Something remarkable happened in the Senate a few days ago: An avowed free-trader voted against the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Peru (which otherwise passed with strong support on a 77-18 vote).
In explaining his no vote, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) made it clear that he supported not only free trade in general, but free trade with Peru specifically. So why did Kyl vote against the Peru FTA, especially when he said in his statement that he “strongly support the original Peru FTA”?
Note: The “original” Peru FTA as previously negotiated between the U.S. and Peru, before Democrats in the House insisted on weakening intellectual property protections in the agreement, and before the Bush administration caved in to them.
Said Kyl: “I am simply puzzled by the intellectual property changes. I am not sure what my colleagues hoped to gain by weakening standard protections for U.S. intellectual property through this trade agreement.”
Importantly, Kyl pointed out, “Peru did not, in the course of negotiations, ask us to weaken the IP requirements. Peru was perfectly willing to abide by the greater protections of the original FTA.”
Kyl also indicted the Bush administration, closing his remarks with, “Because the Administration apparently made no attempt to address our concerns or to assure us that other actions could be taken to enhance protections for valuable U.S. intellectual property, I am compelled to oppose the Peru FTA. I urge my colleagues to give additional thought to whether it is wise to unilaterally weaken the intellectual property protections we normally include in FTAs. These provisions better not be included in future FTAs or I will work for their defeat.”
Senator Jon Kyl clearly understands the importance of intellectual property for global competitiveness, saying, “U.S. intellectual property is one of our most valuable exports; it is not in the national interest of the United States to unilaterally weaken protections for it.”
The question is, what’s up with those who insisted on weakening IP protections in the Peru FTA—protections to which Peru had already agreed? Why is it in the best interest of the U.S. to weaken protections for U.S. companies when our trading partners have no problem with them?
Senator Kyl may have voted against the Peru FTA, but he cast a strong vote in favor of free trade and U.S. global competitiveness through intellectual property protection, and he shined a spotlight on those who undermine or don’t sufficiently protect U.S. interests. For that we are grateful.