"Eliminate trade barriers, infringe human rights".  It might appear that by formulating that phrase, there is an intention to establish a deceptive relationship between the two parts.  Apparently one might say that trade barriers and markets have nothing, or very little, to do with human rights, whether these are individual or collective.

Nevertheless, as neoliberal globalization continues to expand and be imposed across the planet, it does in fact closely connect these elements. We have seen this and confirmed it in our own societies with the crises that we live in. We see how, in the interests of an escape from the crises, there are permanent incentives for a constant increase of production, of indices of consumption, of boundless competition, or the pursuit of the establishment of as many enterprises as possible in the immediate environment, at whatever cost. And all this happens while labour rights are nullified, social and political rights are cut, as are budgets that should reinforce policies that concern the most tragic consequences of the chauvinist society that we live in, while our youth, and others not so young are condemned to an uncertain future with temporary and precarious jobs that cannot guarantee the minimum conditions of a decent life.

So, if the crisis and its direct consequences allow us to see that this apparently contrived relation is not so unreal, the matter that we now want to raise will reinforce the notion of a direct and close relationship between the absolute liberalization of markets and the infringement of the human rights of the great majorities.

Let us speak of the free trade agreements (FTA). Some were adopted over two decades ago, as is the case of that affecting North America (NAFTA) that includes Canada, the United States and Mexico. Others most recently signed include the Trans-Pacific agreement (TPP) that includes 12 countries on the borders of that ocean. Others upcoming such as the TransAtlantic agreement (TTIP), which is now being negotiated behind closed doors between the United States and the European Union.  There is a fourth treaty (TISA) that is also being negotiated secretly among 50 countries.  As we might suppose, all have the United States as an apparent common denominator and all are characterized by the secrecy of the terms of their negotiation and the fact that the peoples of the distinct countries affected are not consulted.

We must say, once again, that apparently the US government figures as the protagonist in each and all of the agreements. Nevertheless, we insist this is a matter of appearance. In reality, the common denominator in all the Free Trade Agreements, signed or to be signed, are the big transnational corporations.  It is they (their administrative councils or boards of directors) who impose the terms and the clauses; they are the ones directly interested and they are consequently the ones who are putting in place an authentic planetary government.

To some ears these affirmations could appear somewhat apocalyptic, but this is the only way to explain the secrecy of the negotiations, the impositions that go way beyond mere trade matters, such as the liberalization of markets or the elimination of custom duties, etc. In reality the impositions cover completely different areas such as the elimination of protections and securities that have to do with the rights of the population to universal health care or education, or the right to healthy food free of GMOs. There are also the attacks and pressures to reduce legislation in questions of social, labour or environmental protection.  In this connection, we should include the elimination of protective barriers to the unbridled exploitation of the planet and its contamination, resulting in the worsening of central problems today such as that of climate change.

Finally, and perhaps one of the most serious points of imposition, there is the elimination of the sovereignty of States. These can be denounced by the transnationals if they feel that any law, at a national or local level, affects their options to obtain maximum profits and "their rights" as private entities. That is to say, the public and social interest is submitted to the private interest of big business. And as if that were not much, they can count on private tribunals that can ensure a verdict in their favour in subsequent claims, which also marks another step towards the privatization of justice.

Thinking of those who might accuse us of being alarmists, we can mention some examples illustrative of acts that have already occurred, cited recently in a text by Susan George, honorary President of ATTAC-France and of the Transnational Institute of Amsterdam. There was the "case of Occidental Petroleum in Ecuador, that won a dispute for 1.8 billion dollars before an arbitration tribunal of three private judges because the Latin American country would not permit drilling for oil in a protected natural zone.  Other cases are direct threats to public health or to the duty of governments to promote the welfare of their" citizens. "Such is the case of Philip Morris against Australia and Uruguay for requiring plain packaging of cigarettes with clearly visible warnings about the serious problems of tobacco for health. Or the case of Veolia against Egypt because the Egyptian government raised the minimum wage".

To sum things up, as we have already noted, the terms of Free Trade Agreements go much further than mere agreements to favour trade and development, and they involve a broad set of impositions that the big transnational corporations are defining, without any consultation with the population, in order to set up a new world order. In this order, democracy and human rights, in the best of cases, will be totally and absolutely subjected to the interests of markets and the search for higher profits. This therefore annuls the capacity of the majority to define their present condition and compromises the future of the coming generations and their right to a decent life where individual and collective human rights would amount to more than a simple international declaration.

It is then an attempt to eliminate the possibilities of a world where poverty, inequality and social injustice would not be understood as justifiable or inevitable and could be definitively excluded for the benefit of the majority of the population and not only for an enriched minority. It is a question of political and social will; a question of transparency and consultation with the population; a question of real and participative democracy.

13/10/2015

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop) 

- Jesús González Pazos is a member of Mugarik Gabe.