The disastrous effects of the Transatlantic Treaty (TTIP)
An amalgam of acronyms are popping up to describe the same thing. And it is not without reason. The opacity by which this new free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, induces a lack of consensus among media actors. Even so, the press has generally accepted the acronym in English, made available by the supranational institutions, TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, for its acronym in English 1].
However, the alphabet soup does not end with TTIP. CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) and SPA (Strategic Partenship Agreement) are commercial and political agreements between the countries of the Union and Canada. This will serve as a bridge to implement the TTIP. On September 26, 2014, the negotiations between the two actors ended pending the ratification of the treaty in the Council and European Parliament (competent body) and in the respective parliaments of the community states (if their constitution so demands).
But what is the TTIP?
It seems understood that this treaty generally supposes organize the largest free trade market in the world, which would bring together more than 800 million consumers and more than half of world GDP (54%) also allowing the European economies to be doped by € 120,000 million and the American economies by € 95,000 million (data prepared by the Center for Economic Policy Research) [2]. With this economic perspective, a European citizen would not doubt its implementation, but... Why then so much secrecy?
The TTIP goes far beyond the “simple” free trade agreements, since it pursues three very important objectives to be clarified. The first would consist of the abolition of the last customs duties (tariff barriers), which are already very low [3]. The second, for its part, seeks to “harmonize” non-tariff barriers (standards) between the countries involved [4]. Finally, it consists of guaranteeing legal mechanisms, called ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement), so that investors do not find regulatory or legislative obstacles in the markets they intend to enter, and if they do, be able to Dodge. In other words, the TTIP (or also the CETA) aims to prioritize the interests of large companies over the States, with the evident loss of sovereignty that this would entail. [5] + [6]
In fact, the negotiations have been instigated by numerous American [7] and European [8] lobbyists, but officially it is the officials of the respective governments who are trying [9]. The negotiations will theoretically end next year, but will be preceded by a long ratification process in the Council and the European Parliament as well as in the countries that their legislation demand it. This process will not be an easy task in this period of economic, social and political crisis in Europe (especially in the South). From this context, plus the uncertainty about the possible consequences of the TTIP, the impermeability of the institutions can be deduced [10].
What advantages or disadvantages will the TTIP bring?
The advantages or disadvantages towards European or American societies are different according to each case, and according to the ideological prism from which it is viewed. According to the report prepared by the CEPR banker lobby for the European Commission (who, likewise, affirms that it is an economic prediction and as it is obvious it inevitably lacks certainty), the advantages are linked to economic growth (an increase of 0.5% of GDP in the EU and 0.4% in the US), especially in certain sectors: especially the automotive sector (40% increase in exports), the metallurgical sector (+ 12%), processed food (+ 9%), chemical products (+ 9%)... Regarding employment, the study commissioned for the Commission predicts a transfer of jobs between sectors (in relation to 7 jobs out of 1000 in 10 years) and not really the creation of it. This is important! Politicians always play the trick of job creation to justify the free trade agreement (or other interests of doubtful legitimacy) when they do not really adhere to the data of the official studies of the institutions which they represent.
In addition, the disadvantages materialize at multiple more levels, which are not mentioned in the CEPR study (of analysis too economistic): the treaty risks the social, economic, health, cultural, environmental, political and even geopolitical... For example, the eight fundamental rights proposed by the International Labor Organization (ILO) are adopted by the member countries of the EU. In contrast, only two of them are ratified by the United States government. The experience of free trade agreements suggests that the "harmonization" of the rules is established from the lowest common denominator, which would lead to a loss of fundamental rights on the part of European workers, section specifically mentioned by the CEPR who affirms, in fact, the need for the deregulation of the job.
Another example that we propose, due to its social sensitivity, is threats to the environment. A free-trade market will increase merchandise traffic as well as energy expenditure and, with it, pollution. On the other hand, the free entry and use of certain polluting technologies such as the extraction of shale gas (fracking), allow the use of agro-industrial chemicals (do you like chicken bathed in chlorine and beef with hormones? sic.) or open the doors to GMOs (although in Spain the practice of GMOs is deeply rooted [11])… would be some of these effects to consider.
To finish this point, we will mention the most worrying: the loss of democracy. Politicians and citizens constantly affirm that we live in a democracy. But democracy is not there or is no longer there, but it is more or less according to the productive structure and the interlocution of the competent actors within the system (where society is the legitimate actor in a democracy). The lack of transparency in the European Union around an already undemocratic TTIP, denounced by the court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA), is symptomatic of the loss of democratic quality that the treaties. The economy is displacing politics and definitely subjecting society to the laws of the market.
The "anarchy" of the (neo) liberal Market
A Europe submissive to the dictates of the large transnational companies will lead to a transformation of the production system, and therefore of the system. social, as well as a setback in the sovereignty of the States (the little that they already have after signing the transfer of sovereignty in the treaties of Lisbon). A liberation of the action capacity of large companies, who will increase competition (hyper-competition), induces a scenario where small producers can be severely punished if they are not able to adapt to these new circumstances (adaptation to e-commerce would be basic), causing conflicts at all levels of the society.
Monopolies, oligopolies... will have the opportunity to increase their capacity to act against the States, who would be devoid of legal tools to do so (remember the state-company ISDS arbitration mechanisms). The structural reforms, experienced in an extreme way in Spain, are the basis for free movement to be established. The latter, if it materializes, will be a new step towards economic globalization, with the United States starting with a certain advantage. All this thanks to the influence of its Internet giants: Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft... This deregulation of the markets would also aggravate the possibility of a crisis. First, as a result of the productive specialization in a determined territorial scope, which would tend to intensify against productive diversity, whose resistance to the secular economic crises of capitalism is more effective. Second, the States, as mediators of the social forces and the bosses, would lack the powers to prevent the collapse of the productive system. The loss of democracy in favor of control of the economy is the final price.
Notes:
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/ind...
[2] CEPR is an organization (lobby) financed by different private banks.
[3] According to the World Trade Organization, tariff barriers in Europe vary according to products, but the average is 5.8%. The products that contain a higher tariff charge are agricultural products with an average of 13.24%. On the other hand, the customs duties imposed on industrial products are much lower, 4.2%.
[4] According to a study carried out by the Fondation Res Publica, on September 16, 2013, the “harmonization” of the standards will be done from “below”. In other words, the national or supranational regulations whose restrictions are less “harmful” for capital flows will be taken.
[5] The fine of almost € 9,000 million imposed on the French banking group BNP Paribas by the United States Government for a supposed investment in countries under embargo of the USA (Cuba, Iran and Sudan) predicts that the American economic law will prevail over the other It seems paradoxical that when a transatlantic treaty is in the making where the interests of the multinationals defended will prevail by future international courts, the American government can impose its law (given its control over the dollar) to companies European.
[6] It seems important to us to clarify that the main US interest is of an imperialist nature and, therefore, geopolitical (or geostrategic). The reason is conditioned by the new protectionist stance of the Chinese government, especially regarding the protection of its own high-tech brands for domestic consumption. Likewise, its monetary ambitions seek to rival the dollar little by little (although this is remote). In addition, the US wants to rebalance its trade deficit in recent years so as to guarantee hegemony over the laws of industrial products. This would induce the adaptive necessity of third states to the productive rules of the Transatlantic treaty. While European interests, for their part, remain as simple mercantilist issues (without any political ambition to counteract American domination), the US seeks to maintain its hegemony at all costs, which will entail an attempt to marginalize China and Russia. The process is not easy, since the latter are looking for allies to counter American hegemony. The clearest example can be found with the BRICS meeting in Brazil coinciding with the soccer World Cup; as well as Vladimir Putin's tour in Latin America. Remarkable is their agreement to create a common investment bank between the BRICS and the gas pipeline that will link China and Russia.
[7] Of which, the agri-food industry, the cultural industry or, even more, the industry of new computer technologies would be the sectors most interested. According to Corporate Europe Observatory,
[8] German industrial groups, especially vehicle manufacturers, are the most interested in this process who see an opportunity to partially relocate their industry in the territory American. The latter is strongly modernizing its industrial technology and contains more lax legislation in the field of work.
[9] From July 14 to 18, the sixth round of negotiations between the United States and the European Union took place in Brussels. Between October 29 and 3, the seventh round of negotiations will take place in Maryland (USA).
[10] Likewise, the opacity of the negotiations has facilitated the election of the “ultra liberal” Jean-Claude Junquer to replace José Manuel Durao Barroso in the European Commission. The latter started transatlantic negotiations with the United States in 2013.
[11] http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/es/Trabajamos-en/...