The negotiations launched this week for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Thailand and the European Union have raised concerns among both Thai and European non-governmental organisations, who fear that EU demands could have a negative impact on Thailand’s progressive public health policies.

Launched during Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s visit to Brussels on Mar. 6, the negotiations will include the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, an international accord that lays down rules for dealing with intellectual property such as branded medicine. If the EU pushes the interests of its pharmaceutical companies, access to generic drugs in Thailand could be at risk, according to some NGOs and European parliamentarians.

“The interest of big pharmaceutical companies is to have a higher price for their medicine, and the interest of a state such as Thailand is to have access to generic medicine that is cheaper, so there’s a real issue,” Leila Bodeux, a Brussels-based spokesperson for Oxfam told IPS.

“It’s very important to consider that Thailand has made a great deal of effort to improve its public health system and now has a universal health scheme. But for the scheme to function well, it has to rely on affordable medicine.”

Oxfam and other groups including Dutch-based Health Action International (HAI) and Action Against AIDS Germany say that excessive intellectual property protection and enforcement can restrict makers of generic drugs. The consequence is that market monopolies are propped up, with high prices for medicine, thus “affecting access to affordable treatment.”

Thailand has gained international admiration for its public health programme which is based on providing inexpensive medicine to its population, says Oxfam, which works to eliminate poverty around the world. In the treatment of HIV/AIDS, the Asian country has managed to provide antiretroviral therapy (ART) to 80 percent of those living with the disease.

The fact that most ART drugs are produced by India for other developing countries has reduced the treatment’s cost enormously.

But activists say that these advances could be rolled back by the Free Trade Agreement, particularly if the EU introduces “investor-state dispute provisions” in the FTA.

NGO leaders point to the case of U.S. pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co. which has brought a lawsuit against Canada under the North American free trade agreement, demanding 100 million dollars in compensation for Canadian court rulings that stripped the company of its patent for medicine used to treat attention-deficit disorder. Thailand could find itself in a similar position to Canada if makers of generic drugs are seen to infringe existing patents, warn NGOs.

“We are particularly worried that the EU will push to have intellectual property provisions that go beyond the TRIPS agreement,” said Bodeux. Such provisions, known as TRIPS-plus, may have the support of multinational drug firms but would be detrimental to the Thai public health budget, Oxfam says.

Bodeux told IPS that the EU may try to seek a longer “patent term” for drugs than the current 20 years agreed under World Trade Organisation rules. In addition, the EU may request “data exclusivity” provisions, which means that Thailand would not be able to give out certain clinical trial information during a specified time frame.

The European Commission says that the launch of FTA negotiations “marks an important step in EU-Thai relations, already strengthened by a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.”

The Commission stated that the aim “is to conclude a comprehensive agreement covering tariffs, non-tariff barriers and other trade related issues such as services, investment, procurement, regulatory issues, competition, and sustainable development.”

It adds that the FTA with Thailand “should deliver substantial economic gains and put the EU on a par with partners who have already concluded FTAs with Thailand (China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand).” The first negotiating round is expected to take place possibly in May, before the summer break.

Like the NGOs, some members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are keeping a close eye on the negotiations and the aspects of the FTA that could have a harmful impact. Franziska Keller, German MEP from the Green alliance, told IPS that she shared the concerns of civil society organisations.

“I completely agree that the government of Thailand should not let itself get into TRIPS-plus talks,” she said. “I also think that the EU should absolutely not force TRIPS. Medicine is an important part of Thailand’s budget and if generic medicine cannot be used, cannot be produced, this is going to be much more expensive for the Thai government.”

Realising what is at stake, demonstrators in Thailand have recently tried to draw attention to how the FTA may affect the cost of medicine and agricultural products in the country. They say the government has not adequately consulted with civil society in the talks on the multi-billion-dollar bilateral trade.

“The IP provisions, the enforcement measures and the investment chapter are all areas where the stakes are really high,” said Tessel Mellema, policy advisor for Health Action International.

She told IPS that Thailand may feel pressured to give concessions because of the impending expiration of its general system of trade preferences with the EU, due to end in early 2015. But Mellema said NGOs want Thailand to have “political room” to negotiate without pressure from the EU.

Thailand is the EU’s third largest trading partner in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the EU is also Thailand’s third biggest trading partner. According to the European commission, trade between the bloc and Thailand reached nearly 32 billion euros last year.

It says that the EU is one of the biggest investors in Thailand with investment stocks valued at more than 14 billion euros in 2011.

EU exports comprise mainly high-tech products including machinery and electrical appliances, pharmaceutical products, vehicles, precious metals and optical instruments, the Commission said, while imports from Thailand include machinery and electrical appliances, foodstuffs, vehicles, precious metals, pearls, and plastics and rubber. (END)

On Nov. 29, 138 member states of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of giving Palestine “non-member observer state” status. Only nine voted no, 41 abstained. Beyond Middle East politics, the vote also mirrors the limits of the U.S. global, and the Israeli regional, empires: 138 defy their grip and favour change, 41+9=50 do not for various reasons. Who wants what?

Johan Galtung

First: the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) did not yield to U.S.-Israel in spite of the efforts against the Arab awakening. Israel is alone in the region: Greece-Turkey-Cyprus all voted yes.

Second: more than half of the states not in favour of the move were Eastern Europe (16) and the Pacific (10 – nine mini-states, and Australia). Add seven from Latin America, five from Africa, three from Asia (not Japan) and we get 41.

Third: Western Europe-NATO was divided. The Nordic European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) were in favour, as well as Austria, France and GIPSI (Greece-Italy-Portugal-Spain-Ireland), the indebted EU periphery. Not in favour: UK, Germany, Netherlands; three mini-states; and the hard core, U.S.-Israel-Canada, making 50, only a quarter of the U.N. members.

The General Assembly is the closest we have to world democracy: no Security Council ‘big power’ veto. Israel has no regional support and the U.S. only little, shaky, insignificant, world support. U.S. clout does not even reach Afghanistan-Iraq-Libya, recently bombed-invaded-occupied. The UK remains at heel, like poodle to master.

Read the vote in terms of a world regionalisation process: Green light for OIC; some political leadership is needed in the Latin America-Caribbean, Africa and Asia regions. The Nordic-EFTA moral light is intact, and the new Third World, GIPSI, is joining the old.

The U.S. is out of touch. Stop droning, killing; make a beautiful North America with Mexico and Canada.

But empires also crumble from within through demoralisation. With political demoralisation, world clout is disappearing. Also watch the “fiscal cliff” for doubts about the U.S. political process: two parties, at loggerheads. No cancelling of mortgage debts, no lifting of the bottom 16 percent – many not knowing where the next meal comes from – into the economy, increasing domestic demand.

With economic demoralisation: the West is outcompeted. And the financial crisis and Great Recession scared the wits out of most Americans –cautious, risk-averse and defensive- spending less and saving more. Not a single person was imprisoned for exorbitant commissions and bonuses, secret deals and obscure derivatives; but Wall Street continues to lobby against new legislation.

With military demoralisation: the U.S.-NATO is losing. And consider the lifestyle and affair of a top U.S. Army official in Afghanistan and director of the CIA, killing machines: general David Petraeus. Imagine the effect on soldiers risking their lives for an unwinnable and dubious war while the top fools around.

With cultural demoralisation: faith in U.S. exceptionalism is decreasing. Public figures ignore what happens in the real world. Truth will soon dawn upon them.

With social demoralisation: the U.S. birthrate plummets to the lowest level since the 1920s. This may imply a decline in the U.S. population and in tax revenue, as in much of the West.

Add it all up: the fall of the U.S. empire is on track.

How about Israel? Heading for a cliff of its own making.

The United Nations vote was on the 65th anniversary of the U.N. two-state resolution 181. Shortly after the adoption of the resolution, Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte was murdered by the Zionist group Lehi. Then the Nakba, the expulsion of Palestinians from their land in 1948. The problem is not Zionism but hard, revisionist Expansion-Occupation-Siege (E-O-S) Zionism driving to the cliff.

The U.N. vote legitimised Palestine and delegitimised that kind of Israel.

Direct negotiations lead nowhere: the Oslo process left security, Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements, boundaries, for “later”.

But Israel had to react to the rockets! Yes, by dropping E-O-S for ‘2-6-20+’: two States in a six-state community with Arab neighbors in a 20+ states Organisation for Security and Cooperation with a nuclear free zone. But Israel delegitimised itself by choosing violence. Israel also reacts to nonviolence-boycott, non-cooperation, civil disobedience, with violence, as it did against boats trying to break the siege. And delegitimises itself even further.

Together with mainstream U.S., Israel tries to control the discourse by branding all critics as anti-Semites and self-hating Jews. A non-starter in democracies. Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Falk, to mention some recently branded that way, are neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Israel, but use transparency and dialogue – the hallmarks of democracy – constructively. Stifle that, and we get two elites listening only to themselves.

Travel these roads: delegitimise yourself, meet violence with violence, meet nonviolence with violence, control discourse, and down the road, very close to the cliff, the South African scenario is waiting. The U.S. decides one day that Israel is more of a liability than an asset.

Israel is out of touch. A regime change from within is needed. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Johan Galtung, rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University, is author of ‘The Fall of the US Empire – And Then What?’, published by the TRANSCEND University Press.