RCEP and its evil designs
Item
- Title
- RCEP and its evil designs
- extracted text
-
RCEP and its evil designs
BY
Dr Gopal Dabade
Drug Action Forum - Karnataka,
57, Tejaswinagar, Dharwad 580002. India
China
India
- South Korea
Japan
Myanmar
Thailand —
Singapore
Vietnam
Laos
Philippines
Cambodia
Brunei
Indonesia
f Malaysia—
Australia —
0 ASEAN members
New Zealand
RCEP and its evils by ■
Dr Gopai D'abade,
.
Published by
Drug Action Forum - Karnataka,
57, Tejaswinagar, Dharwad 580002
First edition March 21! 19
* •' Price Rupees 30/-
Printer:
Shri Raiska Printers,
Pete Oni, Gandigawad,
Tq: Khanapur, Dist: Belagavi.
. -'t’-d Mo.No : 7337691330
1
1
1
(
Cover-2
IN MEMORY OF LATE
Prof: M. D. NANJUNDASWAMY
(1935 - 3rd February 2004)
Activist and anti-globalization campaign leaderwho explained the ill-effects of Dunkel draft to our
Indian farmers and public
Prof: M. D. NANJUNDASWAMY
RCEP and its evil designs
INDEX
Chapter Number
Title of Chapter
Page Number
Chapter 1
What is RCEP?
5
Chapter 2
RCEP impact on
agriculture
10
Chapter 3
RCEP impact on
health
13
Chapter 4
ISDS
17
Chapter 5
Statement
of
Opposition to the
RCEP
21
!
Date : 27th March 2019
Forward
RCEP - Regional Comprehensive Economic
Participation is a further step taken to have more benefit and
control over the trade, not by US or European countries but by
Asian countries. It is a trade agreement between 10 member
countries of ASEAN and their 6 free trade agreement partner
nations including India. Dr. Gopal Dabade, in this booklet has
given the details of genesis of RCEP and its subsequent shaping
up. He has tried to put the implications and bad effects of this
treaty especially on agriculture and health sectors in such a
simplified way so that a common person can understand it.
This small booklet written by Dr. Gopal Dabade and
published by Drug Action Forum - Karnataka is about Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), is an eye opener
for the people of India. Though small, it contains information
of the size of Himalayan Mountains. We all not only know about
WTO, GATT, GATS and TRIPS implemented in early 2000 and
have experienced the ill-effects of Globalization, Liberalization,
Privatization and Free trade. Big multinational companies are
creeping into developing countries. As a result, indigenous
cottage industries have totally vanished from the rural scenario,
agriculture sector is in disastrous state, unemployment is
increasing, public sector is being killed and people are forced
into economic slavery.
He has also dealt at length about another component
incorporated in RCEP i.e. ISDS (Investor - State Dispute
Settlement) which is deadly and disastrous. In consideration of
all these implications there is an appeal to the government and
the political parties to reject this treaty.
The unique and creative Indian Freedom Struggle inspired
other nations and leaders like Dr Martin Luther King of Civil
Rights Movement in the US in the late 1950s and 1960s to
bring about equality among the blacks and whites in the USA
and Nelson Mandela who successfully fought against apartheid
and established democracy in South Africa and in addition also
led to the great Indian Constitution which pledges all its citizen
freedom, equality, justice and fraternity. It is most ironical that
India is joining in establishing RCEP which will do great
injustice to the people of smaller Asian countries.
We strongly feel that we Indian Citizens concerned
about such unfortunate developments should create
awareness about RCEP especially in the ensuing Lok Sabha
elections.
After going through this booklet if people get sensitized
and resort to some action to protest against this treaty, we feel
it is worth spending money on publishing this booklet and the
efforts put in by the author.
Sri S R Hiremath,
Dr S L Pawar,
President,
President,
Citizen’s For Democracy,
Nagarika Hitarakshana Vedike,
New-Delhi
&
Vice-President,
Drug Action Forum -Karnataka
Near Head Post Office,
Ranebennur581115
----------
Chapter 1
WHATISRCEP?
There was a time when kings waged wars over their
neighbourhood kingdom and conquered to rule them.
Subsequently guns started being used in wars and then came
bombs.
But all this is past now as rich countries all over the
world have started waging a new type ofwar, and that is “TRADE
WAR” Global trade means the buying and selling of goods and
services across borders. Rich countries pursued poor countries
to give them access to market and not keep any trade barriers
for products from their own country. Thus the rich countries
cripple the fragile economies of the poor countries. They
achieve this by forcing developing countries to bring in changes
in their country policies by incorporating Liberalization,
Privatization and Globalization (LPG). All this is to make an
easy entry for the multinational companies from the USA and
European countries to gain control over the Indian market and
other developing countries. Well, this RCEP is another one such
thing. Anyway this is not the first time that these rich countries
are doing it. They have been doing this since hundreds of years
and the most recent one was through the World Trade
Organization (WTO). It was established in the year 1995, is the
world’s largest intergovernmental organization and where rich
countries decide the global trade rules. The WTO’s agreements
form the basic set of rules for global commerce for its 164
member countries.
In the year 1995, India being a member of WTO agreed
to open its market and liberalize the economy and brought in
changes in the year 2005.
—CD
-: WTO had three main broad agendas: -
1 ] General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS)
2] General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. (GATT)
3] Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. (TRIPS)
India having signed the WTO agreement in the year 1995
agreed to dilute several trade related provisions that would
benefit the multinational companies. One major change that India
made in 2005 was with regard to TRIPS agreement, wherein
India extended the patent period from 5 years to 20 years. In
addition India changed to product patent from process patent
and diluted compulsory licensing. These and several changes
that India introduced were much against the wishes of many
Indian Members of Parliaments (MPs). This was also opposed
by WHO and UNICEF, because these changes would impede
Indian affordable medicines to be made available to other
developing countries.
When the trade ministers of WTO countries met for the
Tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Kenya in December
2015, there were no concrete decisions to carry the
development agenda forward that developing countries have
expected. On the contrary, developed countries were pushing
‘new issues’. The lack of consensus has slowed the pace of work
within the WTO, and, in turn, big business interests are seeking
other venues where ‘free’ trade agendas can be taken further.
It is this ‘seeking other agendas’ that has given rise to
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
. Unlike WTO, which is global, RCEP is a plurilateral (meaning
a trade agreement between more than two countries) regional
trade partnership.
6
The RCEP is a proposed trade agreement between the 10 As
sociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN-Brunei, Cam
bodia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand,
Malaysia, Vietnam and Myanmar) countries and their six free
trade agreement partners, namely Australia, China, India, Japan,
Korea, and New Zealand.
China
India
i
South Korea
Japan
Myanmar
Thailand Singapore
Malaysia
Vietnam
Laos
Philippines
Cambodia
Brunei
Indonesia
Australia
@ ASEAN members .
New Zealand
1] This grouping would comprise 25% of global GDP, 30% of
global trade, 26% of FDI flows, and 45% of the population.
2] The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)
agreement is under negotiation and has remained a muchcontested subject in recent times.
India has significant trade deficit with RCEP
nations. Negotiating with unequal partners
EXPORT in 2017-18
(S billions)
IMPORT in 2017-18
($ billions)
lYade
deficit
10 ASEAN
countries
combined
34.2
47.1
12.9
China
13.3
76.2
62.9
Australia
4.0
13.9
9.9
New Zealand
0.3
0.6
0.2
South Korea
4.4
163
11.9
Japan
4.7
10.9
6.2
RCEP Nation
It is obvious that India has huge trade deficit with China,
the long term implications of which are not good. But even
currently India has trade deficit with almost every member so
basically India is discussing trade issues with unequal n
member; which in itself is not conducive for a free and fare
trade negotiations.
Source; Department of commerce. 29/8/2018. Reference;https.V/www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/
india-set-to-stress-on-rcep-in-singapore-on-thursday-afterpmo-nod-118082900054 l.html
-: GENESIS AND NUMBER of ROUNDS of NEGOTIONS : -
The first round of RCEP negotiation was held on May
9-13,2013 in Brunei and subsequently so far twenty-four round
1
rounds ofdiscussions have already taken place and the 24th round
of RCEP negotiation was held on October 18-27, 2018 in
Auckland, New Zealand.
The RCEP negotiations are in the final round and may get ratified
soon; according to some sources the negotiations would have
been finalised but India raised an objection that elections are
round the comer in their country and so they cannot ratify the
same. So it is obvious that after elections the decision will soon
be taken1.
SECRECY; THE ROOT CAUSE OF MANYPROBLEMS2
All the RCEP negotiations’ are heavily guarded secrets, which is
really unfortunate. Not only are these negotiations secret but
once put in place cannot be revoked. Whatever information that
has been gathered so far is from Wiki leaks and other leaked
sources by activists and others.
The following points highlight the dangers of RCEP : >
Non-transparent: negligible public availability of official
information on the state of negotiations, a failure to release draft
texts and adequate details of key government positions.
>
Lacking in independent social, economic and
environmental impact assessments, making it particularly difficult
for journalists to accurately report on the trade deal.
>
Plagued by numerous examples of vested interests
influencing the process, such as corporations holding privileged
semi official role in negotiations
>
Deprived of Asian parliaments and elected officials
representation and input. They are frequently shut out, have no
meaningful role in negotiations and often cannot access the text
>
Devoid ofpublic participation, which amount to, at best,
token or ad hoc stakeholder engagement.
In short they are jeopardizing the very democratic
institutions of our country.
- VjjV- -J
Chapter!
IMPACTON AGRICULTURE,
The WTO - IP (calledTRIPS for short) agreements allows
countries to exclude seeds from patents but if they pass plant
variety protection laws that will be granting exclusive economic
rights to corporate breeders. But the RCEP text under
consideration requires all members to join the UPOV 1991,
which restricts farmer’s seed-saving and also curtails
researchers from using IP - protected varieties without paying
royalties and seeking the breeder’s permission. This is totally
against seed sovereignty that peasants across the country are
using for farming and livelihood.
What is UPOV? International Union for the Protection
of Plants (UPOV) (https://www.upov.int/), is an
intergovernmental organization based in Geneva. It claims that
its mission is to provide and promote an effective system of
plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the
development of new varieties ofplants, for the benefit of society.
But one needs to examine the details. For example the
most important change in UPOV 91 was the virtual elimination
of both the farmers’ privilege and breeders’ exemption. Member
countries who sign the 91 rules ‘may permit farmers to keep
seeds and other propagation material from protected varieties
for use on their own farms, but it will no longer be an automatic
right. At the same time, breeders face new restrictions in the
free use of genetic material, since the holder of a variety may
now limit the right of another breeder to develop, produce, sell,
stock or simply use any variety which is “essentially derived”
from a previously protected variety. This is already leading to
dependency genetics and to the concentration of commercial
breeding in the hands of ever bigger companies. Reference;(https://www.grain.org/)
The biggest challenge to seed sovereignty is the
increasing power that RCEP gives to large seed companies in
their overseas operations. Part of that power comes from making
the trade rules enforceable. Commitments made under RCEP
will not only be legally binding on governments, but also ifthey
do not follow it, foreign company can sue the government for
damages. This is done by asking for Investor-Remore-StateDispute-Remore-Settlement (ISDS). Both Japan and South Korea
have proposed that ISDS provisions be included in the RCEP.
There are already several Japanese seed companies in
India, such as Toikta Seed Pvt and Sakura Seed corporation.
Likewise, Korean seed companies include the Indian subsidiary
of Nongwoo Bio Co Ltd. Japan, Korea and Australia - the
advanced economies in RCEP, are pushing for “consistency
with” UPOV 1991 in RCEP. UPOV 1991 is a European
Convention that favours the grant of economic rights to
corporate plant breeders, even if it means imposing restrictions
on the farmer’s seed freedoms and researchers’ access to IPprotected seeds for any R&D. The additional risk is that UPOV
opens the door to patenting of plants. India has chosen to stay
out of UPOV to be able to protect farmers’ rights to seed.
A related major concern is with regard to farm produce
is market access in other countries via trade agreements. Those
involved in export-oriented agriculture will therefore have
different positions from those producing for local consumption.
For local producers it also becomes important to know what
kind of access the agriculture products from other countries
will be granted under RCEP. Many RCEP countries (like Japan,
New-Zealand and Australia) already have very high domestic
agricultural subsidies, which make incoming agricultural
products from them cheaper. (Please see the news item titled
“Kerala raises concern on the proposed RCEP agreement”,
ECONOMIC TIMES, dated 1st February 2018, page number 25
of this booklet)
RCEP Stand
On IPR, RCEP
requires
countries to join
UPOV 1991 Conv e n t i o n ,
www.upov.int
(which restricts
farmers’ seed sav
ing). This is TRIPS
plus (goes beyond
what WTO TRIPS
asks for)
INDIA stand_________
- INDIA wants to stay at TRIPS ’ level of IP
standards. (Status quo approach).
- be able to use the WTO TRIPS’
flexibilities.
- India’s text proposal on RIGHTS IN
PLANT VARIETIES; The Parties shall
provide for the protection ofplant varieties
either by patents or by sui generis* system
or by any combination thereof, in
accordance with the TRIPS agreement.
*PPV & FR act, 2001 = government will
give PPV and no IPR beyond that on
seed.Protection of Plant Varieties should
be varieties and Farmer’s Right Act'2001 is on act of the Parliment of India, for
protection of plant varieties
References for RCEP, bilateral trade agreements and investments
1] https://rceplegal.wordpress.com
2] www.madhyam.org.in
3] https://www.bilaterals.org/RCEP
4] India changes tack on RCEP negotiations.
https://www.bilaterals.org/7india-changes-tack-on-rcep
5] CSO’s say No to “TRIPS plus” Measurers in RCEP. http://
www.madhyam.org.in/csos-say-no-to-trips-plus-measures-inrcep/
6] Rethinking Bilateral Investment Treaties Critical Issues on
Policy Changes, http://www.madhyam.oig.in/wp-content/uploads/
2016/03/Rethinking-BIT-Book-PDF-15-March-2016.pdf .
7] India’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Text, https://
www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/201 8/08/India%E2%S 0%99sModel-Bilateral-Investment-Treaty-2018.pdf
8] http://www.msfaccess.org/rcep-ip-chapter-analysis - for RCEP
IP chapter.
Chapter 3
IMPACT ON HEALTH AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES.
According to leaked out documents Japan and South
Korea are pushing for provisions that go far beyond international
trade rules (known as TRIPS plus rules) to extend drug
corporations patent term and introduce the most damaging form
of clinical trial data monopolies. Further, the proposed elevated
levels of IP enforcement would delay generic competition and
translate into higher prices for lengthier periods of time, which
would, in turn, prevent the flow ofaffordable generic medicines
from producer to patient. These provisions offer pharmaceutical
corporations a blank cheque for abuse. In developing countries,
where multinational people rarely have health insurance and must
pay for medicines out of pocket, high prices keep life-saving
medicines out of reach - and thus is often a matter of life and
death.
There is a concern that the proposed provisions in the IP
and investment chapters could potentially restrict a government’s
capacity to initiate and execute policies to protect public health
and ensure affordable access to medicines to all, in particularly
in developing countries.
INDIA - PHARMACY OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD
India is known as the “pharmacy of the developing world”
for its wide-scale production of generic medicines - supplies
life-saving, affordable medicines needed to treat communicable
and non-communicable diseases to Sub Saharan Africa and many
other developing countries. Several international treatment
initiatives and agencies like Doctors Without Borders; Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the US President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief(PEPFAR) program; UNITAID
and UINCEF depend on affordable generics. AU these supply of
affordable medicines will be closed if RCEP is accepted by our
country.
SOMEOFTHE IP PROVISIONS IN THE LEAKED RCEP DRAFT
TEXT THAT WILLKEEPDRUGPRICES HIGHARE
TRIPS-PLUS RCEP
IMPACT ON ACCESS TO
PROPOSALS
MEDICINES
Creates data exclusivity
by preventing drug safety
regulators from using or
relying on existing clinical
data to grant market
approval to generic drugs.
Data exclusivity grants a market
monopoly status to medicines, even
when patents no longer exist. This
gives companies a new way to keep
prices high for longer periods of
time and further delay generic
competition.
It creates a barrier for entry of
generic producers, as they will have
to repeat clinical trials to generate a
new set of safety and efficacy data if
they intended to register before the
data exclusivity, period expires,
exclusivity for a period of “no less
than five years”.
Mandates patent term
extensions by increasing
patent terms beyond 20
years.
At present, patents on drugs in most
countries last for 20 years from the
date of filing. Thus, a straight for
warded way to prolong company’s
monopoly over a drug is simply to
extend the life of the drug’s patent
beyond 20 years. Extra years ensure
that patent holders can maintain a
monopoly position and continue to
charge artificially high prices for the
drug, free from generic competition
1
TRIPS-PLUS RCEP
IMPACT ON ACCESS TO
PROPOSALS
MEDICINES
Intellectual property
inclusions
in
the
investment chapter allow
companies to sue
governments for public
health protections.
If an Investor State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) mechanism is
agreed to in the RCEP, pharmaceuti
cal companies could sue govern
ments in secret arbitration tribunals
and seek huge financial compensa
tion if any IP - related law, policy,
rules, regulations, court decisions or
other actions interfere with their
profits, even when these domestic
measures are in accordance with
national law and the WTO’s TRIPS
Agreement.
RCEP has numerous
provisions on border
enforcement that could
prevent the flow of
generic medicines from
producer to patient.
Elevated levels of enforcement
increase the likelihood of legal
action against legitimate suppliers of
generic medicines. The current
RCEP text on border measures does
not adequately protect legitimate
transport of generic medicines.
Some Member States have expressed concern that trade agree
ments currently under negotiation could significantly reduce
access to affordable generic medicines. If these agreements open
trade yet close access to affordable medicines, we have to ask:
Is this really progress at all, especially with the costs of care
soaring everywhere?*
,_
°
Margaret Chan
Director - General
The World Health Organization
* Reference;- Knowledge Ecology International, RCEP IP
Chapter; Washington DC and Geneva, KEI. Available at
http://keionline.org/node/2472
--
. ----- - -------- 1
“As we move to Test & Start policies for HIV in South Africa and
elsewhere in the region, MSF and governments will continue to
require an uninterrupted supply of affordable, quality
antiretroviral medicines for a greater number of people living
with HIV. India provides the largest volume ofmedicines to South
Africa, and healthcare providers will continue to require this
trade partnership to supply affordable medicines - not just for
HIV but also to treat other illnesses. We cannot let our patient’s
lifelines be cut by unjust trade agreements.”
Dr Amir Shroufi,
Medical Coordinator,
________________________________Doctors Without Borders,
“As we move to Test & Start policies for HIV in South Africa and
elsewhere in the region, MSF and governments will continue to
require an uninterrupted supply of affordable, quality
antiretroviral medicines for a greater number of people living
with HIV. India provides the largest volume of medicines to South
Africa, and healthcare providers will continue to require this
trade partnership to supply affordable medicines - not just for
HIV but also to treat other illnesses. We cannot let our patient’s
lifelines be cut by unjust trade agreements.”
Dr Amir Shroufi,
Medical Coordinator,
Doctors Without Borders,
South Africa, http://www.msfaccess.org/rcep-ip-chapter-analysis
“Proposed provisions such as data exclusivity are still under ne
gotiation in RCEP, and are just another form of prolonging mo
nopolies. By delaying the registration of generic versions of a
medicine by several years, data exclusivity will effectively give
a backdoor monopoly status to pharmaceutical corporations, even
for older drugs that do not deserve a patent”.
Leena Menghaney,
Head, South Asia, Access Campaign,
Doctors Without Borders,
—
—
Cpfr--------
Chapter 4
ISDS (INVESTOR- STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT).
What is ISDS?*
ISDS is a mechanism included in many trade and investment
agreements to settle disputes. Settling these investor disputes
relies on arbitration (arbitration is a legal technique for the
resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to
a dispute refer it to one or more persons, by whose decision
they agree to be bound.) rather than public courts. Under
agreements which include ISDS mechanisms, a company from
one signatory state investing in another signatory state can argue
that new laws or regulations could negatively affect its expected
profits or investment potential, and seek compensation in a
binding arbitration tribunal. Corporations typically seek
compensation which may amount to millions or billions of US
dollars.
The system only provides for foreign companies to sue states,
not the other way around.
(*Reference;- https://bilaterals.org/7--the-basics~)
How does it work?
Each party to the dispute (the accusing investor and the defendant
state) appoints an arbitrator. Both of them agree on a third one.
The three arbitrators meet in an international arbitration tribunal
to conduct hearings. Which tribunal is used is specified in the
treaty. The hearings and their results are usually kept private.
Where do ISDS disputes take place?
Most cases take place at a tribunal operating under the rules of
the United Nations Centre for International Trade Related
Arbitration Law (UNCITRAL) or at the International Court for
the Settlement ofInvestment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank.
- ~~
Why is ISDS included in trade agreements?
ISDS was created to protect former colonizers’ property assets
from newly independent states. Companies argued that ISDS was
needed because the rule of law was lacking in
overseas territories, usually former colonies. They wanted
protection against expropriation - that is to say, the taking of
their private property by the government for a purpose deemed
to be in the interest of the public. Today, investors and some
states claim that domestic justice systems such as courts lack
independence. In reality, ISDS is a powerful legal tool for
corporations to achieve policy objectives that suit their interests
around the world.
Why is ISDS so problematic?
In effect, ISDS creates a parallel business-friendly judicial
system exclusively for transnational corporations. The power
rests upon for-profit arbitrators who come from the corporate
sector and face unverifiable conflicts of interest. They have no
sovereign legitimacy and are not accountable to the public. The
decisions they make can be inconsistent between one another
and cannot be appealed. Plus, the arbitrators effectively serve as
judge because the same appointed arbitrators who plead the case
for the parties make the decision. Imagine a football match where
the referee plays for one of the teams! With ISDS, this becomes
a possible scenario. So much for justice.
Can transnational corporations sue a state, if a law in the
public interest would hamper their investment?
Yes, under ISDS they can. Because of some treaties’ vague
provisions such as “fair and equitable treatment” or “indirect
expropriation”, which give significant legal leverage to
investors, corporations could claim that a law affects their profits
or investment potential. These provisions pave the way for all
kinds of interpretations that go in the investor’s favour to the
detriment of states and citizens.
Is public money used to pay ISDS disputes?
Yes. The funds come from public budgets and therefore, in most
countries, from taxpayers. Further, there is no limit as to the
costs and duration of a case, which can last for several years and
in which legal fees amount up to an average USS 8 million. 37%
of cost awards in favour of states are not paid by investors. The
number of ISDS cases has also greatly increased over the past
couple ofdecades. There are over 600 known disputes in addition
to the undisclosed ones.
Can states or citizens initiate an ISDS dispute, if an investor
failed to act responsibly or lawfully?
No, they cannot. Only a foreign investor can initiate ISDS disputes.
If an investor’s actions fail to respect laws and standards, they
must be tried in a domestic court.
Can foreign small and medium enterprises initiate an ISDS
dispute?
In theory, they can. However, because of the huge legal fees
involved, few of them could afford such costs. ISDS is first and
foremost a system for the most powerful.
Can domestic investors initiate an ISDS dispute?
No, they cannot. ISDS is a privilege for foreign investors only,
which raises the question of equal access to justice.
Who wins most: investor or states?
Under the ISDS mechanism, states never win. At best, they simply
avoid losing and are let off with all or a part of legal fees, which
is a huge sum already. States can also settle the dispute with the
investor and pay a part of the demanded sum and/or withdraw the
measure targeted by the corporation. And if the arbitrators fully
accept the investor’s claim, the sum the state has to pay can be
huge.
What if a state chose not to pay?
It would face great political, legal and economic pressure. The
state’s goods and assets abroad could also be seized. For instance,
in the Slovakia vs. Achmea dispute, *22 million was awarded to
Achmea (a Dutch insurance company) following the state’s
decision to reverse the privatization of the health system enacted
by the previous government. As Slovakia was reluctant to pay, a
Luxembourg court ordered the seizure of *29.5 million in assets
owned by the eastern European state in local banks.
References:1] India and China to hold talks over RCEP on Tuesday. Social
News. 21st January 2019. Accessed on 16th March 2019.
https://www.socialnews.xyz/2019/01/21/india-china-to-holdtalks-over-rcep-on-tuesday/
2] RCEP: A secret deal, 20111 July 2018. Accessed on 16th
March 2019.
https://www.tni.org/en/rcep-secrecy
OUTDOING THE WTO!!
THE NEW SET OF RULES OF TRADE IN THE MAKING
ADESIGN BY THE BIG COPORATE COMPANIES
Chapters
Statement of Opposition to the RCEP.
DRUG ACTION FORUM- KARNATAKA
57, Tejaswinagar, Dharwad 580002
An appeal to all political parties;-
We, the civil society groups and individuals, condemn the
secretly negotiated Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP) which will erode people’s sovereignty and
undermine health equity. We call on our governments and
political parties to reject a RCEP agreement that serves Ruthless
Companies Entrenching Power and to embrace an alternative
RCEP, recognising that Real Cooperation Empowers People.
We reject the neoliberal free trade and investment model
of RCEP because it will
* Further accelerate the race to the bottom
* Deny the people our right to determine the policies that govern
our lives and our health
* Guarantee that commercial interests have primacy over human
rights especially the right to health
* Exclude peoples’ participation in decisions and shield
governments and corporations from accountability
* Intensify climate change, the biggest threat to people and planet
in the 21 century
* Have a destructive impact on women’s lives and livelihoods
and other vulnerable groups.
* Worsen job insecurity and workers’ rights, especially for
exploited and migrant workers
* Perpetuate the centuries-long genocide of indigenous peoples
* Deny people’s sovereignty over food, traditional medicines,
and bio-diversity
* Further entrench the power of pharmaceutical companies to
extract super-profits for medicines and deprive millions of
people from affordable treatment
* Further promote the privatisation of public health services and
profiteering by transnational corporations (TNCs)
* Strengthen corporate lobbying and influence over health policy
decisions
* Embolden alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and processed food
industries that are drivers of non- communicable diseases
* Endanger national sovereignty by enabling foreign investors
to hold our governments to ransom through investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS)
* Further erode public revenue through tariff cuts and corporate
tax avoidance
* Transfer control over health data to untrustworthy private firms
to use and abuse
* Erect another barrier to a world of health for all, social justice
and survival of the planet.
.... .
==<g>==”
Recognising that Real Cooperation Empowers People,
we demand an alternative RCEP commits to : * The positive pursuit ofinternationally recognised human rights
and health obligations
* Universal quality public health services and a valued public
health workforce
* Actively empower women as the catalysts for personal and
community self-determination in health and life
* Achieve targets that will genuinely reverse the onsqt of
catastrophic climate change
* Guarantee access to affordable medicines through publicly
provided health programmes
* Food sovereignty, strong food safety standards, and health
based product labelling
* Ban toxic agro-chemicals and make agricultural work safe
* Impose enforceable obligations on corporations, especially
foreign investors, including a strong UN Binding Instrument
on Human Rights Responsibilities of TNCs
* Guarantee the rights of people to control their health data
* Negotiate and implement this alternative through open,
participatory and accountable ways, and
* Conduct participatory human rights and health impact
assessments prior to, during and after agreements to ensure
the alternative RCEP deliver on these goals.
23.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreigntrade/kerala-raises-concem-on-the-proposed-rcep-agreement/
articleshow/62838519.cms?from=mdr
Kerala raises concern on the proposed RCEP agreement
1st February 2018, ECONOMIC TIMES
RCEP is the proposed mega regional free trade agreement
between 16 Asia-Pacific countries including India and ten
member nations ofASEAN. It is likely to be signed this year
Kerala government has voiced concern about possible
repercussions of regional comprehensive economic partnership
(RCEP) agreement on small and marginal dairy farmers in Kerala
as it would open up the dairy sector to competition from
developed countries.
RCEP is the proposed mega regional free trade agreement
between 16 Asia-Pacific countries including India and ten
member nations ofASEAN. It is likely to be signed this year.
The state minister of forest, dairy development and animal
husbandry K Raju requested the Centre to 6 revisit and revise
the RCEP objectives’ so that external competition from
developed countries to the Kerala can be prevented. He was
inaugurating the 46th dairy industry conference in Kochi on
Thursday.
The Centre, he said, should hold consultations with all state
governments before signing RCEP. “The cost of milk
production in our country is high. The inflow of cheaper
raw materials for reconstituted milk might affect the
market for the natural milk produced by our dairy farmers
which is better in taste and flavour,” he said. New Zealand
and Australia who will become a part of the agreement are
currently leading exporters of dairy products in the world.
The dairy sector in Kerala is dominated by small and marginal
dairy farmers and the cost of milk production is higher than other
states as the all the inputs for rearing cattle are brought from
neighbouring states. “But Kerala is capable of dealing with
the situation due to strong network of dairy cooperatives
across the state.”
He also advocated strong research on how to increase
productivity in native breeds.
Some activities of DAF-K
o DAF-K along with others had filed Public Interest
Litigation (693/1993) in Supreme-Court of India, New
Delhi to screen and weed out irrational and hazardous
medicines in the Indian market. As a consequence to this
court intervention several categories of irrational
medicines have been weeded out.
o DAF-K had challenged the policy of iodization of salt
by the central government through a Public Interest
Litigation in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.
o Currently DAF-K along with other like minded
organizations (HRLN-Human Rights Law Network) is
filing a case in the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
with regard to the closure of public sector vaccine
manufacturing units.
o Study titled “A Study on Drugs for Treating Anaemia”
by DAF-K examines the sorry plight of the poor people
in India with regard to access to medicines for treating
anaemia. On the one hand drug companies are marketing
irrational formulations while essential and cheap
medicines to treat anaemia are not available in the Indian
market. A big scandal indeed.
(http://www.mediafire.com/file/itymtgumngw/
A Study On Drugs for Treating Anaemia.pdffile).
Cover-3
DRUG ACTION FORUM- KARNATAKA (DAF-K)
D AF-K is a registered, independent, not-for-profit, non
government organization campaigning for rational drug treatment
and policy. It is a part ofAll India Drug Action Network (AIDAN
- https://aidanindia.wordpress.com/ ), Health Action
International Asia-Pacific (http://www.haiasiapacific.org/) and
No Free Lunch (http://nofreelunchindia.org/ ).
DAF-K campaigns for medicines
' -•
/rx
and vaccines that
can meet the health
requirements,
are only essential
DAF - K
ACTXMI lOftVM > WWWATAKA
lartd
are safe and
(»<Aj jfXMfc ¥>
DAF-K logo
the cost is within the reach
of the people.
Objectives of DAF-K
* To bring out publications and conduct training on rational drug
use and policies.
* To promote the concept of “Health for All”, as stated in the
Alma Ata Declaration by World Health Organizations.
* To support and actively participate in People’s Health
Movements by joining hands with like minded national and
international organizations.
* To take legal course of action for public cause as and when
necessary.
DAF-K bulletin titled “SANJEEVINI” is its official publica
tion since last three years and is financially supported by D AFK members and as a policy will not accept any sort of support
from any drug manufacturer or profit making corporate body.
(http://nofreelunchindia.org/index.php/daf k kannada bulletin)
Position: 6105 (1 views)