However, Pakistan has, of late, been itself inclined towards bilateral activism. Only recently its FTA with Sri Lanka has gone into operation. Another 14 FTAs are to be or already being negotiated. The countries are China, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Tunisia, Mauritius, Morocco, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. With China, there already exists a preferential trade agreement for tariff concession on numerous items.
Another issue that disturbs American investors is the inadequacy of intellectual property rights protection in Pakistan which the US-Pakistan Business Council has also been pointing out. The US Trade Representativeââ¬â¢s annual report has been placing Pakistan each year, since 1989, on Priority Watch List or ââ¬ÅSpecial 301ââ¬Â for piracy and counterfeit problems. The establishment of Pakistan Intellectual Property Organization (PIPRO), though admired, has not impressed the US authorities and the US copyright industry remains disappointed. However, American industry is now less angry (because of Pakistanââ¬â¢s lead role in ââ¬Ëwar on terrorââ¬â¢) and has asked the USTR for discontinuing further investigations into the rampant copyright violations.
The problem is that the US has always viewed WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights (Trips) as being inadequate and wanted the WTO and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to set higher standards. The US attitude has largely been influenced by its failure to obtain an agreement on trade in counterfeit goods at the end of the Tokyo Round (1979) and later by resistance of the developing countries (led by India and Brazil) in the first half of the 1980s to include intellectual property as a negotiating item in a new Gatt round.
According to Aziz Chaudhry, an activist, Washington insists on both stiff intellectual property laws and settlement of outstanding investment disputes to be sorted out before negotiating a BIT. Progress on negotiations for a US-Pakistan bilateral investment treaty is being stalled by the US until it sees the introduction and better enforcement of IPR and the resolution of investment disputes, particularly in the energy sector.
Yet even more egregiously, in the draft US-Pakistan BIT, the US has been insisting that Pakistan pay damages to US companies for their ââ¬Åfutureââ¬Â investment in case there was an infringement of IPRs and unilateral cancellation of licences. According to Pakistanââ¬â¢s law ministry officials, US negotiators insist that either Islamabad pay immediate compensation to the affected US firms or the World Bankââ¬â¢s ICSID should pay the compensation and treat the amount as a loan to Pakistan.
Chaudhry is of the view that it is because of the fact that the WTO negotiations have so far failed to deliver as much as many corporations would want, the US and other governments, under the pressure of big business lobbies, are increasingly turning to bilateral free trade and investment agreements.
With President Bush completing his second term, one can expect more aggressive US free trade and investment bilateralism. These negotiations are being used strategically to advance not only US corporate interests, but also the US administrationââ¬â¢s broader foreign policy and geopolitical goals.
At the start of talks on the US-Pakistan bilateral investment treaty in September 2004, the then USTR chief Robert Zoellick said: ââ¬Å Pakistan and the United States are partners in combating global terrorism.
A BIT based on high standards as contained in our model text can play an important role in strengthening Pakistanââ¬â¢s economy, so as to create new opportunities for exporters and investors in both economies and assist in meeting the economic conditions to counter terrorism.ââ¬Â
However, it is not the WTOââ¬â¢s failure alone to reach an overall accord under Doha mandate that the US is trying to cash on. It is in fact a greedy attempt on its part to extract maximum concessions from weak developing countries by taking the route of bilateral or sub-regional agreements. And the experience of several developing countries tells us that there has been no impact of BITs on investment flows from the signatory developed countries.
Developing countries are usually eager to attract foreign investment, whatever the conditions, under the belief that this is the only way out to get rid of under-development.
A study conducted by Prof. Carlos M. Corea, an expert on IPR issues, says the BITs or free and regional trade agreements (FTAs, RTAs) actually allow developed countries to influence the domestic political economy of developing countries and advance the interests of their corporations in the latterââ¬â¢s markets. The establishment of BITs has a strategic value for developed countries.
According to him, the BITs of American initiative often contain following concessions and guarantees on behalf of the developing country partner:
(1) Every sector of the economy is to be opened to foreign investment. These include health, education, electricity, water and even prisons.
(2) ââ¬ËNational treatmentââ¬â¢ to be accorded to American companies. National treatment, a WTO term, means equal treatment.
(3) US investors to enjoy same privileges as local or any other foreign companies.
(4) Expectation of earnings by US businesses must be guaranteed.
(5) Compensations to US firms when they do not earn what they expect.
(6) US businesses to be protected against any kind of expropriation.
Another issue that disturbs American investors is the inadequacy of intellectual property rights protection in Pakistan which the US-Pakistan Business Council has also been pointing out. The US Trade Representativeââ¬â¢s annual report has been placing Pakistan each year, since 1989, on Priority Watch List or ââ¬ÅSpecial 301ââ¬Â for piracy and counterfeit problems. The establishment of Pakistan Intellectual Property Organization (PIPRO), though admired, has not impressed the US authorities and the US copyright industry remains disappointed. However, American industry is now less angry (because of Pakistanââ¬â¢s lead role in ââ¬Ëwar on terrorââ¬â¢) and has asked the USTR for discontinuing further investigations into the rampant copyright violations.
The problem is that the US has always viewed WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights (Trips) as being inadequate and wanted the WTO and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to set higher standards. The US attitude has largely been influenced by its failure to obtain an agreement on trade in counterfeit goods at the end of the Tokyo Round (1979) and later by resistance of the developing countries (led by India and Brazil) in the first half of the 1980s to include intellectual property as a negotiating item in a new Gatt round.
According to Aziz Chaudhry, an activist, Washington insists on both stiff intellectual property laws and settlement of outstanding investment disputes to be sorted out before negotiating a BIT. Progress on negotiations for a US-Pakistan bilateral investment treaty is being stalled by the US until it sees the introduction and better enforcement of IPR and the resolution of investment disputes, particularly in the energy sector.
Yet even more egregiously, in the draft US-Pakistan BIT, the US has been insisting that Pakistan pay damages to US companies for their ââ¬Åfutureââ¬Â investment in case there was an infringement of IPRs and unilateral cancellation of licences. According to Pakistanââ¬â¢s law ministry officials, US negotiators insist that either Islamabad pay immediate compensation to the affected US firms or the World Bankââ¬â¢s ICSID should pay the compensation and treat the amount as a loan to Pakistan.
Chaudhry is of the view that it is because of the fact that the WTO negotiations have so far failed to deliver as much as many corporations would want, the US and other governments, under the pressure of big business lobbies, are increasingly turning to bilateral free trade and investment agreements.
With President Bush completing his second term, one can expect more aggressive US free trade and investment bilateralism. These negotiations are being used strategically to advance not only US corporate interests, but also the US administrationââ¬â¢s broader foreign policy and geopolitical goals.
At the start of talks on the US-Pakistan bilateral investment treaty in September 2004, the then USTR chief Robert Zoellick said: ââ¬Å Pakistan and the United States are partners in combating global terrorism.
A BIT based on high standards as contained in our model text can play an important role in strengthening Pakistanââ¬â¢s economy, so as to create new opportunities for exporters and investors in both economies and assist in meeting the economic conditions to counter terrorism.ââ¬Â
However, it is not the WTOââ¬â¢s failure alone to reach an overall accord under Doha mandate that the US is trying to cash on. It is in fact a greedy attempt on its part to extract maximum concessions from weak developing countries by taking the route of bilateral or sub-regional agreements. And the experience of several developing countries tells us that there has been no impact of BITs on investment flows from the signatory developed countries.
Developing countries are usually eager to attract foreign investment, whatever the conditions, under the belief that this is the only way out to get rid of under-development.
A study conducted by Prof. Carlos M. Corea, an expert on IPR issues, says the BITs or free and regional trade agreements (FTAs, RTAs) actually allow developed countries to influence the domestic political economy of developing countries and advance the interests of their corporations in the latterââ¬â¢s markets. The establishment of BITs has a strategic value for developed countries.
According to him, the BITs of American initiative often contain following concessions and guarantees on behalf of the developing country partner:
(1) Every sector of the economy is to be opened to foreign investment. These include health, education, electricity, water and even prisons.
(2) ââ¬ËNational treatmentââ¬â¢ to be accorded to American companies. National treatment, a WTO term, means equal treatment.
(3) US investors to enjoy same privileges as local or any other foreign companies.
(4) Expectation of earnings by US businesses must be guaranteed.
(5) Compensations to US firms when they do not earn what they expect.
(6) US businesses to be protected against any kind of expropriation.