In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an economic cartel made up by the 30 most developed countries in the world, decided to begin a frontal attack to the countries that utilized their fiscal policies to attract foreign capitals.
This attack is trying to avoid the fiscal competition and the operation of financial centers beyond the control of their authorities that, through fiscal benefits and the protection of information, allow the citizens of their countries (and from the rest of the world) to protect themselves from fiscal abuses and seizures of their governments.
To achieve their objective they suggested their member countries to apply discriminatory measures to the countries that did not surrender to their intentions. These measures, however, were and are all contrary to the obligations that, in matters of international trade, all the OECD members have.
This was stated in 2000 by an attorney who had practices as legal advisor of the commercial section of the aforementioned cartel. He said, furthermore, that he had made it known to the supervisors of the organization, without being able to persuade them of their error.
In 2001, I made a presentation demonstrating the causes that made these measures contrary to the Marrakech Treaty (that created the World Trade Organization) and I suggested that Panama initiated a resolution of difference proceeding against a Latin American country that discriminated Panama.
Regrettably, a governmental advisor opposed this initiative arguing that the same could have a negative impact in our international relations, just like he had experienced when he was a part of the Ministry of Foreign Relations during the Endara Administration.
This is not true. Indeed, the resolution of differences proceedings was established in order for the countries to defend their positions within the framework of public international law, without threats nor the use of force. This is the civilized way to act.
Through time this opinion (and other similar ones that emerged from the chancellery) prevented Panama from using the legitimate mechanisms it had to defend itself. Had it not been for these mistaken policies, we already would have had a decision at the WTO, which would be, most probably, favorable to our interests.
A decision such as this one would have ruined the “cartel” making completely inefficient the “threats” from this abusive organization that pretends to impose its vision of the world to the rest of the nations. Furthermore, it would have moved the international debate to the field where it should be: that of international trade. That is, to the attack of “tax havens” we would have responded with the “illegitimate financial protectionism” defense.
What I describe here, I learned recently in all of its magnitude, which forces me to withdraw what I published some time ago against the Vice-Minister of Foreign Trade (addressed by Melitón Arrocha at the time), whom I made responsible for the lack of action of the Government. Definitively today I know with certainty that that bureau and his successors have tried in several occasions to proceed with this line of action, only to be stopped by a Chancellery that obviously did not understand what it was dealing with.
I maintain the hope that, now that we have a vice-chancellor that knows professionally the rules that govern trade internationally, this instance will become an ally of the legitimate exercise of the right to a defense. Just like it has been done with the Banana (suing all of the European Union) and with the exports from the Free Zone against Colombia. The double standard does not have a logical basis and, even less, factual.
I finish indicating that the United States, which is a member of the OECD and that actively pursues a policy of attraction of foreign capitals granting exemptions from taxes and protecting the identity of the owners of such capitals, will eventually be a victim of the OECD policy, a time when, I predict, the “threats” will die. That moment is not far and Panama only has to know how to resist the most recent attack.