Should Human Rights Be Considered Before Giving Preferential Trading

Rights to a Country?

By Sneh

Preferential Trade Agreement

• A Preferential trade area (PTA) is a trading bloc which gives preferential access to certain products from the participating countries.

• This is done by reducing tariffs but not by abolishing them completely.

Human Rights

Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled

Few Human Rights

• Gender Equality• Right to Information• Child Rights• Race Equality• Right to Education• Women’s Right

Violation of Human Rights

Reasons

•Poverty•Illiteracy •Lack of Infrastructure•Unstable Government•Corruption •Ignorance

What external pressure can Change?

Can a government eradicate poverty?

Can it stop child labor?

Can it remove corruption?

Can it protect women rights?

No government is capable of quick fixing such issues upon external pressure.

Intriguing Aspect of this Phenomenon

The inclusion of Human Right protection in trade agreement was concluded by the United Statesand the European Union(EU)

The inclusion was done mostly with the developing country partners

Why developed Nations use it?

As a Trade negotiation tool (to gain other advantages in return)

To impose their culture and values to the weaker nations

To discourage the exports from developing economies , Which otherwise will dominate the world with cheap

production

Use as a non-tariff barrier for trade

What it means to Receiving Nations?

Diplomatically Disruptive

Global Climate

Crisis

Economically Inefficient

AmbiguousPolitically Divisive

Diplomatically Disruptive

EU entered into an agreement with Nepal by providing special LDC quota for importing Nepali handmade carpets. This proved boon for Nepali economy, and huge local populationEntered the industry.Few years later EU stopped the quota showing child right abuses which ended up in a major Economic disruption in Nepal

Economically Inefficient

In India, 29% or 260 Mil still below national poverty line and 33% of children under 16 years are working.

Government is working to end the use of child labor, but it is highly unlikely that external pressure fasten it.

Out of 260 million poor, 20% might be children that corresponds to 52 million. For government to take care of these children, it requires to spend at least 52 Billion Rupees every month. This is economically not viable.

Politically Divisive

The definition of human rights differ between nations, which depends on the local culture and type of governance. Using Human Rights as Trade Negotiation tool brings the political division within the Participating nations.• US sees Internet Freedom as a part of Human Rights, while China and Germany use the Web Censorship. • US citizens can keep guns for self defense, while its restricted in India.• Capital Punishment is a Human Right violation in EU but not in US.

Ambiguous

In a country like India where women prefer not to work after marriage, how; if imposed ,can We measure gender equality?

America has strong domestic human rights practices. But what about the death of thousands Of women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan?

France’s ban of burqua. Is this a violation of human rights by not allowing women to wear apparel Of their choice?

Ending Thoughts•Preferential trade regulations protecting human rights correspond with global moral principles and laws mainly when they serve shrewd policymakers interests to accumulate power or resources, and patently go against or dodge them otherwise

•The stronger economic actor, will only gain from the creation

•The drafting of such an agreement is going to be a long-term process, which developing countries should enter only after careful and intensive preparations.

•It is good to consider Human Values and Rights in any deals or negotiations, but it needs To ensure that the interest of both the parties are taken care.

•Human Rights can better be taken as a movement to form collective human values and its implementation. It is not a wise idea to merge it with Trade.

Questions?

Thank You.

Appendix

Few Questions:

• Why have the US and the EU decided to attach human rights conditions to their trade agreements?

• Why have the two powers designed their PTA’s differently, with US emphasizing on labor and children rights and EU emphasizing on voters and citizens rights.

• Why have their trading partners accepted these conditions?• Have these agreements had the desired results on human

rights in the partnering countries?

First PTA

• In the 1980s, the United States negotiated and signed preferential trade agreements. with Israel (1985) and Canada (1988).

• Aimed to eliminate all duties and virtually all other restrictions on trade in goods between the countries.

PTA and Human Rights

The US negotiated and signed Free Trade Agreements with:

• Chile (2003), • Singapore (2003), • Australia (2004), • Morocco (2004) • Bahrain(2004).

Few Questions• To date, a considerable number of these agreements promise to defend

human rights of one kind or another and provide ways to enforce those promises. Many more agreements are in the process of negotiation. Commerce, on the face of it, has never looked so principled!!!

• Why are powerful countries, once opposed to the idea, now regulating the

protection of human rights through PTAs? • Why does the design of these “fair” traderegulations vary considerably between America and Europe? • Why are so many other countries, especially the abusive ones,

subscribing to trade regulations that seem diametrically opposed to their interests?

• And is any of this rulemaking helping to protect people’s rights?

What do these regulations look like?

The US Free Trade Agreement withSingapore, which took effect in 2004, is one example. This agreement obliges partiesto “strive to ensure” that human rights – in particular, the right of association, theright to organize and bargain collectively, labor protections for children, andacceptable minimum wages, hours of work and safe health conditions – “arerecognized and protected by domestic law” (Article 17.1). It requires that both theUS and Singapore effectively enforce these laws and promote public awareness ofthem (Articles 17.2, 17.3). To further advance common commitments to theprotection of peoples’ rights, the trade agreement establishes a Labor CooperationMechanism (Annex 17A), procedures for consultations and a Joint Committee tooversee implementation

America is not alone. Europe’s Cotonou Convention with the African,Caribbean and Pacific group of countries (ACP), which took effect in

2003, isanother example.viii The trade agreement commits “Parties [to]

undertake to promoteand protect all fundamental freedoms and human rights” (Articles 9,

13, 26). Theseprinciples are supported through a Political Dialogue designed to

share information,to cultivate mutual understanding, and to facilitate the formation of

shared priorities,including those concerning respect for human rights

“Fair” Trade is News

Human rights have long been an aim of foreign policy for Western countries(Forsythe 2000; Mertus 2004; Sikkink 2004). But the way governments embedhuman rights regulations in PTAs today is quite different from past trade experience,when powerful countries, even the liberal ones, plainly rejected the marriage of tradeagreements and protections for people. Even though trade agreements have governedtrade relations for decades, “fair” PTA standards of conduct for protecting people’shuman rights have only recently been incorporated – gradually since 1994 inAmerica and almost universally here since 2002; gradually in Europe since 1990 andalmost universally there since 1995.Not so long ago, human rights were purposely excluded from nearly allcommercial agreements made by America or Europe.ix When they were invoked,standards for protecting human rights were typically linked to unilateral tradepreference programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) offeredby America or Europe, or to national or sub-national laws (Aaronson andZimmerman 2007), which place no obligations on the host governments to protecthuman rights at all. Most “fair” trade PTAs, by contrast, go both ways, creatingshared obligations between countries to protect human rights.