Trade successes and human rights failures.

While Some trade relationships are highly praised, many people see them as great failures. How can something like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Mexico, Canada and the United States be applauded as a success by many but be disparaged as a failure by others in those countries? How is it that what some see as economic successes may be viewed as human rights failures? Trade, specifically international trade, can produce substantial benefits, but can also result in harm. It can divert goods away from places where they are badly needed. Often, the rich countries and companies are the ones that enjoy the economic benefits through, but not for, the poor.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

There is an unfortunate tendency to look only at broad patterns while ignoring specific situations, as illustrated in case studies on the relationship between agricultural trade and food security. In highly aggregated studies that look only at broad patterns, it becomes difficult to see that the poor may become worse off even when average incomes go up. Like everything else in the marketplace, food tends to move toward those who can pay for it. The economists' argument in favour of trade relies on the idea that the factors of production should be freely reallocated to their most efficient uses. The rapid acceleration of the globalization process has been largely due to the steady easing of barriers to international capital flows.

Land in physical terms is immobile, but it can be mobile in the sense that owners can reallocate its uses quite freely. When land is used in production of goods for export to rich countries, it becomes a kind of shadow acreage for those nations. Thus, the "ecological footprint" of rich countries is far greater than what lies within their borders; often it is not only the product but also the profits that go to rich countries. Just as commodities tend to move toward money, so do workers. The World Health Organization (WHO), which recently published a study on health workforce worldwide, showed clearly that there is a "brain drain" from poor countries. Nurses, doctors and other professionals, who may be trained at great public expense in their home countries, often cannot resist the attraction of migrating to rich nations. This transfer of wealth leaves the poor at a great disadvantage.

There is high labour mobility in the European Union and the United States, but globally such mobility is constrained by immigration laws, visa requirements and travel costs. There is some international mobility in the form of "guest workers", who take low-paying jobs that locals are unwilling to accept. Rather than travelling abroad, low-income workers are more likely to migrate within their countries in search of better employment opportunities. However, freedom of movement in some countries is limited by law. In some cases, access to new opportunities requires prior ownership of resources, such as capital or labour; people are barred from specific opportunities because of discrimination. But people in rich countries can still take advantage of cheap labour in poor nations even when workers do not migrate. The "outsourcing" of services often means that, for example, representatives of major corporations sit at telephones in poor countries, where people work for cheaper labour because opportunities are meagre. Many do not have meaningful and productive work that is commensurate to their capacities and motivation. Often the deficiencies are not in the individuals but in their social context.

In a vigorous economy, there is a great deal of "churning", with many businesses starting up and some falling by the wayside, only to be replaced by others. The labour market churns as well, with people moving from job to job, having been let go or seeing new opportunities. However, unskilled people tend to remain stuck in bottom-end jobs because they see no good alternatives available to them. In weak economies, there are very few opportunities and people who are unable to move about can be pressured to work hard for low wages. When new trade agreements change the configuration of opportunities, these are the people likely to be forced out. These trade arrangements, often involving new technologies, frequently displace people from their jobs, but the market system can work well over time if the displaced workers are able to adapt and find new opportunities. Unfortunately, for many these are often geographically out of reach.

International human rights law is clear and explicit about the right of every individual to enjoy an adequate standard of living. Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." In the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, enacted in 1976, Article 11 says: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions." The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comments has elaborated on the meaning of the right to housing, food, health and water.

Although human rights law does not speak directly about trade, it clearly implies that no Government may agree to international trade agreements that destroy anyone's basic livelihood. Certainly, new trade agreements, such as technological innovations or entrepreneurship, may cause harm in a vigorous economy as part of the usual economic churning. People who are adversely affected can simply change their positions by shifting into newly established enterprises. Human rights law and principles do not expect avoidance of every kind of harm. What is needed is an avoidance of trade agreements that result in some individuals' inability to maintain an adequate livelihood. Governments that accept trade agreements under which people lose their basic food security, health services and housing on a sustained basis violate people's human right to an adequate standard of living.

Trade successes can occur together with human rights failures, for the simple reason that advocates often use different standards of success. Economists tend to ask whether a proposed trade agreement yields a net gain to the nation as a whole, in which the benefits outweigh the harm. They may also ignore the fact that the benefits systematically fall on some parts of the population and cause damage or harm on others. They tend to be insensitive to the issue of distribution.

Unlike economics, which generally deals with averages and aggregates, and promises of future net benefits, human rights is concerned with individuals with meagre alternatives and who might be harmed by "development". The human rights approach calls for giving attention to individuals and not just to broad statistics. From a human rights perspective, trade should be viewed as one of many means to human development, which means the realization of all human rights by all people. Trade arrangements that harm people's capacity to achieve an adequate livelihood on a sustained basis are not acceptable, even if they benefit others. A fundamental principle of trade agreements ought to be that they should not prevent anyone from achieving an adequate livelihood.

National sovereignty has been the fundamental principle of the nation-State system since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. Sovereignty means that all nation-States, represented by their national governments in international relations, are equal under international law; there is no legal authority above them, and other nations may not interfere in their internal affairs, except with their consent. Sovereignty is based on the premise that national governments are normally the best judges of what is good for their people. An essential component of national sovereignty is food sovereignty. National governments have the permanent responsibility and a fundamental, legal and moral obligation to assure their people's food security. Therefore, they must have the right to make decisions relating to it--a responsibility that cannot be relinquished through or overridden by any international agreements. This is illustrated by the dumping of heavily subsidized corn from the United States into Mexico under the aegis of NAFTA. This has hurt Mexico's small-scale corn producers, who cannot compete with the subsidized producers from the north and whose income has fallen so sharply that their food security has declined. Some observers blame NAFTA, but it is important to recognize that the Mexican Government accepted NAFTA and the imports of low-priced corn because it anticipated considerable gains from exporting other goods to the United States and Canada.

The rationale for international trade is based on the premise that national governments will accept or reject trade agreements depending on how they will likely affect the well-being of citizens. Economists tend to look for net benefits in terms of national economy as a whole. But focusing on aggregates is a way of not seeing that certain groups regularly enjoy the benefits while others suffer from harm. Governments often support trade agreements because they benefit a small but politically influential minority and ignore the negative effects on other segments of the population. Human rights advocates, in contrast, want to assure that national governments stand up for all of their people's interests. Under certain conditions, it may be reasonable for national governments to enter into international agreements that harm one sector, but produce larger gains and more benefits in another. It might be possible to compensate those who would be harmed or provide them with new incentives to be better off, but the reality is that many people may not be able to adjust, for example, by changing jobs or learning new skills. Under changing economic arrangements, some people are marginalized. National trade policy should be based on the premise that it will not result in anyone's falling below an adequate standard of living. Trade liberalization should not come at the expense of the poor, but should be for the benefit of the poor.

Governments that accept trade agreements resulting in any group's falling below an adequate standard of living violate people's human rights. However, they may accept agreements that are harmful to particular sectors of the population if measures are taken to assure that those whose basic livelihood is threatened are supported in moving to other means of livelihood or are adequately compensated. National governments may try to shift blame to their trade partners or to international organizations, such as NAFTA or the World Trade Organization, but while others certainly have some responsibility, it is the national governments that have the primary obligation to protect their people. They have the responsibility to oversee all activities under their jurisdiction and assure its population an adequate livelihood.

There is no reason for blanket condemnation of trade; by the same token, trade should not be promoted indiscriminately without regard to those it may hurt. Trade liberalization may lead to economic growth, but it may also hurt some individuals as a result of their displacement. Proposed trade arrangements should be assessed not only for their aggregate economic benefits but also for their impact on affected populations. Human rights help us to appreciate that there is a difference between economic efficiency and social efficiency. So long as we recognize that the core purpose of trade is to advance the well-being and dignity of all individuals, there is no conflict between trade standards and human rights standards.

George Kent is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He works on human rights, international relations, peace, development and environmental issues, with a special focus on nutrition and children. He has written several books, the latest is Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]