May, 27 2009, 02:06pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone: (202) 223-4975,Email:,coha@coha.org
Free Trade With Panama: Some Winners and Some Losers
-Will the pact work for the average Panamanian and what’s in it for the elite and U.S. Agro-Industry
WASHINGTON
convened in order to address a number of controversial issues that have
sprung up regarding the pending U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) with
Panama. Following the hearing, U.S. Trade Representative for Western
Hemisphere Affairs Everett Eissenstat announced that President Obama
would consult with U.S. lawmakers before sending the controversial FTA
to Congress for approval.
In early March, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
issued a statement of intent, indicating that it would move on the
pending Panama Free Trade Agreement "relatively quickly." However, a
number of road blocks, including strong U.S. labor opposition and
concerns over Panama's classification as a tax haven, are currently
holding up the FTA's ratification in the U.S. Congress.
The Free Trade Agreement, which has been re-branded as a "Trade
Promotion Agreement (TPC)," in order to distance itself from the
controversy surrounding other FTAs, was signed by the Bush
administration on June 28, 2007. The accord was passed by Panama's
assembly the following month, in what some have called a rushed and
non-transparent process. Critics attacked the legislation on grounds
that no Spanish version of the agreement had been made available, and
that members of civil society who were known to be opposed to the pact
were not given adequate time to review and comment on the text. The
opposition within Panama has been made up of a mixed bag of labor
unions, farmer groups, leftist politicians and progressive church
voices, who, according to one Panamanian reporter, developed their own
meaning for the acronym TPC: "Todo Panama Colonizado" (All of Panama
Colonized).
Nevertheless, both the Torrijos government and now the
president-elect of Panama, Ricardo Martinelli, have been pushing hard
to get the agreement ratified before those who oppose the trade pact on
human rights grounds are able to block its passage on the Hill.
Torrijos has expressed his desire to see the accord passed before he
leaves office on July 1. While some trade specialists are convinced
that the U.S.-Panama FTA will pass the U.S. Congress, a number of
highly regarded analysts think to the contrary. According to Eric
Jackson of Panama News, "I would expect this treaty to die,
but I also expect talks about a new proposal to eventually take place
between the Obama and Martinelli administrations. Those would not be
easy negotiations."
The Panamanian government has insisted that none of the issues
holding up the FTA in Congress are, in its eyes, legitimate concerns.
Talking with Reuters, Martinelli's top economic advisor Frank de Lima
claimed that the "perception that Panama is a tax haven is totally
false." He went on to assert that Panama respects labor rights and
collective bargaining. However, a growing body of evidence increasingly
points to the contrary.
Panama's Phantom Economy
For decades, Panama has adjusted its laws and regulations in order to
ensure that its 'business climate' is one of the most competitive in
the world. On the other hand, critics maintain that such regulation
offers a number of opportunities for foreign companies interested in
dodging fair taxes, exploiting malleable labor regulations, and taking
advantage of shrouded financial transparency. Panama's level of Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) has skyrocketed since legislation was passed in
1992 which established "Export Processing Zones (EPZs)" in a number of
locations across the country. Companies from all over the world are
welcome to establish factories in these zones for "light manufacturing,
assembly, high technology, and specialized and general services."
Companies operating there are exempt from all taxation on imports and
exports, sales tax, and imports on capital and assets. In addition,
EPZs are free from all restrictive national labor and immigration
standards. Instead, they are allowed to operate under provisions which
are "more favorable [to foreign companies] than the current Panamanian
Labor Code."
Since Public Citizen released a report in April 2009
highlighting the country's banking secrecy rules and lax financial
regulations, there has been much circulation in the media concerning
Panama's status as a top tax haven. All foreign corporations conducting
business in Panama are exempt from national taxes, making the country a
"100 percent tax haven," according to the report. It comes as no
surprise that over 350,000 foreign-registered companies nominally
operate from Panama, and $25 billion of U.S. investment already has
been sunk into the country, according to the U.S. State Department.
In addition to tax incentives, Panamanian law also makes it easy for
multinational corporations to "cook the books." According to the Public Citizen
report, "Panama has one of the world's most restrictive information
exchange regimes," which allows the country to withhold information
even within the framework of a criminal investigation. Moreover,
extremely strict slander laws known as "Calumnia Y Injuria" rules can
be used to arrest journalists for reporting facts and figures, if they
do not reflect well on business interests. This lack of transparency,
coupled with a lenient regulatory system governing the country's
banking and financial sectors, enables corporations to "conceal their
financial losses and engage in off-balance sheet activities." Evidence
also links Panama's Colon Free Zone (CFZ) with trafficking of narcotics
and other illicit substances, in addition to off-shore activities
carried on by foreign corporations. Panama's CFZ, which is the second
largest free trade zone in the world, provides a centrally located
"transit area for drugs and related money laundering," activities
moving up through Mexico to its northern border, according to the
International Monetary Fund.
The illicit matters have grown even more controversial since the
G-20's recent conference decided to crack down on tax havens and step
up financial regulation as key steps toward global financial recovery.
Various U.S. government bodies estimate that closing global tax havens
would save U.S. taxpayers between $210 Billion and $1 Trillion over the
next decade.
A free trade agreement with Panama, argues Public Citizen,
would actually hinder efforts on the part of the US government to crack
down on tax evasion and money laundering in Panama. The proposed FTA
contains provisions that forbid cross-border regulations on financial
transactions between the U.S. and Panama, and would provide
subsidiaries operating in Panama enhanced "investor rights," enabling
them to challenge any attempt by the U.S. government to monitor or
limit financial transactions. In the words of Lori Wallach, director of
Global Trade Watch: "Members of Congress wouldn't vote to let AIG not
pay its taxes or to give Mexican drug lords a safe place to hide their
proceeds from selling drugs to our kids, but that's in essence what the
Panama FTA does."
Bad News for Labor
According to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who has been straining
to get safe passage for the Panama trade measure during his short time
in this position, Panama has made "very good progress" on labor issues
hindering U.S. approval of a free trade agreement. Kirk and others
point to the fact that the agreement incorporates the policies of the
"New Trade Policy for the Americas (TPA)." This provision contains the
same labor and environmental protections which were added to the
recently enacted US-Peru FTA. However, in Peru such punative
protections failed to guard labor or the environment from being scaled
back and hassled as result of its FTA being enacted. Additionally, the
U.S. Labor Advisory Committee stated in its report that the labor
stipulations in the Panama FTA "will not protect the fundamental human
rights of workers in either country." Although the FTA makes reference
to the UN International Labor Organization's Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work Declaration, it contains no provisions that would force
the signatories to strictly implement the UN's labor standards.
Further, the agreement does not prevent Panama from "weakening or
reducing the protections afforded in domestic labor laws" in any future
effort it may make to "encourage trade or investment."
The U.S.-Panama FTA contains only one enforceable labor provision: a
requirement for the government to adhere to its own labor laws.
Unfortunately, there is a significant canard involved in this language.
Panama's labor track record is not entirely clean; in August 2007 two
construction union members were assassinated while demonstrating for
worker rights. Furthermore, if existing labor laws are broken, the
FTA's "dispute settlement system," set in place to uphold these
standards, serves as little more than window-dressing. The maximum
government fine is capped at $15 million, which amounts to about
one-tenth of one percent of total US-Panama trade in 2006.
Additionally, these funds, in the unlikely circumstance that they ever
will be collected, are paid a "joint commission to improve labor rights
enforcement," which in turn could be easily funneled back into
Panamanian government's coffers.
Given that the Panamanian labor code does not even apply in Export
Processing Zones, and in conjunction with the fact that approximately
two-thirds of Panamanian workers operate in the informal economy, the
remedial power of any labor provisions that might be included in the
agreement would be severely limited. This FTA will ultimately exonerate
the signatories from meeting an acceptable human rights standard.
Agriculture Markets and Rural Poverty
In addition to labor and tax issues, the FTA will inevitably have the
effect of slowly eroding the protections that Panama has worked to
maintain in its most vulnerable economic sectors. Due to a number of
existing regional trade agreements, Panamanian products already enter
the United States duty free. The pending FTA, according to the State
Department's Charles S. Shapiro, would simply "reduce [Panama's]
tariffs on products imported from the United States." Aware of the
dangers associated with the FTA's role in opening the country up to the
behemoth U.S. economy, Panama's negotiators were able to reserve some
protections for the country's developing sectors, specifically
agriculture. This relatively young sector not only employs 17% of the
country's labor force, but also supports 40% of the country's rural
population, according to the US Congressional Research Service. Thus,
the Panamanian government has argued that opening the country's markets
to U.S. agricultural goods, which are subsidized by the government and
produced on a much greater scale than its more protective partner,
would be "highly detrimental to the social structure of the rural
economy, leading to increased unemployment, poverty, and urban
migration."
Despite the fact that "agriculture was one of the most sensitive
issues for Panama," its officials failed to reach lasting and effective
compromises in order to protect their markets from U.S. incursion. The
FTA immediately eliminates tariffs on over 60 percent of U.S.
agricultural exports to Panama, with most remaining tariffs to be
gradually eliminated over a period of 15 years or less. Two key
products: locally-grown rice (which currently supplies over 90% of
Panama's domestic demand) and sugar (which presently accounts for a
third of Panama's agricultural exports, as well as 41percent of its
agricultural exports to the United States), will retain limited
protections in the short-term. However, as tariffs are slowly lifted
over a fixed period of years, Panama could lose the "relatively high
wage rates" that it currently enjoys in these sectors.
According to the congressional report, this phase-out period would
"buy time for Panama to develop its nontraditional export crops, such
as melons, palm oil, and pineapples, which some view as the future of
this sector." Unfortunately, these are precisely the crops that the
rest of Central America already exports to the U.S. at bottom-barrel
prices. Thus, Panama, under this new regime, would be forced to join
the regional 'race to the bottom' in order to ensure competitive prices
for its products on the global market. The impact on Panama's rural
poor could be debilitating. In addition, Panama's already spotty social
safety net stands to suffer as the global economic partnership
involving Panama develops. In a bid to attract foreign investment,
President-elect Martinelli has committed his government to "massive
infrastructure spending in partnership with foreign investors,"
according to Reuters. This spending is not likely to benefit the
approximately one third of Panama's population currently living below
the poverty line in the country's rural areas. Already, very little
public spending is allocated to this demographic. The World Bank has
identified sharp geographical inequities in health care and education
spending, which disproportionately benefits the urban upper and middle
classes far more than the rural poor and indigenous populations. This
trend will likely worsen with a free trade agreement that opens
Panama's agriculture markets to fierce competition and commits further
government revenue to the country's urban commercial centers.
In short, the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement inevitably will be a
bonanza for big business. It would contribute to the elimination of
many inconvenient hurdles that cut down on corporate profits, such as
labor regulations, taxes, and fair-minded market signposts. A far
larger portion of the population could lose out under the FTA including
those who benefit from these protections, such as workers in both
countries, poverty-stricken Panamanian farmers, and the American
taxpayer. As a battle between corporate interests and civil society
ensues in the U.S. Congress, a parallel struggle to sway public opinion
is taking place in the media. However, whichever way the decision
falls, a lasting solution to global economic ills is unlikely without a
fundamental shift in the way the United States conducts its business in
developing countries.
This analysis was prepared by Research Fellow Mary Tharin
May 27th, 2009
Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.
LATEST NEWS
Sightings of Uncontacted Tribe Spur Calls to End Logging in Peruvian Amazon
"This is a humanitarian disaster in the making—it's absolutely vital that the loggers are thrown out, and the Mashco-Piro's territory is properly protected at last," said the director of Survival International.
Jul 16, 2024
A leading rights group on Tuesday called for loggers to be "thrown out" of a remote part of the Peruvian Amazon following recent sightings of people belonging to what is believed to be the world's largest uncontacted Indigenous tribe.
London-based Survival International published video and photos of dozens of Mashco-Piro people taken near the village of Monte Salvado in southeastern Peru near the Brazilian border. The group said that in recent days, more than 50 Mashco-Piro have appeared near the village, which is inhabited by the related Yine people. A group of 17 Mashco-Piro were also recently sighted near the neighboring village of Puerto Nuevo.
Several logging companies are operating within just a few miles of where the Mascho-Piro were spotted. One company operating inside Mashco-Piro territory, Canalaes Tahuamanu, has laid more than 120 miles of road there to facilitate timber extraction. The company is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as a sustainable and ethical operator, even though it is known to be felling trees inside Mashco-Piro territory. Survival International is calling on the FSC to withdraw its certification.
"This is a humanitarian disaster in the making—it's absolutely vital that the loggers are thrown out, and the Mashco-Piro's territory is properly protected at last," Survival International director Caroline Pearce said in a statement Tuesday. "The FSC must cancel its certification of Canales Tahuamanu immediately—failure to do so will make a mockery of the entire certification system."
Alfredo Vargas Pio, president of the local Indigenous group Native Federation of the Río Madre and its Tributaries, called the new photographs "irrefutable evidence that many Mashco-Piro live in this area, which the government has not only failed to protect, but sold off to logging companies."
"The logging workers could bring in new diseases which would wipe out the Mashco-Piro, and there's also a risk of violence on either side," he added, "so it's very important that the territorial rights of the Mashco-Piro are recognized and protected in law."
In 2014, Peruvian authorities evacuated residents from Monte Salvado by boat after around 200 Mashco-Piro armed with bows and arrows raided the village, killing livestock and pets and taking food and tools. In 2022, Mashco-Piro members killed 21-year-old Peruvian logger Gean del Aguila and wounded another man with arrows as they fished on the Tahuamanu River.
In the 1890s most Mashco-Piro were either enslaved or exterminated by private mercenaries hired by self-described Peruvian "Rubber King" Carlos Fitzcarrald—immortalized in the 1982 Werner Herzog film Fitzcarraldo. Surviving Mashco-Piro fled deeper into the Amazon and avoided contact with most outsiders. They fiercely defended their territory from intruders. However, in recent decades, loggers have penetrated and exploited Mascho-Piro lands.
There are believed to be more than 750 Mascho-Piro living in Peru. They sometimes cross the border into Brazil.
"They flee from loggers on the Peruvian side. At this time of the year they appear on the beaches to take tracajá eggs," Rosa Padilha of the Indigenous Missionary Council in the Brazilian state of Acre toldThe Guardian, referring to a species of Amazon turtle.
"That's when we find their footprints on the sand. They leave behind a lot of turtle shells," Padilha added. "They are a people with no peace, restless, because they are always on the run."
Around 15 other uncontacted Indigenous tribes with as many as 15,000 members are believed to remain in the Peruvian Amazon. It is illegal to make contact with such peoples for fear they would contract common human illnesses that could be fatal to unexposed populations without immunity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UnitedHealth Reports $7.9 Billion in Q2 Profits After Protesters Arrested
"Health insurance coverage has expanded in America, but we are finding it is private health insurance corporations themselves that are often the largest barrier for people," said one organizer.
Jul 16, 2024
A day after 150 people assembled outside the headquarters of UnitedHealth Group to demand the for-profit health insurance giant stop its "systemic" denial of coverage, the company announced Tuesday the huge profits it raked in over the second quarter of 2024: $7.9 billion.
The sum, said one organizer, exemplifies why the demonstrators were willing to risk arrest to speak out against the firm's practices.
"UnitedHealth Group's $7.9 billion quarterly profit announcement is the result of a business model built on pocketing premiums and billions of dollars in public funds, then profiting by refusing to authorize or pay for care," said Aija Nemer-Aanerud, Health Care for All campaign director for People's Action Institute. "People should not have to turn to public petitions or direct actions to get UnitedHealthcare to pay for the care they need to live. That makes no sense, unless you're a shareholder or executive eyeing your next big luxury purchase."
Eleven people were detained by police at Monday's demonstration, where they blocked the street in front of UnitedHealth's headquarters in Minnetonka, Minnesota, displaying signs that read, "United (Denies) Healthcare" and "The Price Is Wrong."
The demonstration was organized by the Care Over Cost campaign at People's Action Institute, which has worked to help people across the country overturn care denials by UnitedHealth and other for-profit insurance giants.
Gina Morin of Auburn, Maine spoke at the event about having her mental health treatment denied by her Medicare Advantage plan administered by UnitedHealth.
"Two years ago my therapist was denied payment for seven of my mental health sessions she provided," she said. "I tried to pay her even though I'm on a limited income and she wouldn't take the money. If my provider, in her professional opinion, believed I needed those therapy sessions, who is UnitedHealth to deny coverage?"
As Common Dreams reported last month, UnitedHealth was named in a letter written by 52 members of the Democratic caucus in Congress as one of the healthcare companies that use artificial intelligence to decide via algorithm that coverage should be provided or denied to patients who have Medicare Advantage plans, which are billed as offering coverage that traditional Medicare doesn't include.
ProPublicareported last year on Christopher Naughton, a man with ulcerative colitis whose treatment cost $2 million per year, leading UnitedHealth to flag his account as "high dollar." The company contracted with a doctor to review Naughton's case, and the doctor found the treatment for symptoms including arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, and blood clots was "not medically necessary."
After suing the company, Naughton's family found UnitedHealth had lied about what Naughton's personal physician told the contractor in order to come to their conclusion and end coverage.
"Health insurance coverage has expanded in America, but we are finding it is private health insurance corporations themselves that are often the largest barrier for people to receive the care they and their doctor agree they need," Nemer-Aanerud toldCBS News Monday.
In April, People's Action sent a letter to UnitedHealth noting that its CEO was paid nearly $10 million in 2022 while the CEO of its parent company "extracted over $90 million in executive and board pay for himself" over four years.
The company took $22.4 billion in profits in 2023 and sent $14.8 billion to shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends—yet continues to deny necessary healthcare coverage to its members.
The group called on UnitedHealth to:
- Stop denying claims and overturn any existing denials for treatments recommended by medical professionals;
- Immediately cease the practice of using artificial intelligence and algorithms to initiate claims denials in bulk; and
- Execute a publicly shared audit and reimburse federal and state governments for the public money diverted by claim and prior-authorization denials within Medicaid (Managed Care), and Medicare (Medicare Advantage), among other demands.
"We will never stop fighting for a world where everyone gets the care they need, no matter their race, gender, or background," said People's Action. "When greedy corporations deny our care, we organize."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Power Play of the Highest Order': DNC Plot to Ram Through Biden Nomination Sparks Fury
"Behind the scenes, people at the Biden campaign and DNC are working to put in the fix," warned one Biden delegate from Maryland.
Jul 16, 2024
The Democratic National Committee is barreling ahead with plans to cement U.S. President Joe Biden's spot at the top of the party's November ticket weeks before next month's convention in Chicago, an effort that has sparked outrage among congressional Democrats and delegates who are worried about the incumbent's ability to defeat GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has said a "major course correction is needed" to avert disaster in November, has been circulating a letter to colleagues expressing concern about the DNC's plans, which were detailed Tuesday by Axios and The New York Times. At least three House Democrats thus far have said they're considering signing the letter, according to Axios.
Huffman told the Times in an interview that "to try to squelch debate and jam this through is a power play of the highest order."
"That kind of heavy-handed move is not going to go over well with a lot of people," Huffman added.
The letter, published in full by Axios, states that "there is no legal justification" for the DNC's plan for a "virtual roll call" among DNC delegates to formally confirm Biden as the party's presidential nominee before the end of the month.
The Democratic convention is set to begin on August 19.
Without offering specifics on the timeline, DNC Chairman Jamie Harrison confirmed the plans for a virtual roll call in a statement to Axios, even in the face of vocal concerns from congressional Democrats, grassroots activists, and some DNC delegates.
"We look forward to nominating Joe Biden through a virtual roll call and celebrating with fanfare together in Chicago in August alongside the 99% of delegates who are supporting the Biden-Harris ticket," Harrison said.
The Timesexplained Tuesday that "the process will effectively begin when the rules committee of the Democratic National Convention meets on a video call at 11:00 am on Friday, followed by another party group on Sunday."
"All of the more than 4,000 delegates are expected to begin casting their ballots as soon as Monday, a process that is likely to take about a week," the Times continued. "After that, the committee is expected to quickly hold the roll call, a tradition that typically occurs on the convention floor but is being held virtually this year."
"They are using non-existent rationalizations to quick-strike Biden into place."
One Biden delegate from Maryland, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, warned in a recent email to fellow state delegates that "behind the scenes, people at the Biden campaign and DNC are working to put in the fix."
"Put simply, they are trying to shut down the process earlier. We can't allow it," Mizrahi wrote in the email, which was obtained by Axios. "I am asking you to ask the DNC to stop pushing for an early vote."
The DNC initially instituted plans for a virtual roll call following the enactment of an Ohio law that could have prevented the Democratic presidential candidate from being on the state's November ballot if the nominee wasn't chosen by August 7.
But Ohio has since pushed back the deadline to September, rendering that justification moot.
The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote on social media Tuesday morning that he has heard from a source who said the DNC is still moving ahead with a virtual roll call because of supposed "ballot deadlines in Montana and California."
"This is nonsense, there are no such deadlines," Dayen wrote. "They are using non-existent rationalizations to quick-strike Biden into place."
Huffman's letter warns that "proceeding with the 'virtual roll call' in the absence of a valid legal rationale will be rightly perceived as a purely political maneuver, which we believe would be counterproductive and undermine party unity and cohesion."
"Moreover, it would contradict what President Biden himself has repeatedly said to members of Congress in recent days, telling us that anyone who 'wants to challenge his nomination should do so 'at the convention,'" the letter continues. "We respectfully but emphatically request that you cancel any plans for an accelerated 'virtual roll call' and further refrain from any extraordinary procedures that could be perceived as curtailing legitimate debate or attempting to force an early resolution of the party nomination."
Aaron Regunberg, a progressive organizer who has vocally demanded that Biden step aside, argued Tuesday that "even if you're all in for Biden, you should oppose" the DNC's plan for a pre-convention virtual roll call.
"If Biden's our nominee, he'll desperately need Dem unity [and] enthusiasm," Regunberg wrote on social media. "Moves like this are tailor-made to engender mistrust and make it much, much harder for Dems—volunteers, donors, voters, all of us—to come together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular