Small international arrangements between friends…

Trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States over the Transatlantic Treaty (TTIP) are discreet to the point of secret. And it is not enough to demand more transparency, because it is not the details, it is the very spirit of the project that is toxic! And if one day an agreement is submitted to our political authorities, they will no longer be able to change anything... Mobilization is essential, now!

The TTIP aims to facilitate investments and commercial or financial exchanges, but by going so far as to give priority to private interests over the right of States to legislate according to their situation, their needs – or according to the socio-political options of their citizens. This follows a major trend that is affecting the entire planet. In the new generation of international treaties, private interests are no longer just the driving forces, they become the pursued objective ^[1]This is not really new: “In capitalist society, the economic system was developed separately from the rest of society. The absorption of this system into society… Continue reading American-style globalization? American hegemonism pushes these trends, which give institutional leverage to its political and economic messianism. It is with perfect conscience (and full awareness) that the United States seeks to export its way of operating throughout the world. By democracies reduced to free elections, but also by a market regime extended to all goods and services, including those which meet the most basic needs of poor populations. For twenty years we have witnessed the establishment of international arrangements which, like the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) already in force, establish free trade which is not only characterized by freedom of movement and low customs duties, but which also involves the lifting of what we modestly call “non-tariff barriers” to trade. Which covers a large part of the health, environmental or social rules which make up the specificity of our European socio-economic culture. But this also concerns the legal norms which govern economic activity and contracts: flouting a more than century-old tradition in international trade, it is private jurisdictions which experience conflicts – but this has been justified until now by the fact that only private interests were involved (a publicly owned company is not a public power but a company). Whereas now, we are also, and even above all, targeting disputes between companies and States – leaving the initiative to companies alone! All this amounts to recognizing a right to profit, while the United States refuses the idea of rights to income, housing or employment. They accept that there are economic human rights, but refuse the very notion of social rights, of which they have not signed the International Covenant. It is really a question of a profound cultural difference between them and Europe, which cannot be resolved in commercial law. Globalization in any case The former director of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy ^[2]Pascal Lamy, 'The new world of commerce'. Commentary 151, fall 2015, p. 491-498., observes a shift in the obstacles to international trade, and in the rationality which now governs its regulation. Open competition without physical limits now imposes a convergence of production conditions (traditional modes of production no longer hold up, and very few activities are still sheltered from international competition), but also of the conditions of exchange, the Differences in duties and taxes affect the location of investments, competitiveness and the treatment of labor. Hence the objective assigned to the TTIP negotiation: to reduce these obstacles to free competition. TTIP will establish a regulatory cooperation body responsible for monitoring the compatibility of American and European rules, with the participation of private lobbies ^[3]Lora Verheecke and David Lundy (Corporate Europe Observatory), 'Lobbies will crush democracy'. La Libre Belgique, 18.1.2016, p.44-45. Michel Cermak (from CNCD-11.11.11) 'The slalom of … Continue reading. Question of preventing trade from being restricted by considerations of general interest. Pascal Lamy, recognizes legitimate national accents, with different priorities on health or culture, on freedoms or security, etc., but he also sees differences without technical or social basis which, like low salaries, can constitute disguised protectionism. He adds that if the change takes place, “it will no longer be the negotiators of trade agreements who will set the (standards). This will be done by experts, from institutions that have generally become, to avoid conflicts of interest, more independent of political power. » And there you have it: good evening democracy… And he concludes that “we are entering another world, that of private actors who have become de facto, if not de jure, prescribers of these high levels of precaution. » Exceptions can be negotiated, but the treaty will never provide for all cases of possible ethical conflicts in the future, and commercial interests will therefore prevail over moral scruples, unless financial compensation is increased for frustrated sellers... Announced victory for private finance In the new treaties in preparation, commercial interests, and therefore private financial interests, will take precedence over the right of States to legislate according to the choices of their citizens. This drift is manifest within the EU itself, because it was at the request of the European Commission – on the initiative of its Belgian commissioner, Karel De Gucht – that the negotiation with the United States was initiated. And this is going less well than during the episode of the MAI, a multilateral agreement on investment. This “AMI who wanted us harm” was negotiated at the OECD in the same spirit as the TTIP… but in the ignorance of the governments themselves! At the time (1994) it was civil society which realized this, denounced the maneuver and obtained a breakdown in discussions. Those were the good times... Because since then, the United States... and the EU! have imposed the logic of the MAI in their bilateral treaties. This does not (yet) constitute a strictly international law, but the business octopuses have launched their tentacles. However, everything had progressed well. Especially since the Second World War, because public services and social redistributions have been organized to ensure the pursuit of the common good beyond private appetites. Today, in the “liberal counter-revolution” made possible for forty years by the fallout from the oil crises, we are reversing the tide and claiming, under the pretext of efficiency (to what end, defined by whom?), to privatize everything which can be profitable. What the “downsizing” of States and the rise of private powers has made possible. Four examples, the last two of which directly concern TTIP: – A few decades ago, our leaders explained to us that major projects like the Panama Canal exceeded the capacities of private companies and had to rely on the contribution of States. Today, as for the Channel Tunnel, we are told that the cost of this work exceeds the possibilities of States and calls for the participation of private companies. – In the 19th century, the right to issue money was withdrawn from private banks and entrusted to a public Central Bank: money was considered too important to be left to the private sector. At the end of the 20th century, Central Banks were made independent of States: currency was considered too important to be left to politics... – During the golden sixties, we saw the proliferation of legislation protecting local interests in the Third World against the appetite of foreign investors dedicated to profit, without consideration for local interests. Since the “liberal counter-revolution” following the oil crises, the priority has been reversed: it is now the interests of private investors that are being protected against legislative interventions by States. TTIP would allow companies to bring an action against a State, while denying States this right of recourse! – In Europe, but not in the United States, ethical considerations govern business practices. Thus the precautionary principle is the rule in Europe, but refused in the United States: only what has been proven to be harmful is prohibited there. So again, the EU prohibits the commercialization of human bodies, and therefore the payment of surrogate mothers or organ donations. The United States allows it. If TTIP is signed, Europe will have to allow it too, or compensate the supplier companies. It would be difficult to find the slightest trace of democracy in all this. We can clearly see, on the other hand, that trade and the economy are not the only ones to blame. It is also a model of society, with a precautionary principle and the dignity of all. It is a political model, with participatory democracy. It is a legal tradition where public authorities and official justice are guarantors of the common good. It is an education supervised and publicly funded, rather than subject to the needs of future employers. It is a culture that more or less escapes commercial sponsorship or advertising. It is a medicine accessible to (almost) everyone, rather than commercially profitable. It is a preservation of nature and those who inhabit it, rather than sacrificed to profitable but unnecessary mining. It is international cooperation, rather than exposure to our financial powers. It is organized social solidarity, rather than the law of the jungle. What is at stake is a civilization. Not less. Making our voices heard Civil society, which saved us in 1994 from this “FRIEND who wanted us harm” is now mobilizing against TTIP, but in a resolutely business-oriented political climate. Petitions are circulating, which have already collected more than three million signatures, but so far without succeeding in moving most of our European or national elected officials. However modest we may be, we can add our names to the list and continue to do pressure . The issues are too fundamental for us not to do it. ^[4]Some links to get involved: http://www.cncd.be/-stop-ttip https://stop-ttip.org/fr/ Anti-TTIP petition signed by 3 million people… Continue reading Paul Löwenthal, volunteer at the Justice and Peace Commission. Economist, professor emeritus at the Catholic University of Louvain.

Attachments