>THE TIMES OF INDIA
>
>THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2002
>
>US, Singapore near trade deal
>
>[...]
>In addition to Singapore, the White House hopes to wrap up a free-trade deal
>with Chile by the end of the year. It is also starting talks with five
>countries in Central America and with Australia, and it is trying to open
>talks with other countries in Southeast Asia.
There are a few reservations in Oz about a free trade deal with the US. This from today's Melbourne Age (though it isn't as good as the article by Kenneth Davidson I posted here on August 1):
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2002/11/22/1037697872715.htm
All the way with a free trade deal
Date: November 23 2002
The proposed free trade deal with the US could have a high price tag - our sovereignty, writes Hugh Mackay.
The republic debate might or might not sputter into new life. Meanwhile, we are about to face another national issue with far more radical consequences than the head of state question.
Mooted negotiations for a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States may well bring to fruition one of our Prime Minister's fondest dreams - but they will also turn the spotlight on an aspect of capitalism not often debated: how much control should trading partners exert over each other's economic and cultural sovereignty?
That's just a polite way of asking a more sleazy question: how much bribery or blackmail should be built into the price of anything? The tension between economic pressure and moral values is as old as trade itself, and now we are going to see, up close, how a modern democratic government resolves it.
We've already had an inkling. When the Federal Government declined to make official contact with the Dalai Lama on his recent visit to Australia, it was generally understood that this was a matter of diplomacy: any suggestion that the Australian Government might be offering support or encouragement to Tibet's spiritual leader-in-exile would be bound to offend the Chinese Government, since China refuses to accept Tibet's independence and is repressing its religion and culture.
But when the Prime Minister announced, soon after the Dalai Lama's visit, that a deal had been struck with China for the purchase of Australian gas - the biggest contract we have entered into with another country - it became clear why the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly have been entertained. Offend China by consorting with him; put the gas deal at risk. Simple.
Who would dare to say that a conversation with the Dalai Lama was more important than a big contract? Who would be naive enough to suggest that outrage over human rights violations in China and Tibet should be allowed to impinge on a commercial transaction of such monumental significance?
Maybe it's that simple; maybe it isn't. Maybe there's no need for sqeamishness over such a trade-off; maybe there is.
Either way, the looming FTA negotiations should prove instructive. In return for Australia being offered better access to US markets for beef, lamb and other farm and manufactured products, the US is asking our government to make some truly amazing concessions: abandon our power of veto over foreign investment proposals from US companies; change our GM food labelling laws; dismantle our "single desk" organisations for the marketing of commodities like wheat; and even relax our quarantine rules.
At a time when the Federal Government has garnered strong community support for its border protection strategies ("We have the right to decide who comes here"), serious consideration is apparently being given to the idea that another country might override our foreign investment rules and quarantine regulations in return for a greater willingness to buy our products.
Actually, the situation is even murkier than that: the prospect of an FTA has also been explicitly linked to our military support for the US. In a letter to Congress from trade representative Bob Zoellick, the Bush administration has stated that a free trade agreement with Australia would "strengthen the foundation of our security alliance". That sounds suspiciously like an offer to reward Australia's willing embrace of US military strategies by creating more liberal trading opportunities for us.
Ponder the implications of that. Does the US administration mean to say that if Australia proved to be a less than uncritical ally, the trade deal would be off? That would suggest an economic imperialism of breathtaking arrogance. Would the US really try to intimidate us by the threat of economic sanctions if we failed to support its military goals?
Or was the inclusion of that reference to "our security alliance" an unfortunate slip? Surely an Australian decision not to support a unilateral US attack on Iraq, for example, would have no impact on America's willingness to trade with us - or would it?
Trade and security used to be two different kettles of fish. Given the FTA overtures now being made, there appears some danger that Australia will be drawn into a deal that, implicitly at least, not only puts military conditions on our trading arrangements, but also challenges our right to control our own economic destiny.
A deal like that would create a very different Australia: we'd be so beholden to the US that we'd be at risk of being treated like a de facto 52nd state.
Perhaps last weekend's attempt to crank up the Australian republic debate missed the point: if Uncle Sam has his economic way with us, our attitude to the British monarchy will become as redundant as America's.
Hugh Mackay is an author and social researcher.