RP-Japan treaty hurdles environment issue, but…

In Dec. 2002 Joe Almonte surfaced from retirement with a fiery cry: reform our elections or let freedom die. The vision of the one-time national security chief proved true anew. Weeks later Gloria Arroyo would pledge to shun the 2004 presidential run to not further divide the land. Legislators who had won the previous 2001 balloting vowed to eradicate dynasts and cheats. The politicos reneged, though. Elections remained dirty and deadly. The rest is history: Hello Garci and Jocjoc Bolante in ’04, Lintang Bedol and ZTE in ’07. Today in spite or because of her doubtful mandate, Arroyo rules a government of regulatory capture, elite politics, and killings of dissenters. Voters make believe the economy is doing fair when millions are hungry, and that it’s futile to protest till the next election.

It is with this backdrop that Almonte emerges to renew his call for change. In a book, “To Put Our House in Order, We Must Level the Playing Field” (to be launched tomorrow afternoon at the Club Filipino-Greenhills) he deplores the conditions that made us what we have become as a nation. He pushes for ways to equalize political and economic opportunities that would bring out the best in Filipinos. Almonte perhaps expects politicos to again pay lip service then forget. So he prefaces that “the nation’s future cannot depend on any individual or administration ... but on the people — on their core values, their institutions, their culture.”

*  *  *

The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement appears to have hurdled the environment issue. Opposition leader Aquilino Pimentel says the Senate will ratify the pact once convinced that the JPEPA wouldn’t lead to dumping of toxic wastes on Philippine soil. Proof can come in the form of a recent exchange of notes between Foreign Sec. Alberto Romulo and Minister Taro Aso.

When Gloria Arroyo and Junichiro Koizumi signed the pact in Sept., critics raged that it would make RP Japan’s toxic-waste landfill. Japanese law forbids such export, and RP such import. But Filipino officials’ silence about the two-year negotiations confused the situation. It didn’t help any that they kept the draft treaty confidential even after the signing, although it needs Senate assent after public debates.

Malacañang finally transmitted a copy to the Senate last week. Attached was Romulo’s letter of 22 May 2007, and Aso’s affirmation the next day. The notes reiterate new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s assurance that “Japan would not be exporting toxic wastes to the Philippines,” under both their laws and the Basel Convention. Along with the environment tiff was resolved too the one on unwarranted secrecy about an international pact.

Critics have another bone to pick, though, this time about JPEPA’s “unfair provisos.” Annex 1, they point out, lists products that both sides wish to exclude from tariff slashes. Japan appears to exclude 239 items, including fish, seaweed, livestock, vegetables, fruits, liquor, cigarettes and leather. RP excludes only two, rice and salt. Since the Philippines is mainly agricultural compared to industrial Japan, critics say, JPEPA leans towards the latter. They cite an Asian Development Bank report that bilateral trade pacts with Japan tend to benefit its economy more than its partners’.

Defenders rebut that JPEPA would encourage more Japanese imports of Philippine products. Japan is the Philippines’ second biggest customer at $74 billion in 2005, they say. The treaty would boost Philippine agricultural and industrial sales. The treaty reduces tariffs on Philippine pineapples and bananas, for starters.

More than that, they add, JPEPA instantly would open Japan’s labor market to Filipino engineers and nurses, plus blue-collar workers in the future. By liberalizing Japanese investments in RP, it would also multiply domestic jobs.

All this, the Senate will start to scrutinize next week. JPEPA is RP’s first free trade pact, but Japan’s fourth after Singapore, Mexico and Malaysia. It is supposed to take effect late this year.

*  *  *

A reaction from TESDA spokesman Carlos Flores on the travails of Amanda Sison in putting up a security guard training school (Gotcha, 10 Aug. 2007):

“We would like to respond immediately to her complaint about the school’s registration, but are constrained by the limited info on its nature. May we know her contact number so we can discuss details with her? It would help if we know where she’s setting up. Maybe thru your column we may impress upon her TESDA’s intention to respond.”

To which Amanda Sison remarks:

“Thank you for featuring my letter in your column. This morning TESDA people visited our office. I was not around but my accountant entertained them. They were saddened by our decision to close shop and said they could have made allowances, like ‘attend seminar pay later.’ I felt good that it brought results. But the damage is done; we have begun to retire the training school without even being able to start operating.”

*  *  *

E-mail: [email protected]