Malaysia is one of Asia's biggest employers of foreign labour. But recently, cases of deaths, abuse and forced labour have come to light. What is going on? Who is protecting these migrant workers?
Alongside other developing and Muslim countries, the Americans have listed Malaysia as its next destination for the FTA, salivating at the prospect of laying foot on this economically booming Southeast Asian region, and what better to start with than the ‘model Muslim state’!
<P>As with its mess around the world, the US administration
is losing patience as a July 1 deadline for trade authority looms. That power
allows President George W Bush to negotiate trade agreements that Congress, before
being taken over by Democrats who swept to victory in the recent elections, can
never change. </P><P>Malaysia is an important country for the US in its bid to
enter other Muslim markets. Arguably the most developed Muslim-majority country
in terms of a local manufacturing industry and world-class infrastructure, Washington
hopes that a FTA – which it often parades to the developing nations as the answer
to all their economic woes – will ‘bolster’ a moderate Muslim ally into
becoming stronger ally.</P><P>Malaysia in the post-Mahathir era has yet to show
serious interest in joining Bush’s now-docile ‘Coalition of the Willing’,
mainly because of potential domestic backlash, but partly also because of the
government’s traditional suspicion of American and European governments.</P><P>Many
countries, especially in Latin America, have embraced a FTA with the US as a shortcut
to enjoy good American products as well as a guarantee of good ties with Uncle
Sam, only to stand helpless in the face of the bad effects. That large US companies
swallow up local companies and in the process destroy the livelihood of millions
of poor people is not an exaggeration.</P><P>Like FTAs involving the EU, those
with the US penetrate deep into a country’s social and economic policies,
often resulting in laws being amended to accommodate the demands of big American
corporations.</P><P>On paper, a FTA signed with the US means that a country commits
to environmental protection, workers’ rights and deregulation of its industries.
But the more obvious aim is setting US-friendly standards for investors and a
forced commitment to protect American intellectual property rights, especially
in the field of medicine, effectively ‘banning’ cheaper generic pharmaceuticals
and thus making medicines more expensive.</P><P><B>Why the need?</B></P><P>Even
without the FTA, Malaysia is already among the top 10 trading partners of the
US with a volume worth US$44 billion – it takes more US imports than much bigger
economies such as India and Indonesia. So one wonders, why the rush to sign a
FTA?</P><P>The political motive for concluding an FTA with Malaysia could not
have been more obvious when US trade representative Rob Portman, in a pre-negotiation
meeting last year, cited Malaysia as “an ally for peace and stability in
the region … a large Muslim country and a leader giving voice to a vision of
tolerance and multi-culturalism”.</P><P>Such descriptions reveal a desperate
US move to gain a footing in non-petroleum related Muslim markets. As Democrat
Gregory Meeks, who lobbied for the FTA with Malaysia, said, “They are fitting
to be a partner in a region of the world that the United States needs to make
sure that we have friends.”</P><P>Malaysia is however not the first Muslim
country to have entered into FTA negotiations with Washington. Regimes in Jordan
and Oman have already inked such agreements. Recent studies on Jordan have begun
to show the legendary negative consequences of the FTA, as has happened in Latin
American countries.</P><P>If the FTA between Malaysia and US does not materialise,
it would not be surprising – it woulld be a repeat of what is happening when people
in these countries read between the lines and draw lessons from the economic and
social mess elsewhere despite the ‘luxury’ of being in Bush’s good
books via the FTA. Taking the cue from these failures, the FTA is increasingly
being regarded by many countries as Washington’s economic nuke bomb.</P><P>Last
October, FTA talks between South Africa and the US broke down after the latter’s
demand for complete access to South African markets was rejected.</P><P>Even the
South Korean government, a close ally of Washington, has warned that its FTA with
the US could cost as much as US$1.05 billion in damage to the domestic pharmaceutical
industry if the US proposal is accepted. A group of South Korean lawmakers has
filed a suit seeking a declaration that President Roh Moo-hyun’s move to
conclude FTA with the US is unconstitutional.</P><P><B>Place in good books</B></P><P>In
contrast, many Muslim regimes are less interested in the adverse effects, thanks
to an eagerness of Muslim and Arab governments to be in Uncle Sam’s good
books. Muslim countries, or rather regimes (for most of these governments do not
necessarily represent their peoples), that are reportedly on Washington’s
FTA radar screen or are in negotiations include the United Arab Emirates, Algeria,
Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Malaysia.</P><P>The Americans’ motive
in signing a FTA with Middle East regimes are motivated not only by oil but also
a desire to realise its roadmap to Israeli recognition. The US FTA’s first
signatory was after all, Israel, in 1985.</P><P>During negotiations, it is not
hard to see how these client-regimes succumb to the US’s wish for an end
to boycotts of Israeli goods. This is especially so, when reminded of the fate
of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Washington’s role in aiding
Israel’s wanton bombardment of Lebanon.</P><P>An agreement with Bahrain was
signed in September 2004 and took effect last August after securing its assurance
not to boycott Israeli goods.</P><P>In the case of Morocco, the political motive
is too plain to see. A report prepared by Bangkok-based FTA Watch and several
other non-governmental bodies said the main objective of the US FTA with Morocco
was to “reward a moderate Muslim government for its support for the White
House’s ‘war on terror’ and to pull a friendly North African kingdom
deeper into its sphere of influence, creating a wedge vis-à-vis the Arab
world”.</P><P>Recently, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights warned of the effect of the US-Morocco FTA on access to medicines and the
right to health, and called on Rabat to undertake an impact assessment of these
trade rules on economic, social and cultural rights.</P><P><B>Absence of cohesion</B></P><P>In
Malaysia, US hopes for a FTA were boosted by the exit of premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad
in 2003. American officials have been parachuting into Kuala Lumpur, harping on
all the good things the US does, now that they trust that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
would be more willing to ink the agreement.</P><P>Thus, the news that the Malaysian
government is showing pessimism over the FTA, for whatever reason, is a preliminary
relief for activists opposed to the move. For months, second opinions on the negotiations
have been blacked out of the mainstream media in classic style, while ministers
churned out all the good anticipated.</P><P>Unlike in countries such as Thailand
and Philippines, a problem for Malaysia’s civil opposition movement is the
lack of information about the FTA. As such, many people are ignorant about what
a US FTA means.</P><P>The opposition parties lack the skill to champion the fight
against the FTA, as they do on many other issues. DAP and perhaps Gerakan are
adapting a wait-and-see attitude, under the illusion the FTA would to some extent
abolish the government’s pro-Malay economic policies.</P><P>Parti Keadilan
Rakyat advisor Anwar Ibrahim, who is competing with other pro-US Malaysian government
leaders to lead the ‘American-friendly Islamist’ camp, has been sending
out vague and mixed signals, with no clear statement of his opposition to the
FTA to date, even if his loyalists and party supporters have participated in anti-FTA
protests.</P><P>In the case of PAS, its presence is almost nil in the debate –
it has adopted an indifferent attitude, letting others do the talking.</P><P>Only
a small group of civil groups, comprising NGOs, workers’ groupings and individual
opposition supporters, have expressed fears should the domestic market be opened
to giant US agricultural producers. Even faced with such limitations, the recent
signature campaign in Kedah demanding that the government calls off the FTA talks
has won support from 20,000 fishermen and farmers.</P><P>Some Malaysian Muslims
opposed to the FTA think – with a twinge of naivety and honesty – that it is at
times like this that Mahathir’s rhetoric against the US would come in handy.
Some have said that Malaysia may well start off by signing FTAs with Muslim countries
to strengthen ties among OIC economies. (Malaysia’s only Muslim FTA partner
is Pakistan, with a programme implemented in January last year.)</P><P>But with
most Muslim regimes being taken hostage politically and economically by Washington,
such hopes remain an utopian ideal.</P><P>Meanwhile, the choice is not too difficult
for Abdullah to make: it lies between being in the bad books of America and maintaining
some semblance of a developed Muslim country that is not subservient to Uncle
Sam through the FTA.</P><HR> ABDAR RAHMAN KOYA writes for London-based Crescent
International, a Muslim political news magazine, and works in publications firm.<P><I>Source:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/62706</I>
Address: Wisma MTUC,10-5, Jalan USJ 9/5T, 47620 Subang Jaya,Selangor | Tel: 03-80242953 | Fax: 03-80243225 | Email: sgmtuc@gmail.com.com