Campaign on Linkages

Events>CUTS’ Panel Discussion: Labour Linkage From The view  Point of Trade Sanctions

Symposia on linkages: How do we bridge the gap?
19th October 2001, Washington DC, USA

Symposia on linkages: How do we bridge the gap?
10th October 2001, London, UK

Implementation Issues vs. Expansion of the WTO 
March 24, 2001, New Delhi, India

Round Table: The Social Clause and Linkage at the WTO: What is at Stake?
December 16, 2000, New Delhi, India

CUTS’ Panel Discussion on Linkages: Are Trade Sanctions A Part Of Legitimate Instruments For Elimination Of Child Labour?
November 14, 2000, Durban, South Africa 14:30hrs-16: 30 Hrs

CUTS’ Panel Discussion: Labour Linkage From The view  Point of Trade Sanctions
June29,2000,Geneva

Planning Meeting Research on Child Labour
June 18, 2000, Jaipur, India

Event

Event Report

Background and Context

One of the causes for the failure of the Seattle Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation, was a polarized position of the North and South on the issue of incorporating labour standards into trade accords. A similar situation exists with the issue of environment and trade.

Some of the industrialized countries and members of the civil society are pushing for various issues to be incorporated into the WTO. While many in both the developed and developing countries and civil society are against the incorporation of sanctions into the multilateral trading regime. They fear that the sanction might be a route for protectionism and on the other hand there are many who feel that only adoption of such standards can translate liberalized trade into fair trade. Another section feels that amending trade rules to include non-trade issues would not address these issues justifiably, as WTO is opaque. 

On the sidelines of the main events at Seattle, SAWTEE and CUTS had organised a panel discussion on The Vexed Issues of Linkages with several antagonists and protagonists participating in a very exciting meeting. One of the outcomes of this meeting was that any sanctions-based approach will not be very effective, and that similar dialogues should be organised to create better mutual understanding as well as trust. It was also pointed out that the two issues of environment and labour standards are quite different from each other and should not be mixed up.

On the sidelines of the UNCTAD X at Bangkok, SAWTEE and CUTS organised a similar panel discussion on Linkages with delegates from different Governments and civil society groups. The meeting came forward with similar recommendations, and added that relevant institutions like the ILO need to be strengthened. In particular, a representative of the ICFTU’s affiliate: Malaysian Trade Union Congress, opined that while the WTO should have a social clause, sanctions if any should be under the supervision of ILO.

Pursuant to this mandate, CUTS has undertaken a project to build capacities of civil society and policy makers, especially in the North, to comprehend the complex socio-economic issues that are currently not reflected in the ongoing debate on ‘linkages’. The focus of this programme is to facilitate effective evidence-based dialogue in order to help both the camps of the ‘linkages’ debate to understand each other’s positions better. The goal is to reduce the heat and tension with the hope that the problems are addressed in a fair manner leading to equity and sustainability.

Governments, cross section of civil society groups and most importantly the concerned strata of society, viz. parents of working children, unorganised labour, etc. who are going to be impacted due to the results of these discussions, all have an interest in the outcome of this programme. The questions of common concern include:

• Does the current debate on ‘linkages’ reflect the concerns expressed by developing countries vis-à-vis sustainable development (e.g. problems pertaining to poverty alleviation, technology absorption etc.)? 
• Whether having a multilaterally agreed text concerning ‘linkages’ on a sanctions-based platform like the WTO put an end to problems like child labour? How will it impact sectors which are not related to international trade?
• How can one give teeth to the existing multilateral institutions like the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and other concerned organisations to tackle various facets associated with the issue of ‘linkages’?
• What would be the estimated costs that would have to be incurred by developing countries to achieve and maintain the necessary standards vis-à-vis environment protection and labour welfare? Would they have the capacity to bear the cost burden? 
• How can one ensure that domestic legislation concerning maintenance of labour standards are effectively implemented at the national level, and that they are not distorted by vested interests?

Venue:
ILO, Salle Cenema
Floor R2, GENEVA

Organised by:
CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics &Environment

Contact Person:
If you have any queries or you would like to register yourself for the event please feel free to mail 
Ms Deepmala V Mahla.
Email: cutsjpr@sancharnet.in

A panel discussion was organized by the Jaipur, India-based CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE) on the sidelines of the World Social Summit for Development-5 on June 29, 2000 at Geneva. 

The subject of the panel was on Labour Linkage from the Viewpoint of Trade Sanctions. The panel is part of a project on Linkages which the CUTS-CITEE is implementing globally with a view to develop consensus on a contentious issue. 

The project involves research on trade and labour, and trade and environment issues, alongwith meetings to discuss the research as well as current issues around the topics. In pursuance of this mandate, this was the third international meeting organised by CUTS-CITEE. The first was held at Seattle in December 1999, on the sidelines of the 3rd  WTO Ministerial Conference, while the second was held at Bangkok in February 2000 on the sidelines of the UNCTAD X meeting. 

The third, and the meeting under this report, was held in the ILO building, Geneva with protagonists and antagonists participating in a very exciting debate. In as much as the venue was appropriate, the discussions were well moderated by Mr. Tony Hill, Co-ordinator of UN Non-Government Liaison Service. He had moderated the last meeting at Bangkok thus bringing a good experience of the issues to the meeting.

Pradeep S Mehta, Secretary General CUTS, introduced the CUTS-CITEE Linkages project. He stressed that there is a need for better understanding of the issues at the domestic level, and that labour rights are promoted and protected in a manner that there is no ground for complaint. As far as the violations are concerned, these cannot be protected through the trade sanctions route, but the ILO, as the appropriate body, should evolve effective methods  to address and deal with the violations.  For example, Myanmar and China are countries where labour rights are not well respected.

Mr Mehta pointed out that their project will try and promote a dialogue and seek capacity building in the North so that there is less tension and the real issues do not get sidelined. He said that as a Southern NGO they have a natural bias against linking labour standards with trade as it has clear protectionist potential. This bias is as natural as many from the civil society in the North who are genuinely concerned with poor labour standards and human right violations. But that happens through out the world. He threw open the discussions by raising two questions: (a) can there be global standards in view of varying levels of socio-economic development, differences in culture and other stands, and (b) what is the type and level of coherence we are looking for at the international level.

In opening the discussions, Tony Hill remarked that it is an appropriate debate and that there is a huge potential for misunderstanding in the present scenario. He felt that this debate has pitted people against people in this world, who do not otherwise mean any harm. No NGO in developing countries will actually defend child labour or other poor labour standards. Similarly there are no NGOs in the developed countries which want to use these issues for protectionist purposes. According to Mr Hill, the heart of this debate lies in the political rubric of the international economic system..

Panellist, Peter Prove of the Lutheran World Federation, felt that the controversy wouldn't have been there if we all understood each other. Labour rights are a subset of human rights. Any competitive advantage based on exploitation of human rights is bad and illegal, and should be condemned by all. It is good that the whole world comes to know of any gross violation of human rights in a country through good and quick information systems. Thus it ceases to be considered a domestic issue alone. 

He stressed on integration of human rights in the international economic policy making, and not linkages. Linkages is not the way to accommodate human rights in economic law and policy. The support is for integration and not linkages. Mr Prove criticised the lack of knowledge on human rights among the trade negotiators. Human rights principles should be known and should be the starting point for international policy decision making. It was said that trade and economic liberalization even for those who consider it good, is not the end; the end is promotion of human well being. When we see a regression in social standards, it is by definition a violation of human rights.

Interesting issues were brought forth from the floor in the discussion. The major issues highlighted are given below. These are the individual views of the participants. 

The issue of lack of trust in the WTO was brought forth by Hassan Adebayo Sunmonu, Secretary General of the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity, Accra. He said that the WTO is a non-transparent and undemocratic body. It does not have experience and moral authority like the ILO. The African countries have been too trusting, but they can not be deceived always. The North have double standards and thus Africa cannot trust it any longer. In the matter of labour standards too, African countries would like that the issue is discussed only at the ILO.

Another participant, Mr Raj Bhandari from Global Traders Conference, Geneva, remarked that the global economy is exploitative and after globalisation it is competitive. Improvement of labour standards and human rights should be done independently of the WTO’s dispute settlement system. The whole issue has to be examined in the historical perspective i.e. the issue of linking labour standards was never a part of the discussions in the Uruguay Round of the GATT. It cannot now become an issue for negotiations.

Brewster Grace of the Quakers Mission to the United Nations, Geneva, said: “This debate has gone far and studies are going on in the ILO on the impact of globalisation in various countries. There is a need to look beyond ILO and initiate dialogue at various levels. WTO should respect the right balance, balance of rights and obligations. Labour standards should not be dealt with under the WTO, until there is a proper balance.

Vinod Rege, international trade consultant and former GATT director, noted that not everyone is familiar with rules relating to human rights. It is humanly impossible for any negotiator to know everything about all issues. The issues are becoming important, but if they are to be discussed in relation to trade, then what will be the ideal way forward. There will be differences  of opinion on the concept of integration and on the concept of linkages. Does integration mean greater degree of obligation? When one talks of linkages what should be the pattern and the relationship?

The outcome of the discussion can be summed up in the points mentioned below. 

• The global trading system is brutal, exploitative and competitive, and is not an expression of  solidarity. Hence countries should intelligently decide their choices.
• The whole issue of linkages and social obligations has to be examined in the context of a globalising economy, where so many other issues get intertwined.
• The ILO is the best place to deal with the issue of labour standards and international trade, and not the WTO.
• The WTO is non-transparent and is not the appropriate body to deal with the issue of labour standards or any other non-trade issues. It neither has the mandate nor the experience.
• Right to development is a part of the human rights framework. It is both an individual and collective right. The economic, social and cultural rights under the UN framework provide greater leverage to the right to develop.
• No economy or country in the world can function in isolation, therefore tools have to be strengthened/discovered to protect the weaker economies.
• In all poor countries resource constraints influence the level of policy effectiveness.

CONTACT US

CUTS Centre For International Trade, Economics & Environment (CITEE)

D–217,  Bhaskar Marg,  Bani  Park, 

Jaipur  302 016,  India,

Ph: +91(0)141-228 2821-3

Fx: +91(0)141-228 2485  

Email: cuts@cuts.org