Philippine-U.S. FTA: A Skewed
Deal in the Making
The
country cannot hope for a “mutually-beneficial” relationship with the U.S.
through a free trade agreement founded on the
U.S. neocolonial agenda.
By Sonny Africa and Joseph Yu
IBON
Features
Posted by Bulatlat
President Gloria Arroyo recently put
negotiations for a Philippines-U.S. free trade agreement on the front
burner, ordering the Department of Trade and Industry to start talks with
the United States. This is the latest development in the deepening of
economic relations between the Philippines and the U.S., which was sparked
by renewed military relations due to Arroyo’s support for the US-led War
on Terror.
But the U.S.’s pursuit of closer economic
relations is not limited to the Philippines. In fact, it is promoting its
trade and liberalization agenda globally on multilateral, bilateral and
regional fronts. But the breakdown of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
ministerial meetings in
Seattle and Cancun has apparently led to the U.S. government’s impatience
in pushing trade liberalization through multilateral mechanisms, prompting
an intensification of its campaign to forge regional and bilateral trade
agreements without waiting for the WTO process.
Thus in the last three years, the U.S. has
concluded some 15 regional and bilateral trade agreements and negotiations
for at least a dozen more are currently ongoing, including one with the
Philippines.
Reasserting economic
dominance
The U.S. has been the country’s most
important economic partner since colonial times and even after achieving
political independence. It continues to maintain this position even to the
present day. From 1990 to 2004, U.S. equity investments accounted for more
than 22 percent of total equity investments. In 2004, exports to the U.S.
made up 17 percent of total Philippine exports while U.S. imports
accounted for 16 percent of the total. U.S.-based corporations continue to
have dominant positions in the domestic economy.
This dominance is the result of the
country’s continuing neocolonial relationship with America. The
Philippines is heavily dependent on the U.S. as a market for its exports.
At the same time, the lack of a genuine local industrial base means the
domestic economy relies on imported raw materials and intermediate goods.
U.S. presence is also very much felt by Filipino consumers, not only in
manufactured products but also in services. Thus, the U.S. is the central
force in the local economy that determines the flow of trade and
consequently, overall economic expansion.
The U.S. secured this favored position
through blatantly inequitable bilateral trade agreements such as the
Laurel-Langley Agreement of 1954 and the Bell Trade Act of 1946. To
recall, these agreements opened the country to American manufactured
exports while giving American citizens equal economic rights to Filipinos.
But with the expiration of Laurel-Langley
in 1974, U.S. dominance has steadily eroded since the 1970s, while the
influence of Japan
over the Philippine economy has grown. Although
Japan has not displaced the U.S.’s
dominant position, it has meant that the superpower has lost key sectors
in terms of exports to the Philippines such as motor vehicles, meat, and
poultry.
To defend and maintain its supremacy, the
U.S.
wants the Philippine government to sustain its advanced position in
implementing the liberalization, deregulation and privatization of the
national economy. This is why the
U.S. wants an FTA with the country.
Willing collaborators
The Arroyo administration’s development
program is attuned with the U.S. neocolonial agenda. In fact, her
Medium-Term Development Program interlocks with U.S. business goals and
concerns. The enactment of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA),
for example, creates new opportunities for U.S. firms to invest in the
power industry.
But Arroyo’s economic policies have been
such failures that the lives of millions of Filipinos are worse off today
than when she took office in 2001. To illustrate, the numbers of
unemployed and underemployed (those looking for more work) have reached
record numbers. Water and electricity rates have skyrocketed but wages
have remained stagnant.
Despite the widespread rejection of
Arroyo’s economic policies, as shown by her intense unpopularity among the
public, government is still willing to make “sacrifices” and implement
further neoliberal reforms. These reforms include more incentives for
foreign investors, continuing implementation of power sector
privatization, opening of the mining industry to foreign investors and
agri-business promotion instead of genuine agrarian reform. Government is
effectively creating further opportunities for
U.S.
transnational corporations to make mega-profits by exploiting the
country’s workers and resources while bringing more suffering to
Filipinos.
But the most wide-reaching reform being
pursued by Arroyo is the revision of the Constitution to remove economic
provisions giving protection to the domestic economy. These include
restrictions on foreign ownership of land and limitations on foreign
investment in vital economic sectors such as media and telecommunications.
The U.S. has long been lobbying for the removal of these provisions,
calling them barriers to increased trade and investment. But the removal
of these Constitutional restrictions would strip away whatever little
protections the charter offers to the local economy, paving the way for
the US to cement its economic domination.
U.S. colonial agenda
Defenders of a Philippines-U.S. FTA say
that free trade would boost the Philippine economy. A bilateral FTA would
mean the free flow of goods, services, persons and capital with the U.S.,
with the elimination of tariffs for various farm and industrial products.
But “free trade” in the context of the
country’s neocolonial relationship with America, may result in growth due
to increased economic activity, but the benefits of these would mainly be
limited to U.S.-based industrial, agribusiness and service corporations
and their local partners.
An FTA with the U.S. would clearly not be
based on the “level playing field” necessary for free trade to benefit
both parties. Instead, the U.S. will exploit its monopoly advantages of
its corporations to completely overwhelm Filipino farms and businesses and
capture as much of the local market as it can.
This is why the local farm sector is the
most vehement against an FTA. They are reportedly concerned over the
possible influx of low-priced U.S. farm goods such as corn once a free
trade agreement is in place. Corn is considered the main crop of farmers
in Mindanao
but it is also a major U.S.
produce. U.S. farmers also receive large subsidies from the government
while Filipino farmers do not.
A healthy and mutually beneficial
Philippine-U.S. relationship can never be realized as long as the
framework for “cooperation” between the two countries is founded on the
U.S.’s neocolonial agenda. IBON Features / Posted by Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2005 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.