IAFFE 2000
August 15-17, 2000
Istanbul, Turkey
Hilkka Pietilä, M.Sc
Independent researcher, Finland
e-mail: hilkka.pietila@pp.inet.fi
FREE TRADE AND HUMAN RIGHTS – an impossible equation?
Women’s Human Rights in the World of Disparity and Distress
I would like to discuss the issue of the relationship between human rights and international trade
with the focus on women. This is an issue so complex that it has to be utterly simplified in order
to understand what is at stake. This is the way I will try to elaborate the issue.
Strong forces have worked in recent decades to promote free trade, liberalization of exchange of
goods and services, and free movement of capital and investments. These forces have wanted to
eliminate all tariffs and other means, with which the national states have been protecting their
own development, their self-reliance in food and other necessities, and the stability of their
currencies. The economic integration of Europe has limited the power of Member States to
manage their own economies for the benefit of their people. On the other hand Europe has tried
to strengthen itself in competition against the other economic blocks.
Free trade and liberalization of economies implies free competition. But unabated competition
between the poor and the rich, the weak and the strong, the small and the big is bound to be a
failure to the poor, weak and small. Thus the liberalization and free competition as the guiding
principle in the trade is disastrous to many, since we live in an extremely inequitable world.
Technical, economic, social and cultural development, health, education, food and quality of life
of people depend on economic resources in the country. When economic resources are
developed and distributed extremely unevenly between the countries and continents, great
disparities between people and countries are bound to prevail. These disparities are constantly
increasing and the consequences accumulate on women in South and North.
These disparities are man-made during the centuries, in particular during five hundred years of
colonialism.
There is also an other kind of disparity, disparity in natural resources, in the potential of living
nature to grow and produce resources, raw-materials and food for the people. It depends on the
climate, the biosphere, which varies greatly in different zones of the globe. And it depends on the
minerals and fossils, which are distributed very unevenly in the globe.
This disparity is due to nature, the Mother Earth and she will not come to the negotiation table at
the WTO, her terms are not negotiable. The humanity should be wise enough to take the terms of
2
nature into consideration in a sustainable way in order to provide for themselves. Even the needs
of forthcoming generations should be taken into consideration and the minerals and fossils
should be shared equitably and sparingly.
These are very simple facts, easy to understand to anyone.
Disparity is good for profits
Why, then, the corporations and business forcefully demand liberation of trade, free movement
of capital and labour? Because unequal world is profitable business environment, through free
trade they can effectively benefít from the disparities. The enterprises are merging into each
other in order to become big enough to be able to transgress the state borders and national
regulations and to operate globally.
We know how they operate: they move their labour intensive production to the countries, where
there is cheap labour, low taxes, no social security charges and no environment regulations. And
where jobs are not protected, workers not unionized, and where they find plenty of young,
obedient, diligent and handy women and children workers, who have no protection and no power
to demand decent working conditions, and who have no choices but accept any kind of jobs.
We know also what happens when capital and labour are moving freely in an a world of
disparity: the capital is moving to the countries of cheap labour and low production costs, and the
labour is moving towards the countries where there is, so far, better incomes. The movement of
capital leaves behind deprived communities and people without jobs. The migration of people is
eroding social structures and families in both ends, in the countries of departure as well as
arrival. All this has been seen, for instance, in Europe already for decades.
These processes agitate women in rich and poor countries against each other, they are made
competitors for same jobs. The women in the North see their jobs being transferred to Southern
women, who have no power and no choice of livelihood. However, both women in the North and
South are victims of the same phenomenon, free trade and free movement of the capital.
Now these processes have evolved much further than this. The WTO plans were to expand the
free operations of corporations into all fields of life in the North and the South. The public
services, culture, government procurements etc. are to be privatized, commodified and
commercialized. All the protection and subsidies of agriculture should be lifted, the supplies and
quality of food should be relied on traffic and trade.
The business operations across the borders and continents have great advantages due to
inequalities between the countries and regions. The peace researchers call these structural
inequalities as structural violence. This kind of violence is as devastating as physical violence. In
present world more people - especially children - die because of structural violence than physical
violence.
The unabated competition in neoliberal economies perpetuate these disparities. It drives people
to compete, everybody with everyone, to work without limits and accept the squeezing social
circumstances. The utterly competitive working market is particularly unfavourable for women.
3
Most of them have also other loyalties and responsibilities in life but work, therefore their
“competitiveness” is not as good as men’s. The free trade and competitive economies will never
bring about justice and equity. We know the consequences of all this for women.
Human rights linked with trade?
In most parts of the world people today have very few choices. Women have to accept conditions
whatsoever in order to support their families. The worst signs of the hardships are increasing sex
tourism, prostitution, trafficking in young women and girls - even by their own families.
Today many Southern governments pursue very confusing and alarming policies in international
negotiations at various fora, such as the WTO and in the implementation of the Beijing PFA. In
the WTO they fought for delayed time tables for the liberalization processes, because they don’t
find themselves able yet to compete on the terms envisaged by the WTO plans. This is the
minimum they could require. They hope that their capabilities to compete successfully will
improve in due course, if they were given more time.
In their dilemma the Southern governments are objecting also many issues concerning human
rights. They don’t want to speak about prohibition of child labour, neither about the Social
Protocol, which would set targets for improvement of the rights and protection of the workers.
They demand lifting of protection and subsidies of agriculture in Northern countries, because
they want their agricultural products to have free access to Northern markets, albeit great
proportion of people in the South are still living in the shortage of food.
Many Southern governments are not willing to ratify the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW
Convention, because they know that there is still a lot of reasons for complaints in their own
countries. Neither are they willing to negotiate about the trafficking in women and children.
Some countries still oppose all the progress in women’s sexual rights.
But they also have serious reasons for being reluctant. What should a country do with
prohibition of child labour, if “child labour is their only comparative advantage in trade”? How
could a country address the trafficking in women and children, if sex tourism is their most
profitable and flourishing field of trade? Or what to do with “social clause”, if their low paid,
diligent, obedient and skilful women workers are their best attraction to get investments from
abroad?
These are some of the most dramatic examples, how human rights are linked with international
trade. There are unsurmountable obstacles to advancement of women’s human rights and
implementation of the Beijing PFA due to international disparities. And at the same time the rich
and strong countries are forcefully demanding further liberation of economies and free trade,
which only increases disparities.
These are the issues, which I wanted to bring up to us here. What can and should we, women in
the Global North, do for the elimination of these obstacles from the road of our sisters and their
countries towards better life in the Global South, to eliminate the gulf of disparity, which is
behind all these problems?
4
The roots and deep grounds of these disparities are here in our countries, in the Global North, in
the economic policies and goals of our governments and the companies operating from these
regions. What would be the tasks and strategies for us to grip the roots of these odds and to
make change towards more humane, equitable and sustainable economy and culture for all in this
world?
What did women do in Seattle?
Women’s international organizations and networks participated in numbers in the NGO
preparations before the Third Ministerial Meeting of WTO in December 1999. During the
preparations the issue of Human Rights and Trade came up forcefully in appeals, declarations,
moratoria and papers and discussions. The point was made that Human Rights, as they are
defined in international and regional conventions, should not be violated by trade agreements,
policies and rules. The International Human Rights Covenants are by far superior to all trade
agreements.
More definitely, the trade agreements and WTO policies should be bound first of all by the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 and the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of 1979, ratified by
WTO Member States. The same states are members of the UN and the WTO, therefore they are
obliged to be consistent in their policies and decisions in the WTO and respect the Human Rights
conventions they have adopted in the UN and ratified individually in their respective countries. If
they fail to do this, their credibility is not much worth.
Concerning the obligations undertaken by governments for women, we can only take as an early
example the Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal rights of men and
women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the present
Covenant.
This article provides for women’s economic rights and the duties of the government’s for us.
This was adopted by the States Parties in the UN as early as in 1966 and is ratified by about 140
of them today. It is worth while for us to read the text of the whole Covenant in the light of this
Article. This gives an idea, what a tool this Covenant is, together with several other human
rights covenants enforced later, in order to put the trade agreements and policies in their due
place in the order of priorities.
Women particularly referred also to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action for the
empowerment of women, which was adopted by 189 governments, among them also all the WTO
Member States, and to the other resolutions and programs adopted in Rio 1992, Vienna 1993,
Cairo 1994, and Copenhagen 1995. The Member States are obliged to apply also the other
programmes and platforms to promote human dignity and life, empowerment of women and
protection of environment, which they have adopted in many other events.
5
Trade is not gender neutral
The second demand, women made, was based on the fact that trade liberalization and
deregulation is not gender neutral, it has very different impact on women and men. In recent
years it has had many adverse effects on the quality of women’s lives, reaching even to
trafficking in women themselves. However, there is no reference to women’s rights and needs,
neither in the Agreement establishing the WTO, nor in any of the agreements adopted so far by
WTO Ministerial Meetings.
When the Seattle meeting failed, the governments have to reconsider their whole perceptions and
policies with the WTO. The demand of women and many other people’s organizations was that
“State Members of the WTO should launch a comprehensive review and thorough
assessment on the multiple impacts of the WTO and other multilateral trading and
investment agreements and economic liberalization programmes on social development
and Human Rights in member countries.”
Now the demands for this kind of assessment could be pursued further, since nothing was agreed
in Seattle. Now there are indications that positive moves are emerging among ministers and
other decision-makers about the necessity to make a thorough assessment and revision of the
rules and procedures of the WTO. Therefore the failure of the WTO Ministerial Meeting was a
victory for international civil society, countries of the Global South and for women.
Now there is an opportunity to push new thoughts forward and time to work for these basic
principles of human rights to become the first and foremost rule also for trade and business.
Our point of departure
The women’s point of departure was that trade is only of instrumental value and not an end in
itself. It should serve of all people and not, as is the case now, create poverty for the greater
number on the one hand, and accumulate wealth for the few on the other. The satisfaction of
basic human needs should not be put at risk. Food security, environmental and social protection
are crucial to women and men everywhere. Public services are needed to ensure equal and
affordable access for all people to water, health care, education, transport and energy. The
knowledge and skills women have developed and preserved over the centuries should be
recognized and practised and not appropriated for profit. Life forms should not be patented, it is
unethical and immoral.
As equal citizens women should be able to use their legitimate right to participate in decisionmaking on the progress as well as gradual and appropriate expansion of public services in their
societies. Transparency in the issues considered and the decisions made is imperatively needed to
provide democratic participation of all concerned and the accountability of those in charge.
6
Conclusion
Development is a multi-faceted issue. International disparity cannot be eliminated by tiny, little
flows of development aid. Poverty cannot be eliminated without overall and comprehensive
economic, social and cultural progress evenly distributed to all. Human rights cannot be
achieved without economic, social, political and ethical development in the whole society.
Advancement of women and equality between women and men require profound changes in the
whole social and cultural matrix of the society.
Therefore human rights principles should be guiding the whole process for progress.
Advancement of human dignity and rights should be paramount aim of all development schemes,
but they should not be the conditions of the schemes. The international human rights covenants
should be superior to all trade and investment agreements and prevent the exploitation of
people’s disparity and distress. Trade should be made to serve the well-being of people instead of
making them mere tools of production and consumption.
Annexes:
1. Women’s Caucus Declaration. Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade
Organization, Seattle, Washington, USA, November 30 – December 3, 1999
2. Diverse Women for Diversity: SEATTLE DECLARATION
7
Women's Caucus Declaration
Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization
Seattle, Washington, USA
November 30 - December 3, 1999
The Women's Caucus is comprised of women's organizations from the South and North
attending the Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle,
Washington, USA.
We are concerned that the rule-based system created by the WTO has produced increasing levels
of inequality in both the North and South. This system privileges corporate interests over
community and national interests. Trade liberalization is not gender-neutral and has a different
impact on women and men, similar to the different impact it has on developed and developing
countries. While some women may gain from opening up of trade, the majority of the world's
women and girls are adversely affected by the unequal power relations created at the national,
regional and international levels by the new trade regime. We firmly believe that the trade
policies should ensure gender equality and equity and people centered sustainable development.
We believe that the WTO undermines major international agreements that women have worked
hard to get their governments to commit to including the UN conference on Environment and
Development, the World Conference on Human Rights, the World Summit for Social
Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women and Habitat II. We further believe that
all WTO agreements and policies should be bound by international human rights standards
including the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against women.
The Women's Caucus urges the Members of the WTO to consider the following concerns
clustered around the following critical areas of discussion at the Seattle meeting:
Systemic and Implementation Issues
- Ensure transparency and open participation of all member states in every negotiation
process. Green Room by invitation-only meetings clearly violate principles of both
transparency and inclusiveness as well as the integrity of the consensus process.
- Ensure that women's and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have equal
access to information. Institute dialogue that allows substantial exchange between trade
officials and NGOs.
- We recommend a comprehensive gender, social, and environmental assessment of the
implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements before undertaking a new round.
Such a review should address the negative impacts and correct the deficiencies and
imbalances in the agreements. This review and assessment should involve consultations
with women's and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
8
- Democratize the WTO dispute settlement system to ensure impartiality, equitable
access and a final appeal process outside of the WTO. Introduce and implement
mechanisms to reduce the costs of dispute settlement for developing countries.
- Ensure gender and regional balance in all WTO decision-making bodies including
expert and scientific panels.
- We urge developed countries to uphold the principle of special and differential
treatment for developing countries. Developed countries must fulfill their commitments
in this area, especially for net food-importing countries and least-developed countries.
Agriculture
- A review of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) must include the experience of
consumers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women, civil society groups, and research nongovernment organizations as well as multilateral organizations that have been critical of
the existing rules governing agriculture.
- Ensure food security based on self-sufficient, small-scale, diverse agriculture instead
of corporate export-oriented, agro-industrial monocultures.
- Ensure that southern and small farmers, particularly women, are not undermined by
competitive pressures resulting from the rapid removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers and
subsidized agricultural products from northern countries.
- Adopt the Convention on Biodiversity. Ban the patenting of living organisms and
protect the knowledge, practices and livelihoods of indigenous peoples.
General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS)
- Ensure that public services such as health, education, social welfare, water, energy,
among others are affordable and accessible.
- Promote symmetry in the treatment of the international mobility of capital and labor.
Liberal entry of multinational service corporations must be matched by market opening
measures for labor in developed countries.
- Provide women with capital, skills, training and technology that would allow them to
take advantage of opportunities that increased trade in services provides.
- Ensure that trade policy does not overturn domestic regulations on consumer
protection, public safety, public health and education, food safety and environmental
protection, among others.
DIVERSE WOMEN FOR DIVERSITY
SEATTLE DECLARATION
We, Diverse Women for Diversity, diverse in culture, race, religion, socio-economic conditions, have
one common goal: biological and cultural diversity as the foundation of life on earth. Therefore we
stand for self-sufficiency, self-reliance and solidarity, locally and globally.
For this reason we have gathered in Seattle in November 1999 to struggle against the WTO.
The WTO was created to further and stabilise the freedom of trade and profit on behalf of a few
multinationals. Going far beyond this goal, however, it acts as a new World Government.
The WTO is a non-elected institution, based on secrecy and non-representation. It erodes the
substance of democracy in our countries. Through its rules it imposes economic policies in favour of
gigantic global corporate interests.
The WTO promises to create growth and wealth for all, equality, jobs, ecological sustainability through
a 'free' globalised market. The reality, however, is that the free market mechanisms have led to
increased poverty, to more unemployment, to more ecological destruction, and to more violence
against women, children and minorities.
Our food and agricultural systems have been brought under corporate control of global grain
merchants like Cargill and ADM through the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). This has robbed
women and peasant producers of their livelihood and has denied consumers worldwide access to
sufficient, safe and healthy food.
The WTO rejects any precautionary principle and thus allows corporations like Monsanto (USA),
Novartis (Switzerland), DuPont (USA), Astra Zeneca (UK/Netherlands) and Aventis (Germany) to
spread genetically modified seeds and foods without people's knowledge and consent, thus creating
unprecedented ecological and health hazards. These corporations are a danger to life on earth.
For thousands of years, indigenous people, women and men have protected, nurtured and sustained
the biodiversity of food, crops and medicinal plants. This rich biodiversity is now being stolen by
monopolistic 'life science' corporations, under the legal protection of the Agreement on Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). TRIPs forces countries to introduce patents on life and promotes
the piracy of millennia of innovation and creativity by millions of women and peasants through the
privatisation of traditional knowledge.
After the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was defeated by worldwide citizens' resistance in
December 1998, the same proponents of unlimited free market are now pushing for a new round of
negotiation on the same issue in WTO. They also include new areas for liberalisation, namely, TRIMs,
Services, Investment, Public Procurement and Competition. All these areas, if further liberalised, will
have further negative effect, particularly on women.
In summary, this so-called 'free-market' system is indeed a global war system, based on violence
against nature, humanity, especially women and children.
Together with the thousands of children, women and men gathered here in Seattle, we, Diverse
Women for Diversity, reject this global war system and the WTO. We pledge to build an economy and
a society where nature and human beings can live and prosper in peace and happiness.
Seattle, 1st December 1999
10