In 1999, the Rio Summit launched the ambitious project of a bi-regional agreement European Union- Latin America and the Caribbean (EU-LAC). During the following years, the EU-Mexico and EU-Chile Agreements became reality, and lengthy negotiations on the MERCOSUR began, which basically were suspended at the end of 2004. In 2007, the negotiations on agreements EU-Andean Countries and EU-Central America began, as well as the ones of the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States), which consists of fifteen Caribbean states.

These Association Agreements (AA) with Europe are a new chapter in a broader process, initiated at the beginning of the nineties, of an opening up of the Latin American and Caribbean economies with an emphasis on free trade or on open regionalism, depending on the case. Some of these projects are: the Enterprise for the Americas initiative of Bush senior, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), MERCOSUR, the revision of the Andean Pact and of the Central American Common Market (CACM), the Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA, (to which the European proposition was a clear reaction, before the beginning of its negotiation), and the FTAs of the US in the recent decade.

The Americas’ labor union movement did take notice of these changes, and it grew in its analytical and proactive capacities, which is why today it is better able to debate about the economic, social and political transformations the process entails. This has become evident in the Inter American Regional Workers’ Organization (ORIT) and its affiliated and sister organizations which are part of the sub-regional coordinators (CCSCS, CSCA, CSACC). From the European side, a similar process of involvement is happening at the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), in the framework of its presence at the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The labor unions of the two continents have frequently held bi-regional meetings, including the Trade Union EU-LAC Summits (the fourth took place in Lima in April).

The issue has also just been treated by the new Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA), whose founding conference took place in Panama at the end of March. The Program of Action approved there states that

“These [recently discussed] agreements have established a fundamental change in relation to prior agreements that focused on the political dimension and cooperation. Now agreements emphasize aspects directly related to trade, with an approach that is no different from that of the US FTAs (…) these agreements favor multinational corporations and free trade (…) We reject the strategy of those multinational corporations and local business elites aimed at profiting as much as possible from these agreements ignoring their social responsibility.”

In this context, the TUCA is “demanding that negotiations lead to real “Economic, Political, Social and Cultural Agreements. The CSA-TUCA also expresses its opposition to any trade agreement based on neo-liberal free trade criteria and which does not commit to fair and balanced trade. We reaffirm the need to link these agreements with models of production which, as in the case of the Labor Platform of the Americas, lead to an economy with a new approach that fosters sustainable development and has full employment and dignified work at its center”.

From the labor perspective, the design of the AAs has as a main positive element that the negotiations take place from block to block, which could enhance the power of the Latin American counterpart, requiring internal consensus. Likewise, the AAs differ from other agreements by including pillars of political dialogue and cooperation. The negotiation mandate of the EU includes also some expressions of commitment to sustainable development, in the field of production, social unity and on the environmental and socio-labor dimension. But, as a counterpart, the AA projects also establish FTAs of the “WTO plus” type. Such agreements include liberalization of goods and services, current payments, capital movements and government purchasing, comprising the water, energy and transport sectors. Furthermore, the AAs promote that Latin American countries should not treat European multinationals less favorably than their own companies. This condition also extends to situations where these countries make agreements with a third country.

Emphasis of the Latin American and Caribbean labor strategy

Our position considers that in these agreements the concept of sustainable development has to be applied in a comprehensive way, covering completely its three dimensions (economy, social and environmental). The first dimension should no longer be considered central, instead we also have to refer to the components of trade and treatment of foreign investment and to the indispensable aspect of the treatment of asymmetries, in the framework of another central concept: fair trade. Respect for sub-regional integration and sustainable development must not be an empty phrase of the AA, but it has to be objectively recognized and ratified in the trade section. In other words, there must be no conditions or negative impacts on the strategies necessary for productive development that the countries and regions of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) may adopt.

According to this position, the AAs:

-Must recognize, in all aspects of negotiations, the huge differences which distinguish the Latin American regions from the EU.

- Furthermore, they must have direct positive economic impacts for both sides and, in the case of LAC, contribute to a strengthening of the integration systems of MERCOSUR, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) and the System of Central American Integration (SICA). It takes a special, differentiated and flexible treaty for each country, and, if suitable, an SGP+ approach has to be applied. This means that the AAs share the profits their countries make in the common market as a result of the Generalized System of Preferences, as an alternative to the approach saying that these benefits, due to their unilateral nature, have to be re-discussed.

- The economic changes that the AAs cause in LAC have to be accompanied by measures that ensure social equilibrium and reduce possible negative effects, through financial mechanisms to adjust the asymmetries between the two regions, based on the experience of the European Cohesion Funds. The financing of these compensation mechanisms has to be provided by the EU and European governments, as they are the main beneficiaries of trade and investments related to these agreements.

In a complementary manner, the AAs have to fully include the socio-labor and participatory dimensions, the former by establishing a “fourth pillar” that recognizes minimum labor standards and discourages social dumping, and the latter through transparency and an opening to labor union movements and other sectors of organized civil society, using regular information, consultation and participation mechanisms during negotiations as well as after their coming into effect. However, the regional labor union movements consider the effective provision for these answers a necessary, but not sufficient condition. As to this, the key question is: Can we accept a bad trade agreement with a good socio-labor and participatory chapter? Our answer is NO, because that section would be ineffective.

II Trade Union Strategies and Alliances for the Future

Since the founding of the TUCA, in 2008, a common working plan will be relaunched together with European labor movements, to make statements in a coordinated and united manner, as a manifestation of the priority the ETUC gives to the relation with the TUCA. In the framework of this arrangement, the relations of the ETUC with the MERCOSUR, Andean and Central American sub-regional structures, and with labor unions of Mexico and Chile will develop. The ETUC will also maintain and intensify its collaboration with sub-regional labor union structures in LAC, and it will encourage participation of more of its affiliated organizations. ETUC and TUCA engage in improving the exchange of information and experiences by means of a fluent and efficient information network.

In a complementary manner, TUCA and ETUC will also continue their alliance strategies in other social sectors. But in this area, conceptual differences exist. During the last ten years, ORIT and its affiliated and sister organizations have been developing an alliance strategy with other civil society organizations through the Hemispheric Social Alliance (HSA) of which it forms part ever since its creation in 1999. The HSA was initially about the FTAA, but later it also addressed other aspects of liberalization.

More recently, the HSA and with it the ORIT have joined the debate about the EU-LAC agreements within the Latin American part of the bi-regional network Linking Alternatives (LA), created in 2004 and joined by NGOs and European labor unions that have adopted a position that is clearly opposed to the very existence of these negotiations. They consider that they reflect the “Vienna Consensus” (an allusion to the Washington Consensus) in the recent new stage of the EU’s projection towards the world, as it has been defined in the document of the European Commission “Global Europe: competing in the world” (2006).

The ETUC does not share this approach, which creates an objective split in proceedings at the moment of taking position in the face of the summits of the EU’s and LAC’s government leaders. On one side, the ETUC, in the context of its relation with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), promotes Meetings with Civil Society Organizations where the sub-regional coordinators participate, together with tripartite structures that include NGOs and business representatives in consultative forums. On the other hand, Linking Alternatives (LA) carries out its own activities, together with the Permanent Peoples Tribunal (PPT) which analyzes the behavior of European multinationals in LAC. (The meeting of EA3 takes place in Lima in May).

An eloquent text, issued by the ETUC (document of the Labor Union Discussion Workshop, Brussels, February 2008), described the problem as following (our translation):

- “Until now, we, the labor union organizations, have maintained autonomy on our own issues, without denying the possibility of joint action with other networks where common claims exist. The ETUC maintains fluent collaboration with other associations in some activities related to the EU-LAC relations, because we believe that there are convergent issues and that these associations play an important role, but we avoid getting involved in their forums and networks for two reasons: first, the dimension, uniqueness and independence of the labor union movement, and second: the existence of strong discrepancies on essential issues in some cases”.

-“It is not the same to approve our position in the field of trade unions, and then contrast it to the position of other networks, as to integrate ourselves as labor movements in them and thus bind ourselves to the global position of this group of organizations, movements etc. We rather opt for a relationship “from outside” with NGOs and other social movements, evaluating each case and each occasion and avoiding becoming diluted in the dynamics of an assembly, which do not fit the criteria of autonomy of trade unions and of representation. However, we do respect it when in different circumstances, like those of LAC, labor movements choose another approach to these alliances.”

-“An example: In its European part, LA is composed of diverse associations and NGOs that are much less socially rooted than on the Latin American side, including some minority unions that are not affiliated to the ETUC. ETUC is not part of this network because (apart from not having been considered when it was founded), LA is defined as opposed the European Union Treaty and a priori against the EU-Latin America Agreements”.

In this context, the ETUC adds that it does “in no way criticize the HSA, and respects its right to align with whomever it wants in Europe… but it does however point out the risk that the unions may appear to be signing contradictory declarations on important topics…. To the ETUC, the kind of bi-regional network to be prioritized is unity of action of the European- Latin American labor movement”.

We, the participants of the HSA, also respect the approach of the ETUC, and we think that both forms can coexist, which they actually do now. ORIT and, from now on, the TUCA participate in the HSA and LA, agreeing with what coincides with their general strategy, and taking divergent positions whenever this is not the case. For instance, the ORIT and the HSA do not consider the ETUC their enemy. They keep this status for the European multinational businesses who, as the program of action of the TUCA states, seek to be the main beneficiaries of these agreements. This expression may obviously also be applied to those economic and political sectors linked to this approach in Europe, as well as their equivalents in LAC (for instance, the conservative elites). Therefore, both labor movements will continue this complementary strategy, which does not affect the unity of action of the European-Latin American trade union movement. (Translation: ALAI).

- Rafael Freire Neto is Secretary for Political Economy and Sustainable Development at the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA). Article published in Spanish in América Latina en Movimiento, "Unión Europea - América Latina y Caribe: 500 años después" No. 431-2 mayo 2008.