Proposition 54K1047

Projet de loi portant assentiment à L'Accord établissant une association entre l'Union européenne et ses Etats membres, d'une part, et l'Amérique centrale, d'autre part, fait à Tegucigalpa le 29 juin 2012.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 29, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union Central America association agreement international agreement ratification of an agreement free-trade area

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 4, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report. However, I would like to speak on behalf of my group on this subject.

As my colleague Grovonius pointed out during the discussion in the committee, given the socio-economic and political situation in several countries involved in this project, we will not support this text.

Indeed, if one can express the importance of encouraging and strengthening diplomatic exchanges as well as developing economic exchanges with the countries of Central America, as is the case here, for our group, the Belgian and European trade agreements must not lead to a lower leveling of social, health or environmental standards. Nor should these agreements threaten jobs and our ⁇ and sacrifice them on the altar of so-called growth or principle free trade.

We take the same position for all trade or free trade agreements. Likewise, we reject that these agreements serve to reinforce, or even reinforce, threats to social and environmental standards in the countries we deal with, as is the case here. Covered with the potential virtues of such agreements and the pursuit of growth, one cannot accept everything and close the eyes on the already actual violations of social, trade union, human and environmental rights in some countries concerned by this agreement, such as Guatemala or Honduras, to name only them.

It is for this purpose that already a very long time ago, our group had submitted a proposal for a resolution setting the framework for negotiations on such agreements. During the previous legislature, we had also filed a text on Qatar, adopted by the House. We demanded from the government guarantees at the level of social standards. The news and all that revolves around the FIFA scandal has once again given us the right.

Our group had repeated the exercise by submitting the recommendations during the hearings. Unfortunately, this exercise was rejected by the current majority. Nevertheless, these important recommendations aimed at demanding transparency in the negotiations of TTIP and any other free trade agreements, by involving and informing more of the European Parliament, national parliaments and civil society. It also aimed to require, in the context of negotiations on a free trade agreement, including with the United States, the inclusion of binding social, health and environmental standards, with mechanisms of control and sanction in case of non-compliance with those standards.

Finally, it aimed to ensure the exclusion of public services and of general interest from any merchandising and to advocate at European level to preserve the high quality and diversity of public services as well as the capacity of States to legislate in this area. It is important to note that once again, none of these recommendations are taken into account in the project that is presented to us today. A quick overview of the text shows us that it speaks of social cohesion. Social norms are completely absent from this text. Similarly, the exposition of the motives deliberately silences the political, economic, trade union and environmental situation of these countries. This approach is in complete contradiction with the majority government agreement, since it advocates for inclusion, fundamental rights of work, social norms in this type of agreement. However, this text does not contain any serious clause to effectively enable compliance with fundamental labour rights and international environmental standards.

While references, in particular to the International Labour Organization (ILO), exist in this text, there is no effective control mechanism. Even the similar agreement between these countries and the United States provides for a dispute settlement procedure to ensure the rights of workers, a mechanism that the United States used in September 2014 for the first time in its history. How can we then understand that Europe is less demanding than the United States on crucial points, so the violations of labour rights and trade union freedoms are strong in some of these countries and even cause many deaths?

Economically, however, we are very concerned that competition for products imported from Central America will once again lead to production declines in Europe, for example in the fruits and vegetables or electronics sectors, as illustrated in the impact study requested by the Commission. These sectors are critical sectors for our economy.

In fiscal terms, we know that Panama is often presented as a tax haven. The risk is therefore that this agreement will result in loss of tax revenues for our country.

We could of course return to the risks in terms of land seizure, ILO standards, deregulation, food speculation or provision of public services in Central America and Europe. None of these points are taken seriously in this agreement.

Finally, as in the discussions we have already had on CETA or TTIP, we fear that this agreement once again limits the marge of manoeuvre of States to legislate both at the level of our socio-economic model and the management of natural resources. How far will we go?

For all these reasons, but also for the total lack of transparency around this type of agreement, in the face of which parliamentarians are always put before the fact accomplished, our group will reject this text, at least in the current state.

Such treaties must also serve to improve the situation in the countries concerned, which is not currently the case. Therefore, we will be very attentive to the evolution of the situation on the ground.

The agreement that we are discussing today was negotiated by the European Union and concluded in 2012. As mentioned, it concerns six countries of Latin America.

After the European Parliament and other parliaments of Europe, our assembly approaches the ratification phase after all the political formations of our country present in other regional assemblies have already ratified it. I would like to remind you, Mr. President.

It was obviously wise to update and deepen the legal framework that dates from ten or twenty years depending on the subjects.

It is worth noting that all well-thinking minds are currently focused on relations with North America through the famous negotiations or non-negotiations – not very well known – of TTIP and the future ratification of CETA. However, it is important not to neglect the possibilities of collaboration with Central America which continues – let us remind it – to need our attention and not to lock ourselves in a head-to-head relationship with Washington.

Building a privileged political partnership with this region remains all the more relevant as we still and always, unfortunately, have proactive messages to be transmitted in the areas of democracy, peace, human rights, the rule of law and good governance.

We can, through various instances including the Human Rights Council in Geneva, evaluate the progress made on these matters. Belgium, like the European Union, can and should have a critical dialogue with the six governments mentioned in this agreement.

It is to have a completely caricature vision to think that governments are impermeable or indifferent to any criticism or bad publicity coming from the outside.

On the contrary, I think that political dialogue is an excellent tool for advancing a situation that needs to be improved in these regions.

The Association Agreement also contains a broad commercial component, which the new legal framework will intensify. A number of criticisms have arisen about this association agreement which, according to some, would not go far enough to pressure Central American states, not far enough to defend trade union rights in these countries, not far enough to consider small farmers.

I support the approach of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, which I call positive because our country will be vigilant in implementing this agreement. We will use all the tools it contains to advance the rights and socio-economic opportunities in the region. We will welcome the benefits found and we will be critical of the dissatisfactions found.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to answer Mrs. Jadin.

Madame Jadin, I listened like you to the Minister’s intervention, in commission, on respect for human rights and social rights. It is regrettable that he was unable to answer the question of what would be the red line not to be crossed by these six Central American countries in the failure to safeguard these fundamental rights. He could not tell me what kind of exaction should be committed in order for Belgium and the European Union to exercise this safeguard clause.

Unfortunately, when it comes to human rights in these six countries, the situation is catastrophic and will worsen further due to this agreement. The main problem is human rights. This is the case for Guatemala, which is the second country after Colombia, in which trade unionists, environmental defenders, defenders of indigenous peoples are most repressed.

They are locked; they disappear; they are intimidated and sometimes some of them are killed, which has caused some resignation.

Dear colleague, I do not understand. You appeal to me and are apparently not busy making your speech?

I don’t understand, but that’s fine. by Mr. Has Reynders answered you?

As I mentioned in my speech, indeed, progress must be made in these regions; indeed, it is important to remain vigilant, but I am not convinced that the moralizing or sanctioning body is, at present, the best element, not as much as your colleagues, Mr. Hellings, since they have ratified and passed, in regional entities, this text that we are about to ratify. But I will leave you to finish your speech, which was not an appeal to me if I understood it correctly.

Specifically, Minister Reynders did not announce the red line to activate the safeguard clause. Therefore, the Treaty contains many dimensions of respect for human rights but does not contain any binding clause of application for States. In other words, if states do not apply these clauses, they must be sanctioned, but Mr. Reynders did not mention the infringed rights that would allow the activation of this backup clause. That is why we remain extremely critical.

As our Socialist colleague said, there has now been an agreement between these countries and the United States since 2008 and the United States, given the questioning of these trade union rights and human rights, has initiated a safeguard clause procedure against Guatemala. We will now sign an agreement with that same country, Guatemala, knowing that the safeguards are not being complied with.

Honduras, another country involved, is the most dangerous country for journalists and peasant associations. The same question also arises here.

Another problem is the economic model. The aim of this type of agreement is to open markets strongly to our European multinationals so that they can invest in them, and vice versa, so that these Southern countries can import raw materials. It is about everything that comes from the mines, but also nuts, fruits, oil. These products, these raw materials, are not processed in the Southern countries and the surplus value for the Southern countries is minimal or even zero.

Can this policy reduce inequalities? It has been in force for thirty years, but its effects in this regard in the countries of the South and at home are, agree, limited.

To answer your specific question on the vote of the Brussels Parliament. It is true that after the European Parliament, it has decided on the ratification of this agreement. My party, except for two deputies who abstained, voted in favour. You will find that he is still not listed on the agenda of the Wallon Parliament or of the Federation Wallonia-Bruxelles, at the initiative of our colleague Nollet who, at the time, was deputy prime minister of the Wallon government. A mistake is forgivable, but it ceases to be it when it is repeated. We will not make the same mistake twice.

To conclude, free trade treaties of this type, and we will have to discuss some of them in the coming months, represent a way for multinational companies to get what they would never get by voting a law in a parliament. Obviously, the method of negotiating in the greatest opacity in small groups through experts, then coming up with a treaty to be taken or left both to the European Parliament and to national parliaments and those of federal entities, is a way to benefit from what, democratically, no large company could get. That is why we are going to vote against this law giving assent to the treaty.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I will briefly speak of my bank.

I hear the criticism that may come from some groups about this association agreement, but we believe that this is a positive evolution. We wish for this association between several Central American countries and the European Union, even though we regret that several mechanisms are not going as far as we would have desired – especially in the area of human rights.

I would like to remind you that this agreement is a first. This is the first time we have signed an association treaty with six countries. It goes in the direction that we have always advocated.

Mr. Hellings, I can’t follow you when you say that human rights are seriously violated in all these countries. It is not accurate. Costa Rica is an example in this area. That governments, despite their great political heterogeneity – Costa Rica, social-democratic; Salvador, marxist; Guatemala, nationalist right; Honduras, conservative right; Nicaragua, social-democratic; Panama, populist – have desired, together, to tie this association with Europe, this must be emphasized – even though we can of course make several comments in this regard.

This agreement is not just trade and free trade. It is also an agreement of political dialogue, on a whole series of fundamental and varied topics that hold us at heart: weapons of mass destruction, governance, rights, freedoms, social norms, etc... It seems to me to go rather in the right direction, precisely in relation to the issues rightly mentioned, especially in the field of human rights, in some of these countries, and ⁇ not in all of these countries.

I’ve heard you call them “banana republics.” I have to admit that it shocked me. Treating six countries, in a block, of banana republics, seems to me to be an attitude at least harmful. This is not in line with my view of the relations and respect we have towards third countries. Their ambassadors will read our reports and report this to their governments and parliaments. I think they deserve a little more respect than being treated, in bloc, as bananas republics.

Mr. President, you are going to read the report. Of course, I have not dealt with these six banana republic states. I made a historical introduction that reminded me where the word “banana republic” came from.

What did I say in the committee? A banana republic was a state that was under pressure from the United States, phagocyted to allow for the establishment of a regime favourable to multinational agri-food companies, in particular Chiquita. In return, these multinationals were able to export cheap agricultural products to the North, namely the United States and Europe.

I mentioned that concept. I have not treated these six countries as bananas republics. I have explained, for quite a long time, the mechanism that was working by these treaties, that is, to favour multinationals, as, indeed, other states in the same region did in the past. I have not treated these six countries as bananas republics. I just mentioned the mechanism that gives the advantage to multinationals and the disadvantage to associations that defend workers, indigenous peoples and peasant associations.

Thank you for your nuance. We will therefore read the report again but I keep my word on what you said in the committee; however, this is not the main thing. I think the most important thing is that this is a step forward.

The [...]

Of course yes! There is no doubt about this. To tell you all, this was taken back by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who himself was very surprised by this cooperation.

Again, it’s a breakthrough, notably because it’s an agreement with six countries with extremely different political traditions and realities. It is also an advance because it is not only political dialogue, regional dialogue, trade but there is no investment side and therefore there are not the elements that could have been feared, in particular in matters of arbitration court. There is no ISDS provided in this agreement.

I obviously think that our Minister of Foreign Affairs will have to pay attention to the fact that the provisions relating to the implementation and monitoring of this agreement, to the mechanisms that provide for the monitoring of this agreement are applied.

I believe that this agreement is going in the right direction. I also want to be consistent. In the previous procedure, we approved this agreement at the level of the Brussels Region, at the level of the European Parliament, for the reasons I just mentioned. We will therefore remain consistent and vote for this text today.

I am not the lawyer of Mr. President. by Hellings. We don’t always agree, but this time, Mr. Dallemagne, I didn’t hear him stigmatize all the countries concerned by talking about bananas republics. I don’t have a selective ear.

I wanted to clarify that when my colleague Jadin evokes economic development, it is clear that it can be interesting to develop the economy and trade, but let us do it in a framework, while being aware of the situation of each of these countries. Unfortunately, these agreements do not take into account the particular situation of these countries, neither in terms of social standards nor in terms of environmental standards that allow for fair development.

This is where the problem with these texts arises. All these aspects are not taken into account.

At the attention of my eminent colleague Mr. Blanchart, I would like to quote an equally prominent author on the association agreement that is the subject of our discussion, namely Mr. Rudy Demotte: “The novelty lies in the fact that the social and environmental clauses contained in the agreement are accompanied by a follow-up mechanism that allows for precise monitoring in the effective implementation of the principles by involving in particular civil society and by providing the possibility of requesting external opinions, including that of the ILO.”

Mr. Speaker, I will give the PVDA’s position on what is being put to vote today. We are, of course, not against good relations with other countries, and that is ⁇ true for the countries of Latin America. However, it must be relationships that bring mutual benefit to the population, that bring mutual good things on the economic, democratic and ecological levels. We do not find that in the text presented to us here today.

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that Belgium must develop exchanges with other countries, but this development must be harmonious, mutually respectful, allowing a positive evolution upward to the different standards (democratic standard, economic standard, climate standard).

Unfortunately, we do not find these guarantees in this text. Thus, out of 363 articles, 275 speak only of one thing: business, trade between two continents. In other words, 75% of the text under consideration is therefore aimed at creating a broader market, which already creates disasters in Europe.

I am surprised to see that many parties realize that the European market is already drawing down all standards. This is seen in the construction and transport sectors. And, as by magic, this type of free competition would not have exactly the same repercussions in terms of development between continents!

For us, this resolution belongs to the same framework as TTIP, for which much has already been mobilised in the Third World Movement. A lot of action has already been made in Belgium. CETA, NAFTA and our cooperation agreement with South Korea also fit this picture. These contracts cost thousands of jobs. As a leftist party, we therefore believe that approving this treaty is not a good move.

At the level of public services, I find that there are multiple references, notably on pages 14 and 15: "effective, reciprocal and progressive opening of public procurements of the parties." There is also "the promotion of free and non-distorted competition". It is well known that free and undistorted competition ultimately results in the victory of the strongest. This is the law of the jungle. I know that many right-wing parties love this law of the jungle that favors the strongest, the best industry, the one that will be the most efficient, the one that has the best scientists and that can crush the science of the Third World, the one that can flood the West with our products and that has so many products that it can flood the countries of the Third World. We are not in this type of agreement.

I would still like to address the right-wing parties or even the center. Please stop invoking that some treaties and resolutions have already been voted by leftist parties in regional assemblies. Intellectually, this does not hold the way, since it is now a substantial debate.

So settle your accounts with the former majority parties, but at least have the decency to debate from the bottom: will this type of treaty be favorable to the people of the Third World and the West? The PJD believes the answer is no. We will vote against today.

I will answer affirmatively to the question asked by Mr. and Hedebouw. We believe that such an agreement, based on well-thought-out, well-framed free trade, can be favorable to both European and Latin American populations. I say it often, but it is quite easy to hold a speech in a Western European country by saying these are horrible, monstrous agreements for populations, etc., while depriving the populations of Latin America or Africa of agreements that could help them improve their social standards, their trade union, environmental standards, etc.

We support this project with a lot of volunteerism.

by Mr. Hellings talked about banana republics to explain the production of bananas.

The [...]

But yes ! I was there. I was in the committee, I heard it. This is also stated in the report. by Mr. Hellings thus began by explaining what the production of bananas in these countries represented.

by Mr. Hellings made an interesting comment regarding the red thread. The question was asked in the committee. What you do not say is that the Minister has answered. He has well done the distinction between the way the United States works, that is, with a red line system, and ours. This can be found in the report. And those who participated in the work know it, the minister said that the European Union is planning an evaluation to determine whether the situation has improved. He insisted that our country regularly participates in the Universal Periodic Exams of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, precisely for all these countries. The European Union can then verify, from year to year, whether the recommendations made are implemented and examine how the situation can evolve positively.

Of course, one can always consider that this is not good. Instead, we have the weakness to consider the opposite. By the way, when you hear Rudy Demotte, who is a specialist on the issue, you say that there are arguments to vote in favour of this text. Also, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that our group will voluntarily support the bill.

With volunteering?

with volunteerism.