Globalization means free trade, right? That’s what we’re told. Would it surprise you then to learn that, in fact, a central plank of this week’s talks in Cancun is exactly the opposite? That the rich countries of the world want to impose trade rules that say lesser-developed economies can no longer use a significant aspect of their competitive advantage when trading with richer countries?

In the murky world of corporate financial warfare, truth is frequently the first casualty of power politics.

While proponents of the World Trade Organization hailed its recent agreement to allow poor countries to supersede WTO patent rules and import cheap generic drugs, opponents see the deal, at best, as flawed and illustrative of the contradictory nature of corporate globalization. At worst, the deal is just another step along the path of forcing the less-industrialized world into perpetual subservience to the interests of wealthier nations and huge corporations.

Fearful that the ministerial meetings in Cancun would be a total failure, with poor nations frustrated about negotiations, the U.S. tossed a few bones to the huddled masses. But, these are the same U.S. negotiators who openly stated in Forbes magazine that their position on generic drug importations was directly controlled by the industry’s lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — PhRMA. Not surprisingly then the final agreement looked as if it had been crafted by industry.

The intricacies of the accord could require poor countries to make large investments in administration and legal procedures, funds that they don’t have, to gain any benefits. Also, the accord contains so many conditions that many believe it will continue to stop drugs reaching those who need them. Ellen ‘t Hoen, of Médecins Sans Frontières explained that it is “designed to offer comfort to the U.S. and the Western pharmaceutical industry.”

The intensity of American opposition to a minor change of patent law that would allow millions of people access to life-saving HIV-AIDS drugs, demonstrates the inherent nature of corporate globalization.

While advocates of the WTO and other corporate-sponsored global treaties claim economic advancement will result from increased international competition, in fact, they are set on a course that would undermine free markets by increasing monopolies through strengthened patent protection.

A central goal of the WTO, through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights TRIPs agreement, is to harmonize “upwards” the world’s patent protection to those of the U.S. The reason our government and other G7 nations are proponents of the TRIPs agreement is because it will benefit corporations based in the world’s richest countries. The World Bank estimates that if a global agreement on intellectual property rights goes fully into effect the developed nations would gain the most with the U.S., Germany, Japan and France standing to gain, mostly at the expense of China, Mexico, Brazil and others. Some claim that the U.S. would abandon the WTO if it weren’t for the TRIPs agreement.

In other words, the favoured part of the WTO is that which limits competition.

It’s not only at the WTO where anti-competitive monopolies reign. The Central American Free Trade Agreement, currently under negotiation between Central American governments and the U.S., also has increased patent protection as a focus. The Bush administration is demanding these countries increase their patent protection beyond even the 20 years mandated under U.S. law. Increased patent protection is also at the forefront of the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations as it was when Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements, as well as other bi-lateral agreements the U.S. may sign, will supersede the recent WTO agreement on patent relaxations, making the WTO agreement meaningless for many poor countries.

Canadians have also been caught in globalization’s patent net. As a recently released “secret” document highlights, the Mulroney government, with a nudge from the Reagan administration, increased patent protection from 17 to 20 years prior to signing the first free trade agreement. Similarly, the Canadian government succumbed to a WTO decision and banned the stockpiling of generic drugs in anticipation of the end of a patent. Skyrocketing drug costs that have harmed Canadian health care are the result.

During the 19th century, when western European nations were competing to develop their economies, innovation often meant “stealing” the best ideas from neighbours. This facilitated competition and innovation. Backward economies could leap ahead by the creative use of the latest technology.

But, as rich countries outsource manufacturing, patents are becoming ever more important to G7-based corporations. U.S. patents issued per year have nearly tripled over the past two decades.

Rather than building a system that will encourage growth and innovation, we are writing rules to ensure the dominance of a few large corporations based in the world’s richest countries.

Yves Engler

Dubbed “Canada’s version of Noam Chomsky” (Georgia Straight), “one of the most important voices on the Canadian Left” (Briarpatch), “in the mould of I. F. Stone” (Globe and Mail), “part...