Should multinationals have say in national affairs? Central Americans say 'no'
In recent weeks, citizens in El Salvador and Guatemala have protested efforts by foreign countries and companies to require the nations to abide by international treaties, despite local objections.
In recent weeks, citizens in El Salvador and Guatemala have protested efforts by foreign countries and companies to require the nations to abide by international treaties, despite local objections.
鈥� A version of this post ran on the author's blog, centralamericanpolitics.blogspot.com. The views expressed are the author's own.
Citizens can be sensitive when it appears that foreign governments, corporations, or international tribunals are intervening in their sovereign affairs.
During the past few weeks, we've seen the people of Guatemala and El Salvador push back against efforts by the United States, Monsanto, and Australian-Canadian gold mining companies to require national governments to abide by national and international agreements over the objections of domestic constituents.
滨苍听骋耻补迟别尘补濒补:
The Guatemalan people's success followed similar efforts in El Salvador聽to defeat Monsanto. There, it took place within the context of the government's聽negotiations聽with the United States over a $277 million second Millennium Challenge Compact.
Sure the laws were meant to give Monsanto a foot in the door, but they were also simply designed to have foreign companies treated in the same manner as domestic companies (give or take) as everybody agreed to in CAFTA-DR (the free trade agreement pursued by the Central American governments with the US). The US eventually relented on Monsanto and it was recently agreed to that the two parties would go聽forward聽with the second compact.
Unlike agricultural reform, the [...] CAFTA-DR is also being used to reforms that the left is聽cheering:
See also聽here聽and聽here. It's nice to see the US using its free trade agreements to enforce worker protection rights but where's the outrage with against the US for using its free trade agreement with Guatemala to interfere with the country's internal affairs? Is the process with regard to labor versus Monsanto so different or is it simply the presumed outcome of that pressure?
Finally, there's聽gold mining聽in El Salvador.
Pacific Rim, Oceana Gold's predecessor, tried to pursue its claims through CAFTA-DR but its claim was rejected when it was determined to be a Canadian company and therefore not eligible to sue under this free trade agreement. Oceana Gold is now using the ICSID because the Salvadoran government became a聽party聽to that trade agreement in 1999.
Obviously many people would have preferred that the US and the countries of Central America had not signed a free trade agreement, but we have. After a decade of requests from Central American leaders, the US agreed and the agreement was signed in 2004, becoming effective a few years later. I'm just not comfortable blaming CAFTA-DR for all of the region's recent economic problems as was frequently heard during this summer's unaccompanied minors crisis.
The free trade agreement can be used to enforce laws to benefit more positive outcomes enjoyed by large (workers' rights) or small (mining corporations) groups. The Central American country that tends to get some of the highest marks from CAFTA-DR and for addressing workers' rights is Nicaragua. While not perfect, Nicaragua seems to be benefiting from CAFTA-DR to a greater extent than its neighbors (at least in the media). Part of that is due to its poverty (they received special benefits) but there are other factors as well.
While, for now, I am happy that the Monsanto laws were repealed or not passed and that the US is using CAFTA-DR to help promote workers' rights in Guatemala, it's not based on any principled reasoning. If anything, it's based upon what I see are outcomes that serve the needs of some of the region's most vulnerable. Now, I'm just waiting for a vote in favor of the environment in El Salvador.