This article analyzes how the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would likely
exacerbate critical threats to health in the Americas, from the perspectives of
public health and human rights. These threats include crises in access to health
care, water, and other vital human services; reemerging but preventable fatal
diseases; the advance of AIDS; and biohazards. Disparities in power, wealth, health
spending, and infant mortality, that undermine equity between and within nations,
are documented and analyzed. A case study from Peru proposes that further market
liberalization would widen inequalities in health and health care. Major arguments
for and against trade liberalization in health care are presented. Under the FTAA,
countries’ domestic regulations, including those proven effective in
advancing and protecting public health, could be challenged in international trade
tribunals as unnecessary barriers to trade. Assigning regulatory decisions to trade
tribunals violates the democratic obligations and rights of local, state, and
national elected officials to protect public health. Addressing health crises is a
high priority for the Americas and requires effective, cooperative international efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adlung, R.
and
A. Carzaniga
.
“Health Services Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services”
. Bulletin of the World Health Organization79(4):
352-364
.
2.
Anderson. S.2001. “Seven Years Under NAFTA.”Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies
. Retrieved March 16, 2004 (http://ips-dc.org/downloads/NAFTA%20at%207.pdf).
3.
Billings J
,
G.M. Anderson
, and
L.S. Newman
. 1996.
“Recent Findings on Preventable Hospitalizations”
. Health Affairs15(3):
239-249
.
4.
Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health
. 2002. “Call for Public Health Accountability in
International Trade Agreements.” Retrieved March 16, 2004 (www.cpath.org).
5.
Chanda, R. 2001. “Trade in Health Services.” Working
Paper No. 63. Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. World Health Organization.
6.
El Diario. 1997. “Organismos Mulilaterales, Presionan al Gobierno:
Condonaran $US 600 Milliones de Deuda si Privatizan SEMAPA de Cochabamba
[Multilateral Organizations Pressure the Government: They will Forgive $600 Million
of Debt if SEMAPA of Cochabamba is Privatized].” El Diario, La Paz, July
1, 1997, p.5. (Cited in Shultz forthcoming.)
7.
FTAA (Second draft). Chapter on Services. Article 1, paragraph 1.4; and
Article 8, Measures. Available at (http://www.ftaaalca.org/ftaadraft02/ngsv1_e.asp%23Article%208).
8.
Franco, Rolando. 1995. “Reforma del Estado y Nuevas Orientaciones
de las Políticas Sociales en los Noventa.” En
Economía, Sociedad y Estado en América Latina
Contemporánea, edited by Antonio Colomer. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
9.
Hall, D.2001. Water in Public Hands.
Public Services International Research Unit. London:
University of Greenwich
.
10.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática
. 2001. Encuesta Nacional Demográfica y de Salud
Familiar Lima, Perú, 2001 (Peru’s National Demographic and
Health Survey 2000).
11.
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
1966. 21 G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 49, U.N. Doc A (6316).
12.
Iriart, C.
,
H. Waitzkin
, and
E. Merhy
. 2001.
“International Trade Agreements, Health Care Systems and Social
Movements in Latin America”
. Presented at American Public Health Association,
October 21-25, Atlanta GA.
13.
Primera Plana. 1996. “Banco Mundial es Claro: Sin privatizacion de
SEMAPA no Hay Agua Potable Para Cochabamba [The World Bank is clear: Without
Privatization of SEMAPA there will be no Potable Water for Cochabamba].”
Primera Plana, La Paz, February 29, 1996, p.10. (Cited in Shultz forthcoming.)
14.
Public Citizen
. 2002. “Water for All
Campaign”. Public Citizen,
Washington, DC
. Available at (www.citizen.org).
15.
Red Mexicana de acción Frente Al Libre Comercio (RMALC). Available
at (www.rmalc.org.mx).
16.
Rogers, S.
2002.
Policy Analyst, California Senate Select Committee on International Trade
Policy and State Legislation
. Personal communication via email, August 20, 2002.
17.
Rosenberg, T.2002.
“The Free-Trade Fix”
. New York Times, August 18, pp.
28-33, 50-50, 74-75
.
18.
Russell, S.
and
L. Gibson
. 1997.
“User Fee Policies to Promote Health Service Access for the Poor:
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?”International Journal of Health Services27:
359-379
.
19.
Shaffer, E.R.2002. The California Health Service Plan, California Health Care
Options Project, April 2002.
California: Health Care Options Project,
California Department of Health and Human Services
. Available from the author (ershaffer@cpath.org).
20.
Stiglitz, J.2002.
“A Second Chance for Brazil and the IMF”
. New York Times, Aug. 14, Section A, p.23.
Available at (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F15FF355E0C778DDDA10894DA404482).
21.
Shultz, J.
forthcoming. “The Right to Water: Fulfilling
thePromise”. In Against Wind and Tide: Economic, Social and
Cultural Rightsin Latin America: From Theory to Practice, edited by
Alicia E. Yamin
.
Lima, Peru: APRODEH
.
22.
UNICEF
. 1999. Progress of Nations 1998.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
23.
United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs
. 1995.
Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action
. World Summit for Social Development Agreements. A/CONF.
166/9 Report of the World Summit for Social Development.
24.
United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), 21 G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 49, U.N. Doc A
(6316) 1966.
25.
United Nations Development Programme
. 1998. Human Development Report 1998.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
26.
Waitzkin, H.
,
R. Jasso-Aguilar
,
A. Landwehr
, and
C. Mountain2002. Global Trade and Public Health Policies: A Work in
Progress.
New Mexico: University of New Mexico
.
27.
Woodward, D.
,
N. Drager
,
R. Beaglehole
, and
D. Lipson
. 2002. “Globalization, Global Public Goods, and
Health”. In Trade in Health Services: Global, Regional and
Country Perspectives. edited by
N. Drager
and
C. Vieira
.
Washington, DC: PAHO
.
28.
World Bank. 1999a. “Bolivia Public Expenditure Review.”
World Bank, Washington, DC, June 14, 1999, executive summary. (Cited in Shultz forthcoming.)
29.
World Bank
. 1999b. “Peru: Improving Health Care for the
Poor”. World Bank Study.
World Bank, Washington, DC
.
30.
World Health Organization
. 1996. Water and Sanitation. Fact Sheet No. 112,
November 1996. World Health Organization, Geneva.
31.
World Health Organization
. 2001.
“Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development”
. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.
November 2001. Accessed August 20, 2002 (http://www3.who.int/whosis).
32.
World Health Organization. 2002a. Communicable Disease Surveillance and
Response. Disease Outbreaks Reported: August 16, 2002; July 12, 2002; July 19,
2002; March 21, 2002; May 8, 2002. World Health Organization, Geneva.
33.
World Health Organization
. 2002b. Dengue and Dengue Haemorrhagic Fever. Fact Sheet No.
117. Revised April 2002. Available at (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs117/en/).
34.
World Trade Organization and World Health Organization
. 2002. WTO Agreements and Public Health—A Joint
Study by the WHO and the WTO Secretariat. Printed by the WTO Secretariat.
The full report is available at (http://www.who.int/media/homepage/who_wto_e.pdf).
35.
Yamin, A.E. 2002. Conjurando Inequidades. Vigilancia Social del derecho a
la Salud. 2d ed. Lima, Peru: CEDAL.
