Around
80 representatives of Stop EU – Mercosur members from Latin America and Europe
gathered in Brussels to discuss the problems with the proposed treaty, explore
alternatives as well as co-ordinate their strategies to stop that treaty from being concluded, ratified and implemented. In this blog post, I will summarise my observations.
Speaker
after speaker highlighted the EU’s double standards. While the EU emphasises
the need for a green transition at home, its policies prevent Latin America
from following a similar path. First, the EU – Mercosur treaty is supposed to
secure European access to critical raw minerals such as lithium, essential for
battery production and the shift to electric cars, despite the high levels of
environmental pollution which comes with the mining of lithium. Second, while the EU focuses on
this shift to e – mobility, the treaty with the Mercosur countries intends to
increase European exports of fossil fuel – based car models, combustion engines
as well as agricultural pesticides, which are themselves forbidden in the EU (Fritz
2022).
Most importantly, the intended EU – Mercosur treaty is an extension of former colonial policies. The exchange of processed, technology-based goods from the EU including cars, car parts and chemicals for primary commodities such as soy, bioethanol and beef from Mercosur countries constitutes an asymmetrical trade relationship, a relationship of unequal exchange, which results in the deindustrialisation of Mercosur countries.
20
years of experience with these neo-liberal free trade agreements (FTAs),
participants pointed out, have proven that these treaties do not result in
development. Rather, the peripheral position of Latin American countries in the
global political economy is further entrenched. Their development is
subordinated to the requirements of the capitalist core.
The
environmental impact of the treaty is devastating. It is well known that
increasing exports of soy and beef drive deforestation especially but not only
in the Amazon rainforest. Equally, the mining of lithium results in widespread
pollution of water resources, creating huge ‘sacrifice zones’ that are
uninhabitable for humans.
Not
everyone in Europe is supportive of the treaty. While the car manufacturing and
pharmaceutical industry lobby pushes hard for conclusion and ratification (Tansey
2022), European farmers and here especially small- and medium-sized farms
are worried. They cannot compete with industrialised agriculture subject to
fewer regulations than in Europe.
Several
European representatives of the transnational farmers organisation La Via
Campesina were present at the meeting and it was them who argued that all free
trade agreements should be opposed full-stop. It was them who made the concrete
proposal of building alternatives around the principle of food sovereignty. The
focus should be on producing good food for local people, not on producing
export cash crops. A broader set of principles for an alternative to the EU –
Mercosur agreement can be found on the website of the Seattle to
Brussels Network.
Trade
unions were also present including representatives from the Italian CGIL, the
French CGT, and the Dutch FNV. From Mercosur, especially the Brazilian CUT had sent several people to the meeting. This ensured some focus on the problem of
precarious employment resulting from free trade agreements (FTAs). At the same
time, as the CGIL representative told me, unfortunately there are fewer and
fewer trade unions represented at this kind of broader civil society meetings,
while the unions themselves had been unable to organise something similar at
the same time. The joint
declaration by the International Trade Union Confederation – Americas
and the European Trade Union Confederation does not reject closer trade
relations between the two continents, but insists that the interests of workers
must be at the heart of any future agreement. Ensuring a broad alliance
including social movements, environmental groups, Indigenous people as well as
trade unions clearly remains a challenge.
Furthermore,
the strategy meeting of the Stop EU – Mercosur alliance revealed the
difficulties with raising free trade agreements as a controversial issue within
the wider public. This had been possible in 2015 and 2016 in the struggle against
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The EU – Mercosur agreement,
by contrast, has received much less public attention so far. Importantly, it
may be necessary to construct different discourses for different audiences.
What works in Europe may not be appropriate in Latin America.
In
the end, the EU – CELAC summit failed at making significant progress with the
EU – Mercosur agreement. The Brazilian President Lula rejected the EU request
for an additional environmental chapter, raised concerns about the inclusion of public procurement and asked instead for a re-opening of
the negotiations, ensuring space for reindustrialisation measures in Brazil. And
yet, the so-called modernisation of the EU – Chile and the EU – Mexico FTAs was
pushed forward. They are a similar type of agreement as the intended EU –
Mercosur agreement and they indicate the ongoing dangers. The EU will clearly continue
to complete the deal. Splitting the EU – Mercosur agreement into the free trade part and the political
part is the most imminent threat (Müller
2023). If that was the case, then the former would not require the
ratification by the various national parliaments and thus be much more easily
adopted and implemented.
Andreas Bieler
24 July 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!