Time for Europe to put human rights above commercial advantage
Policy Brief: Why EU–Colombia/Peru Free Trade Agreements should not be ratified
Free trade or slave trade? How the EU's free trade agreements in Colombia and Peru reward human rights abuses, destroy livelihoods, promote land grabbing and strip governments of their sovereignty to regulate capital flows.
Download Policy Brief: Why EU–Colombia/Peru Free Trade Agreement should not be ratified (PDF, 350KB)Over 200 civil society organisations and the International and European Trade Union Confederations are opposing the EU-Colombia/Peru FTA because it will:
- Reward a Colombian government responsible for the highest level of trade unionist assassinations worldwide and ongoing disappearances and forced displacement.
- Expand investment in areas of mining and biofuels, which the European Commission’s (EC) own evidence suggests will increase land grabbing and further forced displacement.
- Undermine indigenous rights in Colombia and Peru, in particular those under ILO Convention 169 that require prior, free and informed consent by indigenous peoples.
- Prevent Peru and Colombia from imposing essential capital controls or taking necessary measures to boost employment in local industries during a period of global financial and economic instability.
- Further undermine regional integration in Latin America’s oldest regional trading block, which has already been divided by the EC’s refusal to negotiate flexibly with the region and its member countries’ particular needs and contexts.
- Destroy Peru and Colombia’s dairy industries and threaten the livelihoods connected to other agricultural industries.
- Damage European Union’s international reputation. The US, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Flemish regional government have refused to ratify agreements with Colombia; the EU should not either.
It's time for Europe to put values and human rights above commercial advantage.
Published by TNI with partners: AITEC (France), ATTAC (France), Ecologistas en Accion (Spain), FDCL (Germany), Glopolis (Czech Republic), MAIS (Italy), Power Shift (Germany), Vedegylet (Hungary), WEED (Germany)
About the authors
Cecilia Olivet
Cecilia Olivet is a political scientist who specialises in the European Union's trade and investment agenda, the international investment regime and regional integration issues. Cecilia is Uruguayan, has a BA degree in International Relations from Universidad de la República in Uruguay and an MA in International Politics and East Asia from Warwick University, UK. In 2005, she joined TNI where she contributes to the Economic Justice, Corporate Power and Alternatives team with research, analysis, campaigning and network facilitation. She coordinates the initiative People's Agenda for Alternative Regionalisms (PAAR) and is involved in the work of networks such as Seattle to Brussels (S2B), Our World is not for Sale (OWINFS) and Bi-regional Network Europe-Latin America Enlazando Alternativas.
Cecilia is currently a member of a Commission established by Presidential decree to audit Ecuador's bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment arbitration cases. The new commission, known by its acronym CAITISA, was formally launched in October 2013.
Recent publications from Trade & Investment
Nuclear Phase-Out put to the testSwedish energy company Vattenfall filed request for arbitration at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), after Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy. |
A Brave New Transatlantic PartnershipA report by the Seattle to Brussels Network demystifies the alleged economic benefits of the deal and exposes how it could harm people, the environment and the economy on both sides of the Atlantic. |
Between Mobilisation and ConflictThe agrarian sector launched a national strike in Colombia which spread quickly across other sectors, against the impacts of the FTA with the US and Canada. It is evident that the current economic model has failed as a result of a combination of several factors, structurally and historically. |
A transatlantic corporate bill of rightsThis briefing analyses leaked proposals for so-called investor-state dispute settlement under the proposed EU-US deal and reveals a determined lobby campaign from industry lobby groups and law firms to grant unprecedented rights to corporations to sue governments for legislation and regulations that interfere with their profits. |
