‘Trade policy, not morals or health policy’: The US Trade Representative, tobacco companies and market liberalization in Thailand

Abstract

The enforced opening of Thailand’s cigarette market to imports in 1990 has become a cause celebre in debates about the social and health impacts of trade agreements. At the instigation of leading US-based cigarette manufacturers, the US Trade Representative (USTR) threatened trade sanctions against Thailand to compel the government to liberalize its domestic cigarette market. Thailand’s challenge to the USTR led to referral to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) arbitration. While GATT ruled in favour of the USTR on market access, it also found that Thailand could subsequently enact non-discriminatory tobacco control regulation without contravening the GATT agreement. This paper contributes to existing literature via its analysis of tobacco industry documents that highlight not only USTR responsiveness to lobbying from tobacco corporations, raising concerns about the drivers of globalization and the limited protection afforded to public health concerns in trade agreements. Significantly, the documents also indicate that USTR support of the tobacco industry was not unconditional, being subject to wider pressures of global trade negotiations. Such qualification notwithstanding, however,,ongoing governmental willingness to advance the international interests of tobacco corporations remains a concern from a public health perspective, particularly given the failure of the US to ratify the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Exposing and addressing tobacco industry conduct in low-income and middle-income countries

“…LMICs have also been the victims of industry efforts to use economic treaties to threaten innovative tobacco control policies both historically 129,130 and recently. Uruguay is currently defending its large, graphic warning labels in international arbitration.…”

To ‘enable our legal product to compete effectively with the transit market’: British American Tobacco's strategies in Thailand following the 1990 GATT dispute

“…This, in turn, increased domestic competition, tobacco consumption and thus adverse health impacts. The TTM responded by giving more attention to marketing and product development, joining TTCs in challenging the adoption of stronger tobacco control measures, and developing export markets in Southeast Asia and the Middle East (MacKenzie & Collin, 2012). An alternative interpretation is that the ruling led Thailand to adopt stronger tobacco control measures, applied to domestic and foreign companies, than it would otherwise have (Mackenzie & Collin, 2012).…”

“…The TTM responded by giving more attention to marketing and product development, joining TTCs in challenging the adoption of stronger tobacco control measures, and developing export markets in Southeast Asia and the Middle East (MacKenzie & Collin, 2012). An alternative interpretation is that the ruling led Thailand to adopt stronger tobacco control measures, applied to domestic and foreign companies, than it would otherwise have (Mackenzie & Collin, 2012). The comprehensive 1992 Tobacco Products Control Act restricted large-scale advertising and promotional campaigns seen in other countries following market opening (MacKenzie, Collin, Sriwongcharoen & Muggli, 2004), and paved the way for Thailand to become a ‘world leader in tobacco control’ (Vathesatogkit & Nimpitakpong, 2011, p. 3).…”

“…The action followed a request by the United States Cigarette Exporters Association (USCEA), comprised of Philip Morris (PM), RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) and Brown & Williamson (B&W), under Section 301 of the 1974 US Trade Act. Given the USTR’s previous success in opening access to markets in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, the companies sought a similar outcome in Thailand (MacKenzie & Collin, 2012). However, the Thai government resisted USTR pressure and the two parties entered a protracted process that was eventually referred to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) arbitration.…”

Health Policy inAsia and thePacific: Navigating Local Needs and Global Challenges

“…There has been less of a perception of shared interests, however, in addressing the links between trade and the alarming rise in NCDs. Trade and tobacco control policies, for example, have had a checkered history beginning with the forced opening of Asian markets to transnational tobacco companies by the US Trade Representative from the 1980s (Mackenzie and Collin 2012). The targeting of the region by TTCs ever since has been well-documented, setting the region up for an escalation in death and disease from tobacco-related diseases in coming decades (Knight and Chapman 2004).…”