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 for which this new one is being treated free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union , induces a lack of consensus among media actors. Even so, in the press the acronyms in English have been generally accepted, made available by the supranational institutions, of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, for its acronym in English) [1].
However, the alphabet soup does not end with the TTIP. CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) and the SPA (Strategic Partnership 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, negotiations between the two parties have ended pending the ratification of the treaty in the Council and European Parliament (competent body) and in the respective parliaments of the EU states (if their constitution requires it).
But, what is the TTIP?
It seems understood that this treaty assumes, in a general way, organize the largest free trade market in the world, which would bring together more than 800 million consumers and more than half of the world's GDP (54%) allowing, also, to dope European economies in 120,000 M € and the American ones in 95,000 M € (data elaborated by Center for Economic Policy Research) [2]. With this economic view, a European citizen would not doubt its implantation, but ... why then so much secrecy?
The TTIP far exceeds the "simple" free trade agreements, since it pursues three very important objectives to clarify. The first would consist in the suppression of the last customs duties (tariff barriers), which are already very low [3]. The second, meanwhile, aims to "harmonize" the non-tariff barriers (norms) between the countries involved [4]. Finally, it consists of guaranteeing legal mechanisms, called ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement), so that investors do not encounter regulatory or legislative obstacles in the markets they intend to enter, and in case of finding them, they can avoid them. 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] lobbies, but officially they are the officials of the respective governments who are treating it [9]. The negotiations will theoretically end next year, but will be preceded by a long process of ratification in the Council and the European Parliament as well as in the countries that their legislation requires. This process will not be an easy task in this period of economic, social and political crisis in Europe (especially in the South). In this context, plus the uncertainty about the possible consequences of the TTIP, the impermeability of the institutions is deduced [10].
What advantages or disadvantages will the TTIP bring?
The advantages or disadvantages to European or American societies are different according to each case, and according to the ideological prism from which you look. According to the report prepared by the banker lobby CEPR for the European Commission (who, likewise, affirms that it is an economic prediction and as it is obvious inevitably lacks certainty), the advantages are linked to economic growth (increase of 0.5% of GDP of the EU and of 0.4% for the US), especially in certain sectors: especially the automobile 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 every 1,000 in 10 years) and not really creating it . This is important! Politicians always play the trick of creating employment to justify the free trade agreement (or other interests of dubious legitimacy) when they do not really adhere to the data of the official studies of the institutions which they represent.
In addition, the disadvantages are materialized in multiple levels, which are not mentioned in the study of the CEPR (analysis too economistic): the treaty risks 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 return, only two of them are ratified by the government of the United States. The experience of free trade agreements suggests that the "harmonization" of the rules is established on the basis of the lowest common denominator, which would lead to a loss of fundamental rights by European workers, a section specifically mentioned by the CEPR. who affirms, in fact, the need for deregulation of employment.
Another example that we propose, due to its social sensitivity, are threats to the environment. A free-exchange market will increase freight 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 with 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 be considered.
To finish this point, we will mention the most worrying: the loss of democracy . Constantly, politicians and citizens affirm categorically that we live in a democracy. But democracy is not or is not, but it is more or less according to the productive structure and the interlocution of competent actors within the system (where society is the legitimate actor in a democracy). The lack of transparency of 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 will cause. The economy is undoing politics and definitely subjecting society to the laws of the market.
The "anarchy" of the liberal (neo) market
A Europe submissive to the dictates of the big transnationals will entail a transformation of the productive system, and therefore of the social system, as well as a regression in the sovereignty of the States (the time that they have left after signing the transfer of sovereignty in the Lisbon treaties). A release of the capacity of action of large companies, which 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 (the adaptation to the e- commerce would be basic), causing conflicts at all levels of society.
The monopolies, oligopolies ... will have the opportunity to increase their capacity of action against the States , who would be devoid of legal tools for this (remember the state-company arbitration mechanisms ISDS). The structural reforms, experienced in an extreme way in Spain, are the basis for the free movement can be established. The latter, if materialized, 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 crisis. First, the result of productive specialization in a determined territorial area, 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 employers' forces, would lack competences to avoid the fall of the productive system. The loss of democracy in favor of controlling the economy is the final price.
Notes:
[1] //ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/ind ...
[2] The CEPR is an organization (lobby) financed by different private banks.
[3] According to the World Trade Organization, tariff barriers in Europe vary according to the products, but the average is 5.8%. The products that contain a higher tariff rate 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 rules will be done from "below". That is, national or supranational rules 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 of BNP Paribas by the United States Government for an alleged investment in countries under US embargo (Cuba, Iran and Sudan) augurs us that the economic law American will prevail over the others. It seems paradoxical that when a transatlantic treaty is brewing where the interests of multinationals defended by future international tribunals will prevail, the American government can impose its law (given its control over the dollar) to European companies.
[6] It seems important to clarify that the main American interest is imperialist and, therefore, geopolitical (or geostrategic). The reason is conditioned by the new protectionist stance of the Chinese government, especially in relation to the protection of its own high-tech brands for national consumption. Also, its monetary ambitions seek to rival the dollar little by little (although this is far away). In addition, the US wants to rebalance its trade deficit in recent years so as to guarantee hegemony over the legislations of industrial products. This would induce the adaptive necessity of third states to the productive rules of the transatlantic treaty. While European interests, on the other hand, remain as mere mercantilist issues (without any political ambition to counteract American domination), the US seeks to maintain its hegemony at all costs, which will entail the 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 is found with the BRICS meeting in Brazil coinciding with the World Cup; as well as the Vladimir Putin tour in Latin America. Remarkable his agreement to realize a Bank of common investment between the BRICS and the gas pipeline that will unite China and Russia.
[7] Of which, the agri-food industry, the cultural industry or, moreover, the industry of new information technologies would be the sectors most interested. According to Corporate Europe Observatory,
[8] German industrial groups, especially vehicle producers, are the most interested in this process who see an opportunity to partially relocate their industry in the American territory. The latter is heavily modernizing its industrial technology and contains looser 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 the 29th and the 3rd of October, 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 began the transatlantic negotiations with the United States in 2013.
[11] //www.greenpeace.org/espana/es/Trabajamos-en / ...
