Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas. Ver também minha página: www.pralmeida.net (em construção).
Ate o New York Times caiu nessa esparrela da guerra cambial...
PRA
EDITORIAL Preventing a Currency War
New York Times: February 13, 2013
The Group of 7 industrialized countries appeared to tamp down talk of a currency war in a statement this week that said markets should determine exchange rates and that countries should use fiscal and monetary policies to achieve faster growth. It may help curb fears that stagnant economies will devalue their currencies to make their exports more affordable relative to competitors.
The statement came in response to sharp moves in currencies like the euro and the yen and calls by some Group of 7 countries like France for policies that could lead to competitive devaluations.
The yen, for instance, has fallen by about 11 percent against the dollar since the recent election in Japan of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has pushed for economic stimulus and more aggressive asset purchases by the Bank of Japan to fight deflation. Critics say those policies are aimed at lowering the value of the yen, which Mr. Abe’s government has denied.
And last week President François Hollande of France proposed that euro-zone nations should adopt a policy to manage the value of the common currency to maintain the competitiveness of European goods. (The euro has appreciated about 2 percent against the dollar and nearly 10 percent against the yen this year.)
Such misguided thinking can lead only to chaos and retaliation. If all countries were to competitively devalue their currencies, the result would be a downward spiral that would benefit no one, but could lead to high inflation. Certainly in Europe, altering exchange rates is not the answer; reviving economies will require giving up on austerity, which is choking demand and investment.
Developing countries like Brazil and Mexico also complain that looser monetary policy in industrialized nations can produce effects similar to currency manipulation. When central banks in countries like Japan and the United States pump more money into their financial systems, investors are driven to put their money into emerging markets where interest rates are higher. That pushes up currencies like the real and peso, making exports from those countries more expensive on the world market. Instead of responding to this effect by manipulating their exchange rates, those countries could protect themselves from volatile capital flows by regulating them.
With much of Europe in a recession, Japan struggling with deflation, and the weak American economy potentially falling back into a recession if the automatic spending cuts go through, the global economy is fragile. The last thing the world needs is a currency war.
Isso tem um nome, aliás muito usado pelos companheiros: controle social dos meios de comunicação, que nada mais é senão pretexto para censura, intimidação, monopólio da mentira pelo poder, enfim, instinto totalitário...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Le Vietnam applique le modèle chinois pour réprimer blogueurs et internautes
Le Monde.fr, Par François Bougon
Face à la multiplication des blogs et la popularité des réseaux sociaux,
le régime communiste vietnamien s'inspire du puissant voisin chinois
pour réprimer les voix dissidentes dans un pays où plus du tiers de la population est connectée (31 millions d'internautes). Dans un rapport publié mercredi 13 février (PDF), le Comité Vietnam pour la défense
des droits de l'homme et la Fédération internationale des ligues des
droits de l'homme (FIDH) dénoncent la répression croissante envers les
blogueurs depuis 2010 sous le prétexte de "violations de la sécurité nationale". Au total, au moins 33 personnes ont été condamnées ou sont dans l'attente de leurs procès, sous l'accusation d'avoir utilisé la Toile pour mettre en cause le parti communiste vietnamien. Selon Reporters sans frontières, le Vietnam est "la deuxième prison du monde pour les net-citoyens, derrière la Chine".
ESPACE D'EXPRESSION Les blogs "fournissent un espace unique au Vietnam du parti
unique, où la société civile, la presse, les mouvements religieux et les
syndicats sont muselés par le contrôle omniprésent du parti communiste",
souligne le rapport du Comité Vietnam pour la défense des droits de
l'homme pour les droits de l'homme et de la FIDH. Depuis deux ans,
explique-t-il, un "journalisme citoyen" dénonce les scandales de
corruption, les abus de pouvoir, le népotisme au sein de l'élite, les atteintes à l'environnement et les expropriations de terres par les autorités.
L'un des sites Internet les plus populaires, qui aborde des sujets tabous dans la presse officielle, est DanLamBao.
Il fait partie des trois blogs qui ont été visés spécifiquement en
septembre 2012 par le premier ministre Nguyen Tan Dung. Ce dernier les a
accusés de "publier des informations déformées et fabriquées" sur les dirigeants et d'"inciter les gens à s'opposer au parti et à l'Etat". Des articles publiés par ces sites avaient fait état d'une lutte au sein du pouvoir après l'arrestation d'un des banquiers vietnamiens les plus influents. Mais DanLamBao a répondu sur son site en publiant une "Lettre ouverte au premier ministre": "Aucun gouvernement ou parti politique n'a le droit de choisir pour le peuple l'information qu'il peut lire, écouter ou échanger. DanLamBao continuera à fournir
de l'information et des points de vues diversifiés (...) et à créer un
forum où les lecteurs nous font part de leurs informations, présentent
leurs propres perspectives sur des sujets qui affectent leurs vies. De
plus, DanLambao ne prendra partie pour aucune des factions du parti et
ne permettra pas d'être influencé par une quelconque force 'étrangère'
ou 'hostile' - comme nous a accusé de le faire
le premier ministre. Nous rejetons l'influence de n'importe quelle
puissance ou élite. Nous servons la nation. Sur le long terme, nous
sommes persuadés que les médias
vietnamiens changeront - ils ont déjà changé dans une certaine mesure -
et nous sommes fiers de notre rôle dans cette évolution". Les tentatives d'intimidation ont eu un effet contraire, lui permettant de doubler son audience. Les responsables du site continuent cependant à travailler, anonymement, dans la crainte de la répression. Un autre site influent est Bauxite Vietnam, créé par des intellectuels de Hanoi, Nguyen Hue Chi, Pham Toan et Nguyen The Hung. Le nom s'explique par leurs critiques des projets chinois pour l'exploitation des mines de bauxite dans le pays. ARSENAL JURIDIQUE Le pouvoir vietnamien s'est doté d'un arsenal juridique pour lutter contre les cyber-opposants et d'une "cyber-police" au sein du ministère de la sécurité publique, souligne le rapport intitulé Blogueurs et cyberdissidents derrière les barreaux: mainmise de l'Etat sur Internet.
Si la loi controversée sur un contrôle renforcé du Net n'a pas encore
été adoptée et est actuellement bloquée au parlement, un nouveau décret
issu du cabinet du premier ministre Nguyen Tan Dung prévoit, à partir de juillet 2013, de fortes amendes pour ceux qui publieraient sur "l'Internet du matériel qui est faux, incompatible avec les intérêts de l'Etat ou avec les traditions et coutumes du Vietnam". Les blogueurs sont généralement poursuivis dans le cadre de l'article
88 du code pénal prévoyant des peines de 3 à 20 ans de prison pour "propagande contre la République socialiste du Vietnam". Les croyants sont souvent détenus dans le cadre de l'article 87 sous l'accusation de "saper la solidarité nationale, semer les divisions entre les croyants et non-croyants". "Depuis 2010, souligne le rapport, plusieurs militants pro-démocratie pacifiques qui se sont servis de l'Internet pour diffuser leurs appels à la réforme ont été inculpés dans le cadre de l'article 79 pour subversion ou 'activités destinées à subvertir le pouvoir du peuple', qui prévoit la peine de mort comme jugement maximal". Le 9 janvier 2013, un groupe de 14 blogueurs et militants a ainsi été condamné à un total de 113 années d'emprisonnement. Tout comme Pékin, Hanoi a choisi de soutenir
l'Internet comme vecteur de croissance économique tout en maintenant le
contrôle et la censure pour éviter qu'il ne se transforme en plateforme
de contestations politique. Tout comme Pékin, le Vietnam a commencé à recruter des centaines de blogueurs pour contrecarrer les "forces hostiles en ligne".
Acho que nem precisa comentar, salvo que já vimos esse filme antes: autoridades prometendo inflação baixa e crescimento vigoroso. Já sabemos como ele termina...
As autoridades, por enquanto, estão improvisando, e esperando para ver. Elas não sabem o final do filme, coitadas...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Perplexidade
Celso Ming
O Estado de S.Paulo,12 de fevereiro de 2013
Há enorme perplexidade dentro do governo com a disparada da inflação.
Nos últimos dias, o presidente do Banco Central, Alexandre Tombini,
deu declarações que não são do seu estilo. Reconheceu que está
“desconfortável” com a escalada dos preços e admite que essa inflação
persistirá nos próximos meses. Por enquanto, põe fé em que lá pelo final
deste ano voltará a convergir mais ou menos espontaneamente para a
meta.
A estratégia de esperar para ver parece perigosa. Não está claro se o
governo Dilma está em condições de enfrentar o estresse de uma inflação
acima de 6% ao ano por mais cinco ou seis meses. Além disso, está
operando muito próximo dos limites. Não há folga para enfrentar
imprevistos nem o que o então deputado Tancredo Neves chamava de “o
imponderável”. Mantega e Tombini. Sem sintonia (FOTO: RICARDO MORAES/REUTERS)
Do ponto de vista das atuais autoridades, essa inflação aí já é parte
do imprevisto e do imponderável. Nem o Banco Central nem a Fazenda
esperavam por tanto. No último Relatório de Inflação, editado
em dezembro, o Banco Central projetou para todo o ano de 2013 uma
inflação de apenas 4,8% – número que, pouco mais de um mês depois,
aparece como fortemente irrealista. O ministro da Fazenda, Guido
Mantega, por sua vez, vinha apontando a baixa ou a relativa estabilidade
dos preços internacionais das commodities como fator decisivo para
redução das pressões inflacionárias internas.
Em outras palavras, todo o governo Dilma vem sendo surpreendido pelos
fatos. Apostou todas as fichas na forte reaceleração da economia e vem
trombando com a sucessão de pibinhos. Anunciou grandes investimentos,
mas não consegue agilizá-los. Proclamou que a inflação seguiria
comportada sem a necessidade de novos antídotos e, no entanto, vai sendo
atropelado por esses números preocupantes do IBGE. Imaginava que a
desvalorização cambial (alta do dólar) devolveria a competitividade ao
setor produtivo, mas não consegue garantir o câmbio real (descontada a
inflação) pretendido.
Se é surpreendido pelos fatos, é óbvio que o governo não conduz o processo. Está, sim, sendo conduzido por ele.
Às vezes as autoridades dão sinais de que percebem a desarrumação dos
fundamentos da economia. Mas não conseguem garantir nem disciplina
orçamentária, nem inflação na meta, nem o câmbio prometido e muito menos
o crescimento econômico projetado.
Basta ver a série recente das estatísticas do IPCA para saber que, ao
menos por seis meses, a inflação anual tenderá a ficar acima dos 6,0%. É
um período longo demais para que o Banco Central e a Fazenda sigam
somente divergindo e se omitindo mutuamente, vendendo essas diferenças
como prova de independência recíproca.
Caso as despesas públicas sigam o ritmo previsto; caso o câmbio não
possa ser usado como âncora dos preços; e caso o Banco Central siga
impedido de puxar pelos juros, o ajuste se fará com mais inflação e
menos crescimento econômico.
O problema é que essas coisas cobram um preço. Por enquanto, a
presidente Dilma ostenta uma enorme poupança política. As classes médias
brasileiras parecem satisfeitas porque hoje tem mais emprego, compraram
carro, se alimentam melhor e, se não viajaram para Miami, já estão
providenciando passaporte.
Enfim, a conta ainda não foi apresentada. Mas pode começar a ser na
hora mais imprópria para o governo, às vésperas das eleições de 2014. CONFIRA
Aí está a evolução do valor do dólar americano em pesos argentinos, tanto no mercado oficial quanto no informal (dólar blue),
desde março de 2012. A brecha entre as duas cotações, que em 31 de
janeiro chegou ao patamar de 59,0%, recuou para 51,9% no último dia 8.
A batalha entre a Apple e a Gradiente pelo uso da marca “iphone”
ganhou hoje um novo capítulo. O Instituto Nacional de Propriedade
Industrial (INPI) negou o registro por parte da Apple de quatro marcas
de aparelhos no Brasil, todas relacionadas ao nome “iphone”.
A Apple também ingressou no INPI solicitando a caducidade do registro
da marca pela Gradiente, sob o argumento de que a empresa brasileira
não teria comercializado o produto, no período de cinco anos, a partir
da concessão da marca em janeiro de 2008. Assim, a Gradiente vai ter que
provar que vendeu aparelhos com a marca “iphone” nos últimos cinco
anos, afirmou o INPI. A Gradiente e a Apple disseram que não vão
comentar o assunto. Disputa
A decisão publicada na Revista da Propriedade Industrial não proíbe a
Apple de seguir a venda de seu aparelho de telefone no Brasil. “O INPI
não tem esse poder, apenas o poder judiciário”, afirmou um porta-voz do
instituto.
A Companhia Brasileira de Tecnologia Digital (CBTD), que arrenda a marca Gradiente,lançou em dezembro do ano passado um
aparelho com a marca “iphone”, de sistema operacional Android. A
escolha do nome “iphone”, segundo a empresa brasileira, é anterior à
invenção do smartphone da Apple. A IGB, dona da Gradiente, fez em 2000 o
pedido de registro da marca ao INPI, que o concedeu apenas em 2008. A
Apple lançou seu primeiro iPhone em 2007.
No vídeo abaixo, a Gradiente conta a história do nome “iphone” e
aponta, inclusive, as diferenças entre os aparelhos. O modelo da Apple,
segundo o vídeo, tem maior velocidade e resolução de tela, enquanto o da
Gradiente é mais simples, mas “tem um diferencial que os brasileiros
adoram: aceita dois chips”. Veja: *Colaboraram Mariana Congo e Nayara Fraga - VEJA TAMBÉM - LINK: Testamos o iphone da Gradiente
Sempre me pareceu muito claro que, a despeito de suas tendências autonomistas muito pronunciadas, o país que sempre deteve, e detém cada vez mais, controle sobre o que pode, ou não pode, fazer a Coreia do Norte, é a China. Se a China desejasse, por exemplo, poderia "estrangular" economicamente a hiperditadura stalinista da península, e ela só não o faz, o que seria de seu interesse nacional (pelo menos desde Deng Xiao-ping), para causar "incômodos" nos EUA, que poderiam passar a dispor de certa vantagem estratégica na região, se a Coreia do Norte simplesmente desaparecesse nos braços da República capitalista do sul. Apenas a cegueira geopolítica dos generais chineses impede a China de "estrangular" o regime surrealista imperante na Coreia do Norte. A China talvez venha a se arrepender dessa postura um dia, pois uma Coreia do Norte miserável, nuclearmente armada e tendo megalomaníacos na sua direção pode ser um desastre para ela e para toda a região.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
ISIS Reports
ISIS Statement on North Korean Nuclear Test
by David Albright and Andrea Stricker February 12, 2013 Download PDF
On Tuesday, February 12 at 2:57 GMT/UTC, North Korea claims that it
tested its third nuclear device. The official KCNA news agency stated:
“It was confirmed that the nuclear test, that was carried out at a high
level in a safe and perfect manner using a miniaturized and lighter
nuclear device with greater explosive force than previously, did not
pose any negative impact on the surrounding ecological environment.”
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization recorded a seismic event 5.0 in magnitude and the U.S. Geological Survey recorded
a shallow earthquake of 5.1 in magnitude. The test occurred at
Punggye-ri, site of its 2006 and 2009 tests, which recorded magnitudes
of 4.1 and 4.52, respectively. ISIS assessed
on February 3 that North Korea was likely preparing for a third nuclear
test based on preparations at the site visible in overhead satellite
imagery.
While much information is still unknown about the nature of North Korea’s nuclear test, several key points should be made: North Korea’s stated miniaturization capability, if true, should not be a surprise.
It should not come as a surprise to the international community that
North Korea may now have the capability to explode a miniaturized
nuclear device. ISIS (and key members of the U.S. intelligence
community) have assessed for some time that North Korea likely has the
capability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon for its 800 mile range Nodong
missile. Although more information is needed to make a sound
assessment, this test could, as North Korea has stated, demonstrate this
capability. ISIS has also assessed that North Korea still lacks the
ability to deploy a warhead on an ICBM, although it shows progress at
this effort. North Korea would need to conduct missile flight tests with
a re-entry vehicle and mock warhead, increase the explosive yield of
the warhead, possibly requiring its further miniaturization, and improve
the operational reliability of the warhead and missile. North Korea does not appear to have detonated a more sophisticated nuclear device, such as a thermonuclear device.
Before the test, concern was expressed by some analysts that North
Korea could test a more advanced nuclear weapon. The data from this test
so far indicate that this is not the case. One important question is
whether the nuclear test used only plutonium or involved highly enriched
uranium either alone or in combination with plutonium. It is time to accelerate efforts to stop North Korea’s
foreign procurements for its nuclear programs and increase efforts to
halt its proliferation financing efforts. North Korea’s
efforts to procure nuclear and dual-use goods and raw materials for its
nuclear programs must be addressed by targeted countries through
improved United Nations sanctions resolutions and domestic trade control
laws and the enforcement of those measures. North Korea continues to
improve its nuclear programs through its access to such goods and
materials, particularly through trading companies and citizens located
in neighboring China.
The United Nations Security Council should incrementally increase
proliferation financing sanctions on North Korea as a result of this
test. The international response to the test should be measured and should circle back to engagement.
Despite the likely demonstration of an improved North Korean nuclear
capability, the international response to the test should be carefully
constructed. Ironically, North Korea’s previous nuclear tests, despite
being followed by sanctions and international condemnation, eventually
paved the way for engagement. North Korea’s historical use of
brinkmanship to gain concessions is well documented. A new formulation
is necessary to break this cycle of provocation/engagement that has too
often ended with a more advanced North Korean nuclear weapons program. A
strategy of engagement that does not reward the test but seeks to
moderate the regime’s behavior through sustained dialogue may be most
productive going forward. A key element is for the United States to
deepen cooperation with China and resist seeking renewed bilateral
U.S./North Korean dialogue. There are signs that China is listening
more to U.S. concerns about North Korea’s nuclear provocations. A goal
must be the United States developing common positions with China, along
with South Korea and Japan, making it harder for North Korea to play
China against the United States. A response must not provoke even worse behavior.
Faced with a draconian response to this third nuclear test, it is
possible that North Korea could retaliate by causing minor military
skirmishes with its neighbors, conducting another test, or even
deploying nuclear-tipped Nodong missiles. Remaining cognizant of the
need to prevent and mitigate worse behavior by North Korea should be the
goal of any international or regional response. This again argues for
seeking solidarity among China, Japan, South Korea, and the United
States. http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/isis-statement-on-north-korean-nuclear-test/10 Institute for Science and International Security
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE - Suite 305
Washington, DC 20002
Esta simples nota do Embaixador Francisco Seixas da Costa, em seu blog Duas ou Três Coisas, expressa bem o meu sentimento, ao ler tanta bobagem sobre o papa, a sua renúncia, a sucessão, e outros temas de suma gravidade, nos jornais brasileiros. Se aplica inteiramente. Todo mundo agora virou especialista nessa coisa que se chama Santa Sé.
Antigamente, como dizia Nelson Rodrigues, os idiotas se calavam...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Olheiros Francisco Seixas da Costa Nas últimas horas, apareceu na nossa imprensa [portuguesa] uma nova categoria de observadores da atualidade: os vaticanistas. Uma designação que já é assumida sem sorrisos. Os tempos mudaram: antes havia os kremlinólogos. Nunca dei conta que houvesse "White house watchers" ou os "number 10 decrypters". Talvez em Moscovo. Por cá, seriam os belenólogos, já que S. Bento é um nome que se torna demasiado complicado para se poder identificar, de uma penada conceptual, quem olha o que se passa naquela casa.
Zona de Livre-Comércio entre os Estados Unidos e a União Europeia, tal como confirmada pelo discurso sobre o State of the Union do presidente Obama na noite de ontem (12/02/2013), seria a maior ZLC do mundo, mas é um acordo complicado de sair, não necessariamente por causa de tarifas altas ou protecionismo setorial, mas por causa das muitas regras específicas que regulam determinados fluxos comerciais ou de serviços, as obsessões europeias com trasnsgênicos, por exemplo, ou as preocupações americanas com propriedade intelectual e coisas do gênero. Acho que vai ser complicado, mas se sair vai ser estupendo.
Escrevi um artigo sobre isto, que deve estar sendo publicado nos próximos dias, e postarei aqui quando o for, num jornal eletrônico de nome bizarro, e que atente pelo título de O Debatedouro (enfim, tudo é possível).
Por enquanto fiquem com a visão dos congressistas americanos sobre o assunto.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Baucus, Hatch Outline Priorities for Potential U.S.-EU Trade Agreement
Access for U.S. Agriculture Exports, Strong Intellectual Property
Protection and Dispute Settlement among Finance Leaders’ Priorities
Washington, DC – Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah) today laid out their priorities to United States Trade
Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk for a potential free trade agreement
(FTA) between the U.S. and European Union (EU). In their letter to
Ambassador Kirk, the senators set high-standard expectations for any
FTA.
“A comprehensive U.S.-EU FTA, negotiated and implemented with
the highest standards, would have a multiplier effect and would be
certain to generate much needed economic growth on both sides of the
Atlantic,” the Finance leaders wrote. “There is no
doubt that a U.S.-EU FTA is an enticing opportunity. While there is much
promise in the U.S.-European Union relationship, there are remaining
barriers to free and fair trade that are long-standing and difficult to
overcome.”
The senators identified several priorities ahead of any negotiation process, including:
Access for U.S. agricultural exports like beef and pork.Strong
intellectual property protection. Access for U.S. services
exports. Regulatory compliance. A mechanism for dispute settlement.
They also wrote that they intend to push for renewal of Trade
Promotion Authority (TPA), saying it will enable the consideration and
completion of a successful U.S.-EU FTA. TPA expired in 2007.
The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over international trade.
The full text of the letter is below:
February 12, 2013
Ambassador Ron Kirk United States Trade Representative Office of the United States Trade Representative 600 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20508
Dear Ambassador Kirk:
As you explore the possibility of entering into negotiations towards a
free trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union (EU), we believe it
is important to outline our expectations regarding the outcome of any
such negotiations.
There is no doubt that a U.S.-EU FTA is an enticing opportunity. As
the administration has noted, “transatlantic trade and investment
constitutes the largest economic relationship in the world, creating
jobs, increasing economic growth, and driving competitiveness on both
sides of the Atlantic.” A comprehensive U.S.-EU FTA, negotiated and
implemented with the highest standards, would have a multiplier effect
and would be certain to generate much needed economic growth on both
sides of the Atlantic.
While there is much promise in the relationship, there are remaining
barriers to free and fair trade that are long-standing and difficult.
While not a complete list, we have outlined below several elements that a
successful negotiation must address.
Broad bipartisan Congressional support for expanding trade with the
EU depends, in large part, on lowering trade barriers for American
agricultural products. This means increased agricultural market access
and firm commitments to base sanitary and phytosanitary measures on
sound science. The EU has historically imposed sanitary and
phytosanitary measures that act as significant barriers to U.S.-EU
trade, including the EU’s restrictions on genetically engineered crops, a
ban on the use of hormones in cattle, restrictions on pathogen
reduction treatments in poultry, pork and beef, unscientific
restrictions on the use of safe feed additives such as ractopamine in
beef and pork, and other barriers to trade affecting a significant
portion of U.S. agricultural exports. While we recognize the positive
steps the EU has recently taken with respect to imports of beef washed
with lactic acid and with respect to swine, there is still much work to
be done. We urge you to resolve these and other unwarranted agricultural
barriers as part of the FTA negotiations on both an individual and a
systemic basis.
Congressional support will also require strong intellectual property
protection. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, intellectual
property intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs and
contribute more than $5.06 trillion dollars to, or nearly 34.8 percent
of, U.S. gross domestic product. Intellectual property is America’s
competitive advantage, underpinning a wide range of industries including
manufacturing, food processing, information and communications
technology, entertainment, biotech, pharmaceuticals and financial
services. It is imperative that U.S. trade agreements protect U.S.
innovation and allow our innovative industries to compete in global
markets.
As the U.S. and EU are the two most innovative economies in the
world, any successful agreement between us must promote the highest
standards of intellectual property protection. While we recognize that
intellectual property protection in the EU is generally of a high
standard, there are certainly areas where improvement is needed and must
be achieved. It is also critical that the United States strongly
promote the interests of U.S. businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers
with respect to EU policies, including geographical indications, that
impede their ability to compete. In addition, the agreement must
meaningfully address EU measures that undermine the value of
intellectual property protection, including with respect to pricing and
reimbursement and regulatory transparency. Finally, it is essential to
ensure that any outcome of this agreement does not undermine the ability
of the United States to achieve high levels of IP protection in other
negotiations and other foreign markets.
Regulatory compliance is an enormous driver of cost and inefficiency
for U.S. exporters of goods and services across the globe. There would
no doubt be enormous benefits to be gained from increased regulatory
harmonization between the U.S. and the EU, especially as both have
highly developed regulatory systems in place. However, any efforts
towards these ends must not weaken regulatory commitments, such as
through adoption of the so-called precautionary principle. Therefore, a
high standard U.S.-EU FTA will necessarily promote greater openness and
transparency in regulatory processes, prohibit practices that
discriminate or create non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports, and promote
acceptance of the full-range of international standards.
A U.S.-EU FTA agreement should lead the way in defining a 21st
century FTA that establishes comprehensive market access by eliminating
or significantly reducing tariffs without regard to product category. A
high-standard agreement will provide similarly comprehensive market
access and national treatment for services.
Of course, it is vital that there be a mechanism to settle any
disputes which may arise under a U.S.-EU FTA. In order to be more than a
paper tiger, any such dispute mechanism must contain strong and binding
enforcement provisions.
A high-standard, comprehensive, U.S.-EU FTA could serve to
reinvigorate the global trade agenda, setting the standard for all FTAs
to follow. While there are numerous challenges to be addressed, it is
our hope that the framework we have outlined above provides useful
guidance as you negotiate the path forward.
Finally, as you know, Trade Promotion Authority expired in 2007. We
believe its renewal will enable completion and consideration of a
successful U.S.-EU FTA. Therefore, we intend to intensify efforts to
ensure prompt consideration and renewal of Trade Promotion Authority. It
is our hope and expectation that the Administration will join us in
these efforts.
Sincerely,
Max Baucus Chairman
Orrin G. Hatch Ranking Member
Download PDF
