FTA threatens public health insurance and cheap medicines
National health insurance and the availability of cheap, generic (non-branded) medicines could be jeopardized if Thailand does not strongly oppose the relevant provisions of the EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Yesterday, about XNUMX people demonstrated in Chiang Mai, where representatives of both parties are meeting this week.
The demonstrators, many from the health sector, demand that the FTA does not contain stricter provisions than the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Stricter regulations strengthen the monopoly of multinational pharmaceutical companies, increase the price of medicines and limit the availability of generic medicines.
"EU negotiators should take into account the importance of access to cheap medicines and good quality generic medicines for patients in Thailand when negotiating the trade deal," said Leila Bodeux of Oxfam International. "The production and availability of affordable and quality generic medicines are key to the sustainability of the national insurance [which has been in effect for 2002 percent of the Thai population since 99]."
Jacques-chai Chomthongdi, vice-chairman of FTA Watch, thinks it unlikely that the EU will take Thailand's concerns into account. This means, he says, that the Thai delegation has to work hard to safeguard the country's interests. They must not accept any demand that harms Thai health care, agriculture, agro-industry and the sharing of benefits of biodiversity. The EU says it is ready to compromise on these sensitive issues. They are willing to listen to our concerns. But we haven't seen any real action yet.”
Twenty representatives of the action groups spoke yesterday for an hour and a half with the chairman of the EU delegation about the deal, in particular about patents on medicines, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and the zero rate on alcohol products.
Buntoon Sethasirote, director of Good Governance for Social Development and the Environment Foundation, feels that the Thai delegation leader is not well informed. “If he uses our concerns as a bargaining chip, a good result will come out. The FTA will certainly go ahead, but I don't know if the results will harm the Thai people.'
A joint statement from Thailand and the EU is expected tomorrow.
Comments
– Farmers are in danger of becoming victims of the free trade agreement (FTA) that Thailand and the EU are negotiating, Sanitsuda Ekachai writes in her weekly column Bangkok Post. The second round of negotiations will take place in Chiang Mai this week.
If the EU has its way, Thai farmers will no longer be able to save commercial seeds for the next season. Nor can they sell the seedlings of those seeds, nor can they use the harvested crops for their products. [I'm trying to translate the text as best I can, but I don't understand it.] The FTA definition of the species has been worded in such a way that locals can no longer claim ownership of their own plants.
The envisaged free trade agreement will also make medicines more expensive and prevent the country from producing generic medicines.
What do the politicians do? The government wants to get down to business as quickly as possible and the opposition is too busy to pelt the Prime Minister with misogynistic rhetoric. Ultimately, 45 percent of the workforce – red, yellow and everything in between – will be seriously disadvantaged by the Thai-EU deal. As usual, the poor will be most affected. That's for sure, Sanitsuda sighs.
(Source: Bangkok Post, September 18 and 19, 2013)
I wonder why Thailand is involved in a bilateral agreement, it would be in the interest of SE Asia to trade this as a whole as ASEAN, ... a fist is stronger than a finger, quote Minister NL, dated 20.06.2013, ... because a regional free trade agreement is not in sight (2013-2017)
With regard to FTA, the aim is to stop the free or private trade in seeds/seedlings because then the exchange of seeds for commercial use between private persons is prohibited, so the market or world market is not indirectly but directly governed by multinationals
@ Chris Bleeker I think I read in the paper that the EU broke off negotiations with ASEAN because no progress was made. ASEAN is characterized by many fine words, but cooperation does not run smoothly when it comes to concrete measures. An interesting article about the arrival of the AEC is: https://www.thailandblog.nl/economie/tussen-de-droom-en-daad-van-de-asean-economic-community/
That's right, Dick. Some years ago, the EU abandoned its aim to conclude a free trade agreement with ASEAN as a 'bloc'. In addition to political motives – including the situation in Myanmar at the time – it turned out that the economic interests and the level of development of the 10 member states diverged so far that there was no prospect of an agreement being reached. Negotiations then started with some individual ASEAN members, starting with Singapore. An agreement has now been signed with that country, but it has yet to enter into force.
ASEAN as a 'bloc' has concluded a number of free trade agreements, including with China
and with Australia and New Zealand, but that has not stopped some ASEAN members from also concluding agreements with the same countries themselves - of course with completely different conditions and rules, so that it is often confusing for the exporting business community . For example, a Thai exporter to Australia can choose whether to export under the terms of the agreement between ASEAN and that country or under those of the agreement between Thailand and Australia.
ASEAN is indeed good at outlining beautiful vistas, but when it comes to making them concrete, individual national interests are at the top of the list and common interests follow at a great distance. The ASEAN secretariat – in Jakarta – also has virtually no powers and cannot enforce anything itself.
The extent to which the ASEAN Economic Community – which (as it currently stands) will enter into force on December 31, 2015 – will be a success for me remains to be seen. Much will depend on the willingness to pursue the common interest and that willingness has so far often been verbally professed, but fades into the background as soon as a national interest is threatened.
@ Dick van der Lugt, if it were "good" in the interest of the inhabitants of a country, the shirt should be closer than the skirt, and would that only be the case for ASEAN? I suspect that things are not going so smoothly among themselves in the EU either, but money simply rules the world.