Trade policy and human rights

Transcription

1 Karel De Gucht European Commissioner for Trade Trade policy and human rights S&D conference "Can trade policy improve human rights?" Brussels, 13 October 2010

2 Good afternoon Honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to be with you today to discuss an angle to EU trade policy its promotion of human rights which is central to the work of the European Parliament. When I was a Member of this institution I chaired the Sub-committee on Human Rights. We meet today in building named after Altiero Spinelli, a man who had a vision for this institution and with whom I had the privilege to work on his eponymous report. We have come a long way since then. We have a new treaty that embodies much of Spinelli's foresight and which provides for the EU's action on the international scene to be guided by the shared values that underpin the European construction: rule of law, sustainable economic, social and environmental development, management of global resources and respect for human rights, to name a few. Trade policy is one of the key instruments to promote these values and principles. There are high expectations in this respect - mainly because the EU common commercial policy is often seen as an area where tangible interests are to be found. It is not rare to see that trade takes up a large share of the issues that bind the EU to many of its foreign partners. We have to deliver on these expectations. But at the same time, we must be aware that most problems cannot be solved solely through trade policy. I will start today by outlining what we are already doing in the field of trade to promote and support human rights which is a lot. Then I will move on to my thoughts on how these may be developed in the future. Trade and living standards Let me start by making the case for EU trade policy consistently and globally contributing to human rights in raising living standards. Trade plays a direct role in creating jobs and growth around the world and, when combined with the right national policies and private sector decisions, has lifted many people out of poverty. The story of international integration is fundamentally one of tremendous success. Per capita real income has grown more than three times faster for developing countries that lowered trade barriers than other developing countries. The numbers are impressive, but what, many of you will ask, has this got to do with human dignity? I will argue that apart from the fact that the absence of hunger and deprivation does contribute to well-being in the long-term, free trade can be fair and by fair I mean just and equitable. Wherever human rights have prevailed in the political history of this planet, it is largely in parallel with wide reforms in society including an overall consensus about what was acceptable and what not. In Europe, the concept of human rights emerged as peasants claimed entitlements from their feudal lords as early as the 16th century in central Europe. There are some who set the mark even earlier with the Magna Carta. Later other examples are the abolition of slavery, the introduction of election by universal suffrage and the end of two wars that tore Europe and the world apart, prompting radical changes in relations between states and between governments and their people. There is therefore a strong case to be made that in the design of our trade policy we have allowed the economic rights of many across the globe to be raised. Trade can only flourish lastingly in a context of freedom. Trade incentives for more and better human rights 2

3 Over the years, we have developed an approach that focuses on positive incentives, using trade preferences to promote human rights. But we have both carrots and sticks. We offer major economic incentives at the same time as applying strict rules about the conditions to qualify. These are not paper tigers but tough rules that we have had, occasionally, to put into practice. Take the Generalised System of Preferences schemes - our key tool to provide 176 developing countries and territories with better access to the EU's market of 500 million relatively rich consumers. All three schemes under this umbrella, (standard GSP, GSP "plus" and Everything But Arms) can be temporarily withdrawn from countries where these is evidence of serious and systematic violations of the principles of certain key international conventions, including the core human rights ones. This is not a step we have taken lightly. But we have taken it. We withdrew GSP benefits from Myanmar (in 1997) because of the use of forced labour. In 2006, we did the same with Belarus for the widespread violation of basic trade union rights. In both cases, we acted carefully following a Commission of Inquiry initiated by the ILO. With "GSP plus", the economic interests are larger because we grant duty-free tariffs instead of preferential customs duties as is the case with the standard GSP regime. At the same time, the political conditionality is more stringent because we go beyond respect of principles and request the effective implementation of 27 international conventions that include core human rights instruments. There are currently 16 beneficiaries of this scheme and there is clear evidence that it has played its role as an incentive for beneficiaries to ratify the full list of conventions. The ILO supervisory committee has reported that most applicant countries have made substantial changes to their legal systems in order to comply. This is not just a one hit benefit but an ongoing incentive to keep applying the Conventions. The Commission monitors the situation in the beneficiary countries on an ongoing basis to see that the legislation is being implemented and further supports the process through dialogues on implementation with the countries concerned. This scheme too has teeth. GSP plus can be withdrawn if the conditions are no longer being met a recent example is Sri Lanka. Incentives through Free Trade Agreements As far as our free trade agreements are concerned, we work on an incentive-based approach in the sustainable development chapters so as to engage our trading partners in a cooperative process. We want to support compliance with domestic and international labour standards as well as promoting the ILO's Decent Work agenda. The sustainable development chapters are a tool in development and, in some ways, they go further than the GSP plus scheme. This is understandable, because the trade offer on the table is larger. It is sensible to calibrate incentives according to the depth of the trade relationship sought. Specifically, our free trade agreements contain provisions for mechanisms that monitor at the level of civil society from both sides the implementation of the human rights commitment. If necessary, independent arbitration is also possible. I would like to briefly dwell on the question of the "essential elements" clause, which I know is something that the Parliament takes a keen interest in and is currently a subject for discussion in relation with an own-initiative report. For legal reasons, the 3

4 Commission takes the view that this clause is not needed and should not be included - in trade agreements with a partner which has a framework agreement with the EU. The trade agreement is after all usually linked to the framework agreement. It is true that a separate essential elements clause has been included in the FTAs with Korea, Colombia and Peru, but there are very exceptional legal reasons for this. In the case of Korea, the Framework Agreement has been negotiated in parallel to the FTA, but will likely enter into force after the FTA does. In the cases of Colombia and Peru, the associated Framework Agreement still has to be ratified by one Member State and so has not yet entered into force. Guiding principles for the future Looking to the future, I have heard calls to make more use of trade policy to promote human rights. I subscribe in general to this view but we must not set ourselves up for a disillusion. Often, to address human rights problems trade policy is not the firstbest instrument, as evidenced by many episodes of trade sanctions. And secondly, trade policy is also supposed to serve a range of other goals, including the EU's own prosperity. There are many minefields to cross at risk to life and limb to ensure we do not set up perverse incentives or lead to the opposite results from our objectives, hardening attitudes and forcing alternative ways to achieve the same end. For example studies by the ILO and UNICEF show that the mere discussion of trade sanctions against Bangladesh in the US were enough to lay off massive numbers of child labourers. As a result they were pushed into even worse forms of child labour in the informal economy to which international monitoring has no access. There are times when trade measures will not be the most appropriate policy response; when we have better leverage with non-trade instruments; when the tariff lines receiving preferential treatment either represent a fraction of total trade with the country concerned or do not cover production processes where the alleged human violations are taking place. I suggest that the approach of using trade preferences, coupled with cooperation, dialogue, and transparency should remain the cornerstone of our policy and we should continue to support responsible behaviour by EU investors abroad and other EU economic operators that are part of the global supply chain. Our trade and human rights agenda should be: - 1. Coherent - with multilateral policies, with other EU policies, between different trade policy instruments and of course across countries in the same situation - 2. Transparent vis-à-vis trading partners, civil society and the institutions - 3. Predictable clearly defining which human rights are to be addressed, how they will be assessed and under what circumstances may trade measures be withdrawn - 4. Feasible answering the questions: Can we target the right goods? Can we actually enforce our proposals? Ladies and gentlemen, All human rights are in fact closely connected, being the expression of different dimensions of a single subject, the human person. Defence of the universality and indivisibility of human rights is essential for the construction of a peaceful society and for the overall development of individuals, peoples and nations. 4

5 I would argue that trade has played a huge, and undervalued, role in helping to meet the right to a decent standard of living. Trade policy has also provided key incentives through carrots and sticks to promote better national compliance with international human rights conventions. Trade policy does not operate in a vacuum but must and does - reflect societal concerns. The challenge for us all is to make trade work in a way that helps rather than hinders such legitimate concerns. Trade policy must harness the economic benefits of trade liberalisation whilst promoting universal values such as human rights and social justice that lie at the core of the European project. This is our challenge for the future. 5