Havachat: Free, fair or foolish? The Australian-US FTA - Day 5

Havachats are week-long email dialogues between two prominent advocates on an issue of the day. To vote on the issue and make your view count, click here.

Day 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5.

Doug goes first. Alan responds.

From: Doug Cameron
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2003 13:15
To: Alan Oxley
Subject: Summary

Dear Alan,

The AMWU has demonstrated our commitment to achieving an internationally competitive manufacturing industry.

We have also been active in achieving increased investment through Industry Superannuation Funds in venture capital for Australian manufacturing companies (your term “Pension Fund" demonstrates how quickly you can be captured by American culture and practice). I have also been personally involved in discussions with major overseas corporations which have resulted in increased overseas investment in Australia.

We welcome an increased engagement with the world economy including increased exports of our manufactured goods, however we do have significant concerns as to the nature and structure of the current so-called "rules based" trading regime based on the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.

There are also significant issues relating to Australia's sovereignty and capacity to act in the interests of the nation, its communities and jobs under a USFTA.

This debate has also highlighted widespread concern as to the nature of bilateral trade agreements such as the USFTA. I do not believe you have answered these concerns in your contributions.

You continue to make wide-ranging unsubstantiated assertions in your increasingly partisan, blinkered and strident advocacy of a USFTA.

It is too easy to brand genuine concerns as a "scare campaign". I have raised a range of issues including the economic, social and cultural problems that could arise from a USFTA. Many of the issues identified have also been raised by the broader community, and academics as issues that must be addressed in a reasoned, balanced and analytical manner.

So far most of the independent analysis questions the benefits of a USFTA. Proponents of the USFTA will need to do better than the "trust me, you're getting a bargain" approach epitomised by your contributions to this debate.

Fortunately, an increasing number of individuals, community groups and political parties question the theoretical econometric modelling and the political ideology that underpins free trade. This is democracy at work.

Assertions that "we are in for an easy time" and there is "no threat" to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian film production, quarantine laws etc is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public who have seen the Minister, Mark Vaile publicly declare that "everything is on the table".

I do not believe that key social and cultural aspects of Australia's society should be placed on the bargaining table as a commodity to be traded.

I do not believe that we can achieve the fairytale outcome painted by some of your contributions to this debate.

As the United States moves aggressively to cement its international economic and military dominance, Australia must act with caution, commonsense and wisdom.

The deliberate devaluation of the United States dollar against most other world economies will produce an increasingly difficult trading environment for our companies. If this is combined with further cuts to tariffs and industry support then we will see less overseas investment and jobs in our manufacturing industry.

We must exercise our freedom to maintain our independent culture, social policies and industry development capacity.

We must recognise that free trade has many limitations and challenges and a move to a “Fair Trade" environment is in Australia's interests.

We must not foolishly rush to a USFTA without public debate and involvement, a removal of the secrecy surrounding the negotiations and the determination to maintain our social and economic independence.

Doug.

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2003 20:59
To: Doug Cameron
Subject: Summary

Doug,

As we conclude, we return to where we started. Your misgivings about free trade and an FTA with the US are philosophical: you fear domination by American culture and dislike free-market systems. My focus is on the benefits to Australia. These are great. They can secure Australia’s economic future in the global economy.

Let the reader judge. There are three simple questions. One, are your fears well-founded? Two, are my estimations of the impact correct? And three, if the answer to both is yes, is the downside of your fears greater than the upside of the benefits?

You argue that opposition to an FTA is surging. The range of submissions to the Government and to the Senate enquiry don’t suggest this. Fifty people supporting a bad claim doesn’t make it a good one. A popular view today in some quarters is that “voices” are legitimate, regardless of what is being said. Most people don’t agree with that. They know that Collingwood does not deserve to be a grand finalist just because it has more supporters than anyone else.

The demonstrations at the Sydney WTO Ministerial conference last showed how small anti-free trade sentiment is in this country. Those who are genuinely skeptical about whether an agreement can produce an effective result have a stronger case. The answer to them is to wait and see.

Let us encourage people to make their minds about each issue. Our meat, dairy, sugar, wine, steel, automobile, packaging, retail, telecommunications, minerals, financial, pharmaceutical, and media industries regard this is a major opportunity to expand and grow. Readers don’t have to take my word for it, they should ask industry leaders. And I’ll bet MPs will pay close attention to how industries in their electorates think an agreement will benefit them.

You can criticise me for believing in free trade. It’s true. But I don’t believe in anything unless it works. We tested an alternative for 70 years – Soviet communism. What a dismal failure. If there is surfeit of ideology, Doug, it is the civil society/fair trade case you associate with. The fact it cannot be simply stated should be a warning. You said you had “reservations” about the model of governance in the WTO, World Bank and IMF and concerns about sovereignty. Just what does that mean? It sound unconvincing and that’s because it is.

I can understand that a number of Australians are leery about an FTA with the US because they opposed the war in Iraq. In international affairs and particularly trade, successful countries can always identify their enlightened self interest and act to advance it.

The principal economic beneficiary from an FTA with the US will be Australia. This will mean more jobs and more secure future for Australians in the Information Age global economy. They will notice the benefit and they won’t be required to salute the Stars and Stripes every morning or see the world differently. You underrate the power of the pull of Australian culture and how much Australians enjoy it. And they will enjoy it a lot more if the economic future is more secure.

Alan

Reader Poll: What do you think? Vote on the issue and make your view count, click here. (As you would expect from OLO this is not a "quickie" online poll. Your views will be properly analysed and represented).

Day 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5.