonial subjugation of the Philippines under the US.
IBON says that the FTA will remove all impediments to trade and investment and increase the unhampered entry of US commodities to the Philippine market.
A bilateral free trade pact will also entail the provision of national treatment to US investors in the country and allow easy repatriation of profits—all at the expense of domestic goods and capital.
With a bilateral FTA, World Trade Organization (WTO) schedules for tariff reduction or elimination, for instance, can also be accelerated. With a bilateral deal, certain commodities or services not covered by the WTO agreements can be negotiated bilaterally and allow US control over the Philippine economy.
IBON likens the FTA to the free trade pacts Bell Trade Act of 1946, and the Laurel-Langley Agreement of 1954, which the US imposed on the Philippines to assure continued dominance over the country’s trade and economy.
The Bell Trade Act effectively made the country dependent on imported US-made commodities, and allowed US corporations to immediately repatriate their profits. The Laurel-Langley meanwhile, allowed US companies to enjoy the same rights and privileges reserved to Filipinos and effectively protected their businesses in the Philippines.
IBON says that the Arroyo government should instead concern itself with finding measures to protect local agriculture and industries already ravaged by increased liberalization. It should realize that a mutually beneficial RP-US relationship can never be realized as long as the framework for “cooperation” between two countries is founded on the US colonial agenda.
