After months of optimism, Malaysia has finally admitted that its negotiations over the free trade agreement (FTA) with the US are going nowhere. All this while the government has been shunning an infant movement which is slowly gaining momentum to oppose any FTA with Washington.

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'!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why the need?

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?

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".

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Place in good books

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.

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.

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.

An agreement with Bahrain was signed in September 2004 and took effect last August after securing its assurance not to boycott Israeli goods.

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--vis the Arab world".

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.

Absence of cohesion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the case of PAS, its presence is almost nil in the debate - it has adopted an indifferent attitude, letting others do the talking.

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.

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.)

But with most Muslim regimes being taken hostage politically and economically by Washington, such hopes remain an utopian ideal.

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.
ABDAR RAHMAN KOYA writes for London-based Crescent International, a Muslim political news magazine, and works in publications firm.