Attracting encroachments to national sovereignty by rapacious Washington-connected multinational corporations and the meddling attentions of their powerful home country; stunting reform and economic development at every turn; breeding economic dependency; firmly controlled by foreign companies and giving little beneficiation to the country of production; upending and undermining political institutions; and not even sustainable.
These are ringing accusations which bring to mind one natural resource –oil. Certainly not the banana. This is somewhat understandable; oil more readily lends itself to the vilification touted in these bleak and cynical claims, and it has been the subject of visible conflict, with allegedly oil-motivated American interludes into Kuwait, Iraq and Libya being all too well known and well televised.
Nonetheless, it is one of the blights of modern political economic analysis, including those with a bent for “resource curse” theory, that in their discussion of the interaction of forces that have resulted in the paradoxical plights of some resource-rich countries, they tend to overlook one of the most important culprits, or perhaps better understood as a catalyst in a larger political process; the innocuous banana. And yet, perhaps just as much as oil, this energy source has been the fons et origo of many social, political and economic malaise in many underdeveloped countries who possess them.
This inevitable interaction with politics is only more obvious when we consider the economic significance of this product; bananas are the world’s fourth most consumed food crop, after rice, wheat and corn, with some 350 billion bananas consumed every year. Figures of this magnitude rarely rack up by market forces alone and nominally hint at a set of vested political and economic hands at work.
In this brief article, a slice of the long and storied history of the politically-derived banana’s impact on the economies of numerous states which were in possession of it, particularly regarding Latin America, the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa through the prism of the unholy alliances between big corporations and dictators, as well as the battle for market access.
Unholy Alliances: Dictators and Corporations
The South American country of Ecuador rarely finds itself on the top 3 list of any global rankings. Yet it occupies that very spot when it comes to world production of the banana. Some 18% of the bananas traded worldwide during the 1970s and 1980s originated from Ecuador, and this number expanded to 30% in the 1990s. Banana production and trade in Ecuador gives direct employment to an estimated 380 000 people. This tells something about the history and geography of this fruit on two particular points; why Ecuador and why now? The road to this present-day reality is an interesting and entangled one through which we gain insights into the nature of globalization as a performative process and its structures with implications far beyond Latin America.
In order to flourish, banana plants require rich soil, combined with 9 to 12 months of sunshine along with constant, heavy rains of to 80 to 200 inches a year. This is a demand level unmatchable by artificial irrigation if the given plantation is to compensate for the production costs and still have the ability to sell at the low price for which the banana is known. This gives us an important clue as to the Ecuadorian presence among the top producers in the world. But that is only a partial aspect on a bigger picture.
For one, how did the bananas get to Latin America, when they are said to be native to the tropics of South and Southeast Asia, and are likely to have been first domesticated in Papua New Guinea? And how did one particular variety of this fruit, the Cavendish, conquer the world market when there are thousands all across the world? The answer to these questions are political and are to be found in the early half of the nineteenth century.
The mass production of the banana such as we know today commenced specifically in the year 1834 and saw an explosion in the late 1880s and from the beginning reaped political consequences. Prior to the 1870s most of the land that bananas were grown on in the Caribbean had been previously used to grow sugar, and indeed before then bananas were virtually unknown in the United States. But this quickly changed and just 30 years later, Americans (then totaling at 70 million people) were consuming over 16 million bunches a year. Like all rapid expansions and enormous profits, this came at a high cost, and perhaps none bore it more than the producing populations.
The odyssey started in 1871 and, indicative of those twists of fate with which history is so littered, not with anything to do with agriculture but the construction of a railroad in Costa Rica overseen by an ambitious23 years-old Minor Keith, born in New York. The mega project sees hundreds lose their lives, including the lives of Keith’s two brothers. Bur Mr. Keith is undaunted. While building the railroad in Costa Rica he was also hatching a far grander plan. As construction made progress, he ordered the planting of bananas on the land easements to either side of the tracks. The bananas flourished and once the railroad was brought to completion it was possible to economically transport the bananas to Americans who were beginning to acquire a taste for the exotic fruit. By the next decade, Keith owned three banana companies. Keith then joined up with a Cape Cod sailor, Lorenzo Baker, and a Boston businessman, Andrew Preston. The three raised the necessary capital to establish the Boston Fruit Company. By 1899, the Boston Fruit Company and the United Fruit Company (UFCO) emerged – and in their wake formed the largest banana company in the world, with plantations all over Latin America and the Caribbean, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama and Santo Domingo. The company also owned 112 miles of railroad linking the plantations with ports. To complete their Charter company-like set up, and in order to protect their interests, they also owned some eleven steamships, known as the Great White Fleet and an additional 30 other ships under lease.
In 1901, Guatemalan dictator, Manuel Estrada Cabrera granted to UFCO the exclusive right to transport postal mail between Guatemala and the United States. Thus came UFCO’s first entry into Guatemala in whose wake the country would be held custody to a fruit company. Ruled by a conservative dictator who would be a puppet to the UFCO, Keith judged Guatemala to have “an ideal investment climate”. He formed the Guatemalan Railroad Company as a subsidiary of UFCO and capitalized it at $40-million. Other countries in Central and South America also fell prey to the UFCO, which they called or “El Pulpo” (the Octopus), but no other state felt the weight of the UFCO more than Guatemala.
Why was Guatemala such an ideal investment climate for the UFCO? “Guatemala was chosen as the site for the company’s earliest development activities,” a former United Fruit executive once explained, “because at the time we entered Central America, Guatemala’s government was the region’s weakest, most corrupt and most pliable.”In Guatemala, United Fruit gained control of virtually all means of transport and communications. United Fruit charged a tariff on every item of freight that moved in and out of the country via Puerto Barrios. As if that were not enough, the company also managed to exempt itself from virtually all taxes in Guatemala for 99 years.
In 1944, the people of Guatemala overthrew the right-wing dictator then in power, Jorge Ubico, and held their first ever true elections. The man they elected president was Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo, a socialist. A new constitution was drawn up, partly based on the American version. At this time, in the highly class-divided Guatemala, only 2.2% of the population owned over 70% of the country’s land. Only 10% of the land was available for 90% of the population, most of whom were native Indians.
Most of the land held by the large landowners was unused. Jacobo Arbenz who succeeded Arevalo in another free election continued the reform process. Arbenz proposed to redistribute some of the unused land and make it available for the 90% to farm. This greatly unsettled the UFCO; the United Fruit was one of the big holders of unused land in Guatemala. The pressure mounted heavily against the UFCO and finally the company made its pleas and called on officials in the US government, including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (whose former New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, was a representative of the company), saying that Guatemala had turned communist and was susceptible to Soviet Union influence.
Fortunately for the fruit conglomerate, almost every major American official involved had a family or business connection to the company itself(Allen Dulles, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, had served on UFCO’s board of trustees while Ed Whitman, the company’s top public relations officer, was married to Ann Whitman, President Eisenhower’s private secretary). Thus with great zeal, the U.S. State Department and United Fruit, enlisting the talents of the PR genius Edward Bernays (a nephew of the pioneering psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud), embarked on a major public relations campaign to convince the American people and the rest of the US government that Guatemala was a Soviet “satellite”.
Upon Bernays’ suggestion, the company also arranged and offered to pay for the expenses of journalists who traveled to Guatemala to learn United Fruit’s side of the story, and some of the biggest outlets (and particularly The New York Times and The New York Herald Tribune) published accounts favorable to the UFCO.
The campaign was a resounding success and in 1954, with consent manufactured, the CIA engineered a coup, code-named “Operation PBSUCCESS”. The CIA set up a clandestine radio station to carry propaganda, jammed all Guatemalan stations, and hired skilled American pilots to bomb strategic points in Guatemala City. The U.S. replaced the democratically-elected government of Guatemala with another right-wing dictator that would again bend to UFCO’s will. The propaganda machine, meanwhile, portrayed the operation to the American audience as the removal of an unpopular leader and the ushering in of liberty and democracy; this has an eerily familiarity when looked at through the prism of America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.
After his firm, Hubbard-Zemurray, experienced much success importing bananas from Latin and Central America and selling them in in New Orleans, Samuel Zemurray went to the Central American republic of Honduras to expand his company into banana production in the year 1910. Honduras was deemed well-suited for growing bananas due to its proximity to the equator. These were the seeds of what would eventuate into Cuyamel.
But Cuyamel did not enter unchartered territory and the turf was already spoken for. The main player seeking monopoly status in the Honduras banana market besides was Vaccaro Brothers and Company. But both the Vaccaro firm and Cuyamel were eclipsed by the much larger United Fruit Company. Before United Fruit entered Honduras as a direct producer in 1910, the firm participated in the Honduras market by proxy through investments in both Zemurray’s and Vaccaro Brothers’ companies. Before United developed plantations of its own in the cities of Trujillo and Tela, it owned 60% of Cuyamel and 50% of Vaccaro. Even though the three companies were competitive against each other, they maintained some respective distance, and even pursued joint efforts in advertising and increasing banana agricultural outputs in Honduras.
Nevertheless, competitiveness seeps through. Zemurray had played an active role in Honduran politics since he first arrived in the country. In 1910, the administration of President Miguel R. Dávila had given the Vaccaro Brothers’ Company land for railroad construction and prohibited any other companies from building a competing railroad within 12 miles of the Vaccaro line. This had long displeased Zemurray, and he detested the Dávila government, having provided encouragement and money to a failed coup in 1908 against Dávila.
These concessions by the Dávila regime to Vaccaro further enrage Zemurray. He makes a concerted effort now to remove the regime, and has an accomplice in the person of former President Manuel Bonilla. Zemurray supplied weapons and transportation for Bonilla to launch a coup against Dávila. President Dávila fled, and Bonilla once again assumed the presidency of the nation, owing in large part to the direct intervention of Zemurray.
Shortly before Bonilla ascended to the presidency, Zemurray in 1911 transformed his company from Hubbard-Zemurray into Cuyamel Fruit Company. He acquired 5,000 acres of land for agriculture along the Cuyamel River in the northwestern extremity of Honduras, near the Guatemalan border. The firm took its new name either from this river or from the town of Cuyamel nearby. As a repayment for his support, Bonilla also granted Zemurray a concession to build a railroad between the town of Cuyamel, by the coast, and Veracruz, in the interior.
There were no more coups in the country through the end of the decade, but Zemurray’s Cuyamel Fruit was in fierce competition with Vaccaro and United. Further, Cuyamel’s development of a previously empty strip of land along the Guatemala-Honduras border almost led to an outbreak of war between the two states, but this was halted by US mediation.This incident of near-war strained relations between pro-Honduras Cuyamel and pro-Guatemala United, and this tension would not fully cool off until the two companies became one in 1929, when following the October crash of international financial markets, Zemurray sold Cuyamel to United Fruit in exchange for stock and retired, making UFCO the giant discussed in prior sections.
The Banana Wars: The Battle for the Banana Market
Africa’s banana market is a paradoxical reality. In the lowland of the Congo basin, farmers grow a greater diversity of bananas than anywhere in the world.In countries such as Uganda, Burundi, and Rwanda per capita consumption has been estimated at 99 pounds per year, the highest in the world. Uganda itself is the second-largest producer of bananas in the world after India. It is, however, one of the smallest exporters, the crops being used mostly for domestic consumption.
West African countries produce nearly all of Africa’s banana exports. Production in this region has grown rapidly over the past 15 years, now accounting for around 4% of the world banana trade. The vast majority of these bananas are sold in Europe, mainly in France and the UK, where an estimated 2.5 billion tonnes of bananas are peeled annually. But the African access raises questions and a myriad of issues about the nature of the international political economy than meets the eye.
Since 1975, African and Caribbean countries had had a quota of bananas to import into the EU market, enabling them to sell to Europe as many as they wanted to support. The official reasoning for this was that the European Union (then known as the European Community) hoped, that this would enable the economies of such developing countries to grow independently, without depending on overseas aid. Some economists, however, question the logic behind this.
To begin with, if the EU is concerned with the development of these countries and to free markets, it makes no economic sense to continue to subsidize their agricultural lobby with up to 50-billion euros per year. Secondly, the EU would remove barriers to a vast array of agricultural products from Africa – as it stands only bananas can be sold into the EU market without barriers to entry, and indeed disincentives are provided as seen in the imposition of 30% tariffs to unprocessed coffee but 60% to processed (that is job-creating) coffee from Africa.
Secondly, banana and pineapple production in Africa are dominated by two American multinational companies Compagnie Fruitière/Dole (a descendent of the Cuyamel company dealt with above) and Del Monte.In any case, US multinationals which control the Latin American banana crop hold 67% of the EU market and the US itself does not export bananas to Europe. This perhaps displays the extent to which the removal of barriers to access are motivated by US-EU alliance and not developmental concerns regarding Africa. The Caribbean is a different story, however.
Despite this, however, the US filed a complaint against the EU for further with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and, in 1997, won. The EU was instructed to alter its rules as a result. The chief outcome of this deal had been to protect banana farmers in the Caribbean from competition from Latin America, whose bananas are cheaper because they are grown on largescale, mechanised plantations run by giant USbased corporations.
After the WTO ruling, the US government continued to argue that free trade in bananas had not been restored, while the EU argue it has changed its rules. The US has then imposed a retaliatory range of 100% import duties on European products, “encompassing everything from Scottish cashmere to French cheese” as the Guardian then put it.
The US government was allegedly pressurized by powerful US multinational companies which dominate the Latin American banana industry. “The Bill Clinton administration took the “banana wars” to the WTO within 24 hours of Chiquita Brands, a powerful, previously Republican supporting banana multinational, making a $500,000 donation to the Democratic Party” according to journalist Patrick Barkham.
The banana wars came to a conclusion only in 2009 with an agreement between the EU and Latin American countries. The December 2009 agreement involved the EU reducing its tariffs on imported bananas from 176 euros ($224; £140) per tonne to 114 euros per tonne within eight years.
The Future and Sustainability of the Banana: A Challenge of Globalization
Like oil, the banana is not only problematic in its production and sale, but it may also not have much of a future; at least not as we know it. Researchers have declared the Cavendish to be potentially unsustainable and at risk of “imminent death.” This threat stems from the Panama disease; a deadly root fungus from the island of Taiwan. And since all Cavendishes are clones, if the fungus can kill one banana shrub, it can kill them all.
Of course the Panama disease is nothing new. It was identified at least as early as the 1950s, when it wiped out the Cavendish’s predecessor, known as the ‘Gros Michel’, or Big Mike. When the Gros Michel banana succumbed to the fungus, the Cavendish was found to be immune, at least until the fungus mutated and started its attack all over again. Starting in the 1990s, the Panama fungus began to work its way across Asia and Africa once again. The oceans have proven effective barriers for now, “but when someone with the fungus on their shoe can cross an ocean in a few hours,” National Geographic magazine warns“oceans provide little protection.”
The history of the banana has been one of deep politicisation, therefore; implicating it in the unfavourable destinies of multitudes. But the banana, and for that matter oil itself, is merely one among many problematic resources to reap these economic histories and contemporary consequences. Indeed its trysts with dictators, lobbyists and tariffs at the behest of seemingly malevolent multinationals says more about the politicised nature of international trade than the resource in question. Indeed very few resources, if at all, could undergo similar examinations and emerge unscathed to some degree or another.
Key elements of the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement
The EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement will boost trade in goods and services as well as create opportunities for investment.
The agreement will further improve the position of EU exporters and investors on Japan’s large market, while including strong guarantees for the protection of EU standards and values. It will help cement Europe’s leadership in setting global trade rules and send a powerful signal that cooperation, not protectionism, is the way to tackle global challenges.
This Agreement, as other agreements concluded recently by the EU, goes beyond trade issues only. It represents a significant strengthening of our partnership with Japan, as reflected in the name of the agreement.
What is the Economic Partnership Agreement about?
Elimination of customs duties – more than 90% of the EU’s exports to Japan will be duty free at entry into force of the agreement. Once the agreement is fully implemented, Japan will have scrapped customs duties on 97% of goods imported from the EU (in tariff lines), with the remaining tariff lines being subject to partial liberalisation through tariff rate quotas or tariff reductions. This, in turn, will save EU exporters around €1 billion in customs duties per year.
Agriculture and food products – Japan is a highly valuable export market for European farmers and food producers. With annual exports worth over €5.7 billion, Japan is already the EU’s fourth biggest market for agricultural exports. Over time around 85% of EU agri- food products (in tariff lines) will be allowed to enter Japan entirely duty-free. This corresponds to 87% of current agri-food exports by value.
The agreement will eliminate or sharply reduce duties on agricultural products in which the EU has a major export interest, such as pork, the EU’s main agricultural export to Japan, ensuring duty-free trade with processed pork meat and almost duty-free trade for fresh pork meat exports. Tariffs on beef will be cut from 38.5% to 9% over 15 years for a significant volume of beef products.
EU wine exports to Japan are already worth around €1 billion and represent the EU’s second biggest agricultural export to Japan by value. The 15% tariff on wine will be scrapped from day one, as will tariffs for other alcoholic drinks.
As regards cheese exports, where the EU is already the main player on the Japanese market, high duties on many hard cheeses such as Gouda and Cheddar (which currently are at 29.8%) will be eliminated, and a duty-free quota will be established for fresh cheeses such as Mozzarella. The EU-Japan agreement will also scrap today’s customs duties (with a transitional period) for processed agricultural products such as pasta, chocolates, cocoa powder, candies, confectionary, biscuits, starch derivatives, prepared tomatoes and tomato sauce. There will also be significant quotas for EU exports (duty-free or with reduced duty) of malt, potato starch, skimmed milk powder, butter and whey.
Geographical Indications – the EU-Japan agreement recognises the special status and offers protection on the Japanese market to more than 200 European agricultural products from a specific European geographical origin, known as Geographical Indications (GIs) – for instance Roquefort, Aceto Balsamico di Modena, Prosecco, Jambon d’Ardenne, Tiroler Speck, Polska Wódka, Queso Manchego, Lübecker Marzipan and Irish Whiskey. These products will be given the same level of protection in Japan as they experience in the EU today.
Industrial products – tariffs on industrial products will be fully abolished, for instance in sectors where the EU is very competitive, such as chemicals, plastics, cosmetics as well as textiles and clothing. For leather and shoes, the existing quota system that has been significantly hampering EU exports will be abolished at the agreement’s entry into force. Tariffs on shoes will go down from 30% to 21% at entry into force, with the rest of the duties being eliminated over 10 years. Tariffs on EU exports of leather products, such as handbags, will go down to zero over 10 years, as will be those on products that are traditionally highly protected by Japan, such as sports shoes and ski boots.
Fisheries – import quotas will no longer be applied and all tariffs will be eliminated on both sides, meaning better prices for EU consumers and big export opportunities for EU industry.
Forestry – tariffs on all wood products will be fully eliminated, with seven years staging for the most important priorities. Most tariffs on wood products will be dropped immediately, with some less important tariff lines being scrapped after 10 years.
Non-tariff barriers – The EU-Japan negotiations addressed many non-tariff measures that had constituted a concern for EU companies, as some Japanese technical requirements and certification procedures often make it difficult to export safe European products to Japan. The agreement will make it easier for EU companies to access the highly regulated Japanese market. Examples of such barriers addressed include:
Motor vehicles – the agreement ensures that both Japan and the EU will fully align themselves to the same international standards on product safety and the protection of the environment, meaning that European cars will be subject to the same requirements in the EU and Japan, and will not need to be tested and certified again when exported to Japan. With Japan now committing itself to international car standards, EU exports of cars to Japan will become significantly simpler. This also paves the way for even stronger cooperation between the EU and Japan in international standard setting fora. It includes an accelerated dispute settlement between the two sides specifically for motor vehicles, similar to the one agreed under the EU-South Korea trade agreement. It also includes a safeguard and a clause allowing the EU to reintroduce tariffs in the event that Japan would (re)introduce non-tariff barriers to EU exports of vehicles. The agreement will also mean that hydrogen-fuelled cars that approved in the EU can be exported to Japan without further alterations.
Medical devices – In November 2014, Japan adopted the international standard on quality management systems (QMS), on which the EU QMS system for medical devices is based. This reduces the costs of certification of European products exported to Japan considerably.
Textiles labelling – In March 2015, Japan adopted the international textiles labelling system similar to the one used in the EU. Textiles labels therefore do no longer need to be changed on every single garment exported to Japan, as was the case before.
“Quasi drugs”, medical devices and cosmetics – a complicated and duplicative notification system that hampered the marketing of many European pharmaceuticals, medical devices and cosmetics in Japan was finally abolished on 1 January 2016.
Beer – From 2018 onwards, European beers can be exported as beers and not as “alcoholic soft drinks”. This will also lead to similar taxation, thus doing away with differences between different beers.
In addition, the Economic Partnership Agreement also contains general rules on certain types of non-tariff barriers, which will help level the playing field for European products exported to Japan, and increase transparency and predictability:
Technical barriers to trade – the agreement puts the focus on Japan and the EU’s mutual commitment to ensure that their standards and technical regulations are based on international standards to the greatest possible extent. Combined with the provisions on non-tariff measures, this is good news for European exporters of electronics, pharmaceuticals, textiles and chemicals. For instance, reliance on international standards will be helpful for easier and less costly compliance of food products with Japanese labelling rules.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures – the agreement creates a more predictable regulatory environment for EU products exported to Japan. The EU and Japan have agreed to simplify approval and clearance processes and that import procedures are completed without undue delays, making sure that undue bureaucracy does not put a spanner in the works for exporters. The agreement will not lower safety standards or require parties to change their domestic policy choices on matters such as the use of hormones or genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Trade in services
The EU exports some €28 billion of services to Japan each year. The agreement will make it easier for EU firms to provide services on the highly lucrative Japanese market. The agreement contains a number of provisions that apply horizontally to all trade in services, such as a provision to reaffirm the Parties’ right to regulate. It maintains the right of EU Member States’ authorities to keep public services public and it will not force governments to privatise or deregulate any public service at national or local level. Likewise, Member States’ authorities retain the right to bring back to the public sector any privately provided services. Europeans will continue to decide for themselves how they want, for example, their healthcare, education and water delivered.
Postal and courier services – the agreement includes provisions on universal service obligations, border procedures, licences and the independence of the regulators. The agreement will also ensure a level-playing field between EU suppliers of postal and courier services and their Japanese competitors, such as Japan Post.
Telecommunications – the agreement includes provisions focused on establishing a level playing field for telecommunications services providers and on issues such as universal service obligations, number portability, mobile roaming and confidentiality of communications.
International maritime transport services – the agreement contains obligations to maintain open and non-discriminatory access to international maritime services (transport and related services) as well as access to ports and port services.
Financial services – the agreement contains specific definitions, exceptions and disciplines on new financial services, self-regulating organisations, payment and clearing systems and transparency, and rules on insurance services provided by postal entities. Many of these are based on rules developed under the World Trade Organisation, while addressing specificities of the financial services sector.
Temporary movement of company personnel – the agreement includes the most advanced provisions on movement of people for business purposes (otherwise known as “mode 4”) that the EU has negotiated so far. They cover all traditional categories such as intra-corporate transferees, business visitors for investment purposes, contractual service suppliers, and independent professionals, as well as newer categories such as short-term business visitors and investors. The EU and Japan have also agreed to allow spouses and children to accompany those who are either service suppliers or who work for a service supplier (covered by “mode 4” provisions). This will, in turn, support investment in both directions.
State owned enterprises – state-owned enterprises will not be allowed to treat EU companies, services or products differently to their Japanese counterparts when buying and selling on commercial markets.
Public procurement – EU companies will be able to participate on an equal footing with Japanese companies in bids for procurement tenders in the 54 so-called ‘core cities’ of Japan (i.e. cities with around 300.000 to 500.00 inhabitants or more). The agreement also removes existing obstacles to procurement in the railway sector.
Investment – The agreement aims to promote investment between the EU and Japan. At the same time, the text explicitly reaffirms the right of each party to regulate to pursue legitimate policy objectives, highlighted in a non- exhaustive list. The agreement does not cover the protection of investment, on which negotiations are ongoing between the two sides for a potential agreement on the protection of investments. The EU has also tabled to Japan its reformed proposal on the Investment Court System. For the EU, it is clear that there can be no return to the old-style Investor to State Dispute Settlement System (ISDS).
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) – the agreement builds on and reinforces the commitments that both sides have taken in the World Trade Organization (WTO), in line with the EU’s own rules. The agreement sets out provisions on protection of trade secrets, trademarks, copyright protection, patents, minimum common rules for regulatory test data protection for pharmaceuticals, and civil enforcement provisions.
Data protection – Data protection is a fundamental right in the European Union and is not up for negotiation. Privacy is not a commodity to be traded. Since January 2017, the European Union and Japan engaged in a dialogue to facilitate the transfers of personal data for commercial exchanges, while ensuring the highest level of data protection. With the EU General Data Protection Regulation that entered into force last year and the new Japanese privacy law that entered into force in May, the EU and Japan have modernised and strengthened their respective data protection regimes. In July 2018, the Commission and the Japanese government reached a satisfactory conclusion on the robustness each other’s data protection rules, and hence they intend to move forward with the adoption of a so-called “mutual adequacy” arrangement, which will create the world’s largest area of safe transfers of data based on a high level of protection for personal data.
Sustainable development – the agreement includes all the key elements of the EU approach on sustainable development and is in line with other recent EU trade agreements. The EU and Japan commit themselves to implementing the core labour standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and international environmental agreements, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as the Paris climate agreement. The EU and Japan commit not to lower domestic labour and environmental laws to attract trade and investment. The parties also commit to the conservation and sustainable management of natural resources, and to addressing biodiversity, forestry, and fisheries issues. The parties agree to promote Corporate Social Responsibility and other trade and investment practices supporting sustainable development. The agreement sets up mechanisms for giving civil society oversight over commitments taken in the field of Trade and Sustainable Development. The agreement will have a dedicated, binding mechanism for resolving disputes in this area, which includes governmental consultations and recourse to an independent panel of experts.
Whaling and illegal logging – The EU has banned all imports of whale products for more than 35 years, and this will not change with the Economic Partnership Agreement. The EU and its Member States are committed to the conservation and protection of whales and have consistently expressed strong reservations about whaling for scientific purposes. Whales receive special protection under EU law and the EU strictly enforces the ban on trade under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The EU addresses whaling by all third countries, including Japan, both in bilateral relations and in the international fora that are best suited to deal with this issue – for example, at the International Whaling Commission, where we work with like-minded partners to address whaling with Japan. The sustainable development chapter of the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement will provide an additional platform to foster dialogue and joint work between the EU and Japan on environmental issues of relevance in a trade context.
The EU and Japan share a common commitment to combat illegal logging and related trade. Trade in illegal timber is not an issue between the EU and Japan. The EU has a very clear legislation on illegal logging, just like Japan, which applies to imports from any country of origin. Both partners have surveillance and certification systems in place to prevent the import of illegal timber. The two partners also work closely with third countries to support them in setting up efficient mechanisms to address the problem. The agreement includes a legal provision committing both partners to the prevention of illegal logging and related trade.
Corporate governance – for the first time in an EU trade agreement, there will be a specific chapter on corporate governance. It is based on the G20/OECD’s Principles on Corporate Governance and reflects the EU’s and Japan’s best practices and rules in this area. The EU and Japan commit themselves to adhere to key principles and objectives, such as transparency and disclosure of information on publicly listed companies; accountability of the management towards shareholders; responsible decision-making based on an objective and independent standpoint; effective and fair exercise of shareholders’ rights; and transparency and fairness in takeover transactions.
Competition – the agreement contains important principles that ensure that both sides commit themselves to maintaining comprehensive competition rules and implementing these rules in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.
State-to-State dispute settlement mechanism – the agreement ensures that rights and obligations under the agreement are fully observed. It provides an effective, efficient and transparent mechanism with a pre-established list of qualified and experienced panellists for avoiding and solving disputes between the EU and Japan.
Anti-Fraud – The EU and Japan will include an anti-fraud clause in the economic partnership agreement. The anti-fraud clause is a condition for the EU to grant tariff preferences to any third country. It makes it possible for the EU to withdraw tariff preferences in cases of fraud and refusal to co-operate, while ensuring that legitimate traders are not adversely affected. The aim is to prevent abuse of preferential tariff treatment.
At the same time, negotiations with Japan continue on investment protection standards and investment protection dispute resolution.
Success of G-20 Summit 2018
G-20 Summit 2018, was termed as successful and hope for better world order. In fact, recently the tension between US and China & Russia was growing and world peace and stability was at stake. Since January 2018, when President Trump, addressed house of union, expressed anti-China and Russia sentiments. Later on imposition of traffic on Chinese products and several other action were aimed to curtail China’s growth countering Russian threats. APEC summit at Papua New Guinea has also given negative signals. Under this scenario, whole world has focused on the out-come of G-20 Summit 2018, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 30 November-1 December 2018.
Chinese wisdom brought fruits finally, as a result of meeting between President Trump and President Xi, in Buenos Aires on 1 December 2018, where US president agreed to not to put additional tariffs on Chinese goods. Since beginning of 2018, starting from the President Trump’s address to state of Union, anti-China sentiments were very much obvious. Putting tariff to Chinese goods by US Dollars 200 Billion, APEC summit at Papua New Guinea etc were the moments of worry for not only China but also for the whole world.
As, US is the largest and China as second largest economy of the World. These two economies were dominating the global economy. Any disturbance to US or Chinese economy may disturb the whole world’s economy and destabilize world trade. Any such chaos may lead to political instability globally. There were clouds of destabilization due to ongoing Trade War between the two big economies and all other nations were worried about the future of their own economies.
China is an ancient civilization and has passed many ups and downs throughout the history and have become much matured nation. Chinese policy of “Peace and Development” is beauty of its century old wisdom. By nature, Chinese people wanted a smooth and frictionless society. Since the beginning of confrontation or trade war, Chinese side observed patience and always struggling to find a solution by talk or negotiation. Even China was not eager to impose any tariff on US goods, but lately reciprocated as a last option.
President Xi’s speech at summit was very comprehensive and very clear spelling out the responsibilities and consequences of any destabilization of global economy. He urged that on trade issues, the world should firstly stick to openness and free trade, maintain and further expand an open market, and realize win-win cooperation through mutual exchanges and complementarity. China is stick to opening its doors to rest of world and believe in globalization and follow the WTO as guidelines. Secondly, G20 should stick to inclusiveness, and bring the benefits of international trade and economic globalization to people of all countries and all classes, including the under developed, developing nations and especially the poor states. Thirdly, G20 should uphold rules-oriented spirit and nurture a stable and expectable institutional environment for the healthy development of international trade.
President Trump was also positive and cooperative. Finally China and the United States have agreed to halt additional tariffs as both countries engage in new trade negotiations with the goal of reaching an agreement within 90 days. The breakthrough came after a dinner meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Trump agreed not to boost tariffs on $200bn of Chinese goods to 25 percent on January 1 as previously announced, while Beijing agreed to buy an unspecified but “very substantial” amount of agricultural, energy, industrial and other products, the White House said in a statement.
Overall, G-20 final communique said the members reaffirm ‘commitment to further strengthening the global financial safety net with a strong, quota-based, and adequately resourced IMF at its centre’. Further added that international trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development. Also note on current trade issues, reaffirms pledge to use all policy tools to achieve strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. The communique said the group will safeguard against downside risks, by stepping up our dialogue and actions to enhance confidence.
Overall the Summit was termed as a very successful one and hopes for stability in the global economy is obvious. Especially the developing countries and poor economies felt sigh a relief. Pakistan is also passing through its worst hit era of economic crisis and was struggling to revive its ill-economy. As the international environment may improve and there may exist a space for Pakistan to play smartly and re-gain its position in the global economies. Although, Pakistan possess a huge potential for rapid growth, because of its natural edge over its rich agriculture and tremendous natural resources in the form of Minerals and mines. Pakistan work force is also a positive factor with 70% of its population under the age of 40, are well qualified. The hindrance is only, corruption, nepotism and poor management. It is responsibility of Government to introduce reforms, friendly incentive based policies, and strict-merit based implementation.
It is believed that China-Pakistan economic Corridor (CPEC) will also prosper and will achieve its desired results. The cooperation between China and Pakistan will grow further in all walk of life and benefits the common people of both sides.
The Myth of Capitalism-Book Review
Many people have labeled communism as but a myth: an unattainable fantasy. Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn (T&H) have, by contrast, written a new book called The myth of capitalism: Monopolies and the death of competition. It contains a series of liberal and conservative critiques of the economic system of the US in particular and the West more generally.
T&H chronicle the decline of competitiveness in almost every sector of the US economy. Most people in the mainstream media are drooling over the record highs being recorded on the stock market, but the book notes, “Between 1996-2016, the number of stocks in the US fell by roughly 50%, from more than 7300 to fewer than 3600, while rising 50% in other developed nations.” As T&H painstakingly explain by citing studies and charts, the US economy has been stagnant by most truly relevant metrics since the Reaganomics of the 1980s, such as R&D spending, company longevity, competitive consumer product prices and the number of annual startups.
The superficiality of the recent Wall St gains is enabled via trickery such as stock buybacks, oligopolistic mergers & lobbyist-sponsored deregulation and tax exemptions. Such corruption used to be illegal, in pre- Reagan and Buckley v. Valeo America. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt both cracked down on monopolies like Standard Oil and the New York Central Railroad by enforcing the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Every president since Teddy, both Democrat and Republican, cracked down on potential monopolies until Reagan. This helped prevent a market crash akin to those of 1907 and 1929, which were the direct result of laissez-faire capitalism.
Wide-scale mergers started occurring during the Reagan Administration and have only picked up steam ever since. Concerning our last president, T&H note that, “Obama talked tough on big business and Wall Street, but he raised as much money from them as possible and was arguably even more pro-merger than Bush. His DOJ approved all the airline mergers, creating an oligopoly of four airlines… He allowed Google’s major acquisitions that vertically integrated parts of the ad industry… The FTC prevented Comcast from buying Time Warner in 2015 and AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile in 2011. These were the only notable mergers Obama’s DOJ blocked.”
The book lists all of the industries that have effectively become oligopolies or even monopolies: search engines, beer, beverages, glasses, weapons, banks, telecommunications, social media, cell phone manufacturing, agriculture, airlines, pharmaceuticals, credit rating, tobacco, railroads, etc. The consolidation of market share to a handful of billion-dollar companies has throttled the entry of new companies in our so-called Age of the Startup. T&H write how Facebook has (after buying out Instagram) been able to devastate upstart platform Snapchat by mimicking all of Snapchat’s features. Such treachery, combined with Facebook’s 2B+ user base, ensured Snapchat would end up in the financial spiral that’s it’s currently in. This is but one example of how the post-merger era has sabotaged fresh competition. The book relays this sobering stat: “In 1995, the top 100 companies accounted for 53% of all income from publicly traded firms, but by 2015, they captured a whopping 84% of all profits.” After decades of decline, the number of new firm entries fell below the number of firm exits in 2013. This decline in the number of startup innovators inevitably ends up hurting technological innovations.
The merger bonanza may be great for Wall St, but it’s horrible for Middle America. For instance, T&H write, “When workers have fewer employers to choose from in their line of work, their bargaining power disappears. Corporate giants can squeeze their suppliers, but the main thing companies buy is labor, and they have been squeezing workers.” Thus, wages have struggled to keep up with inflation for decades. Benefits are cut, while stock buybacks soar. Unhappy workers in all but 3 states can be shackled to soul-sucking jobs via non-compete clauses. Furthermore, “56% of private sector non-unionized workers are forced into mandatory arbitration and of those, 23% were also denied any access to class-action lawsuits. This means that nearly a quarter of working Americans in the private sector don’t have the basic right to sue their employer.”
Mergers aren’t good for consumers either, despite what the corporatist rhetoric will tell you. T&Hgive countless examples of how industries became less innovative after drinking the Oligopoly Kool-Aid. The lack of competition this environment leads to complacency and, thus, a lack of product innovation or even concern for customer service. The book also reports that, “in mergers that led to 6 or fewer significant competitors, prices rose in nearly 95% of cases… On average, post-merger prices increased 4.3%.” Industries from beer to pharmaceuticals are infamous for fixing prices, due to high barriers of entry for startups and tacit (and sometimes explicit) collusion. According to the book’s data, the average specialty pharmaceutical medication cost jumped 217% from 2011-2015. Unsurprising, when you consider that, “In 2017, drug makers paid for 882 lobbyists and spent more than $171.5M in an effort to oppose lower prescription drug prices.”
Ironically, lobbyists will argue that mergers lead to lower prices and greater innovation. They make the dishonest argument that the goal of the antitrust acts was solely to help consumers. In fact, the legislation never even mentioned consumer efficiency; the bills were all about breaking up the power of the trusts. People like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson saw how monopolies exceeded government authority in many cases; a lack of government enforcement of industry ultimately led to the Great Depression and the resulting New Deal reformations.
In the era of the Too-Big-to-Fail banks and corporations, the lessons of The myth of capitalism are more important than ever. They expose the façade of the post-recession “economic recovery” for what it is: stock buybacks and mergers puffing up the economy. Everyone and everything from workers, consumers, people with medical conditions, startups and the IRS suffer from the corruption of American capitalism. Tepper and Hearn frame their central thesis with liberal ideals and arguments (protecting the consumer, income inequality, maintaining government independence from corporate influence), as well as conservative (market competitiveness, cutting red tape for small business, low consumer prices). A lot is written about the thoughts of Hayek and Friedman, but also leftists like FDR and Marx. The final chapter offers some solutions to the problems of our times, but they’re pretty predictable if you’ve been reading along the whole way. Page after page of charts succinctly illustrate the points T&H make about trust-busting, the corrosiveness of the lobbyist class, the benefits of competitive markets, and livings standards for people on Main Street. The myth of capitalism is a very readable, even-handed and informative primer for anyone questioning whether or not they’re being gas lighted by the nonstop barrage of praise for the economy by the oligopolistic mainstream media.
Freedom, Sovereign Debt, Generational Accounting and other Myths
“How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and Asia’s success story? Well, it might...
American (And Global) Oligarchy Rapidly Moving Towards Monarchy
Many people do not realize that the proverbial “noose” of civil rights, civil liberties and property rights are rapidly coming...
War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered the Second World War. A war of horrors,...
Russian Aluminium, Health Ministry Announce Ebola Vaccine
Russian Aluminium (RUSAL), one of the world’s largest aluminium producers, together with the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation,...
Asia’s Growth Outlook Steady Despite China–US Trade Conflict
Economies in developing Asia and the Pacific are weathering external challenges thanks to robust domestic demand, while inflationary pressures are...
New ADB Platform to Help Boost Financing for Climate Action
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has launched a new platform aimed at helping its developing member countries in Asia and...
Arrogance of force and hostages in US-China trade war
Even before the ink on the comments made by those who (just like the author of these lines) saw the...
- Centre and Calm Yourself and Spirit on Restorative Yoga Energy Trail
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Rethinking Armenian North-South Road Corridor: Internal and External Factors
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Dismantling Yalta system, or Ukraine as an instrument of destroying the world order
Defense2 days ago
European army: An apple of discord
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan’s Increasing Tilt towards China
East Asia2 days ago
Will China Save the Planet? Book Review
Reports2 days ago
Vietnam’s economy grows robustly, but risks intensify
Newsdesk2 days ago
New Initiative to Mitigate Risk for Global Solar Scale-up
Economy2 days ago
Key elements of the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement