|
|
TRADE-U.S.: Central America Deal Must Boost Labour Rights - Report
By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON, Feb 19, 2003 (IPS) - A proposed trade agreement between the United
States and five Central American nations could further worsen labour and
environmental conditions in the region if Washington does not use its clout
to press for greater workers' rights there, says a leading U.S. think tank.
In January, the United States launched free trade talks with Costa Rica,
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua towards the U.S.-Central
American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
The administration of President George W. Bush said it would use the
talks to push for the elimination of non-tariff barriers and broad
liberalisation of market access for goods and services, including
e-commerce and science-based food inspection systems as well as strong
protection for intellectual property.
But in a recent report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
argues that the planned trade agreement, by replacing the current U.S.
system of unilateral trade preferences, could wipe out the existing minimal
recognition of labour rights in the region, which had been partially
improved under the unilateral deals.
The Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership
Act (CBTPA), all extend market access benefits unilaterally to the Central
American countries on the condition that they respect workers' rights.
While recognising that the instruments have not solved the basic problem
of the lack of rights and rule of law for workers in the region, the report
says that they reversed the most egregious violations of rights and threats
to lives and have also arguably prevented many more such abuses.
While replacing the unilateral deals, said the report, a new agreement
would expand market access to the United States. ''This would leave
existing (labour) problems to fester and invite further abuse.''
The report also cautions that there is a slight, but dangerous, chance
that the so-called free trade agreement will be negotiated with no labour
provisions, because of pressure from major U.S. businesses.
Officials from the U.S. Trade Representative office did not return phone
calls requesting comment on Wednesday.
But the administration has previously countered such warnings about
labour provisions by saying that the U.S. Trade Act of 2002, under which
the agreement's terms will be negotiated, spells out objectives on labour,
including several provisions similar to those contained in the U.S. ¡
Jordan Free Trade Agreement.
But the Carnegie report's author, Sandra Polaski, who, as a state
department official, negotiated the labour provisions of that agreement and
another with Cambodia, argues that may not be the case.
Unlike Jordan, which has reasonably good labour laws and relatively
effective enforcement, ''Central American countries have glaring weaknesses
in their laws, inadequate enforcement, and judicial systems that fall short
of any reasonable standard for the rule of law,'' she wrote.
She suggests that Washington use the agreement to press the region's
government to end systematic repression of workers' rights, physical
intimidation, beatings, kidnappings, child labour and even assassinations
of trade union leaders - in the same manner that Washington threatens to
revoke trade benefits from countries that do not respect intellectual
property rights.
The trade threats approach was revealed Tuesday when Taiwan agreed to
crack down on CD piracy after Washington threatened to repeal the Asian
nation's trade benefits. The country exports 131 billion dollars worth of
goods annually to the United States, its second-largest export market.
But other trade experts say that expecting the corporate-backed Bush
administration to react to moral arguments about labour and environmental
standards - often considered by corporate executives as 'taxes' on profits
- is not realistic.
Given past experiences with the North America Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) which, for example, gives northern companies the right of
litigation but takes it away from the host country - in this case Mexico -
Washington is unlikely to press for concessions on such standards, said one
expert.
''Realistically, the Bush administration is not gong to do that,'' said
Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre of Economic and Policy Research.
''It's not going to happen. We have an experience with this.''
Baker, whose centre is based in Washington, said that clauses in trade
agreements protecting intellectual property rights of U.S. companies are
''iron-clad'' and ''very specific'', while labour and environmental
standards are weak and given only lip service because powerful corporations
back intellectual property protections.
But Polaski says in her report that the proposed agreement should make
it clear that if Central American countries do not give their citizens
certain rights, they will not be able to invoke preferential treatment
clauses in the deal.
The report also argues that a free trade agreement could help workers'
rights by creating ''political space'' in Central America for needed
legislative reforms that have so far eluded governments.
Such rights should include freedom of association, the right to
collective bargaining, protections against child labour, freedom from
forced labour and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum
wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
''If countries fail to respect these rights, they run the risk of losing
the trade preferences for some or all of their products,'' recommends the
report.
(END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
