Focus: From the streets of Seattle to the Back Rooms of Geneva

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 10 Volume 21 Issue 3 2014 TISA will create an environment conducive to privatisation FOCUS ❐ TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT N egotiated in secret in Geneva for almost two years, by the European Union, USA, Japan, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Australia, South Korea and others totalling over 50 countries, it has taken months of work from global researchers and a spectacular leak from Julianne Assange’s Wikileaks to expose anything about its contents. For governments who normally extoll the virtues of trade agreements to anybody who will listen, and who are responsible for more than two thirds of the world’s global trade in services, it is curious that we have heard so little. Leaked papers have been stamped classified for five years after the close of negotiations. Until recently a Google search for Trade in Services Agreement (‘TISA’) produced only a few hits. All that has changed in the last few months. Released in late April, Public Services International’s publication TISA vs Public Services pieces together what is being negotiated. The research by Scott Sinclair and Hadrianne MertinKirkwood of the Canadian Centre for Public Policy relied on interviews with services negotiators , press reports from governments and the very limited public statements by the parties. It shows that the TISA applies to every possible means of providing services internationally. TISA includes cross border services (GATS Mode 1), such as distance education and internet gambling; consumption abroad (GATS Mode 2) such as recreational and medical tourism; foreign direct investment (GATS Mode 3) such as multinational corporations providing water or energy services and temporary movement of persons (GATS Mode 4) such as nurses, house-keepers or executives temporarily travel abroad to provide services. Privatisation The research concludes that the TISA will create an environment conducive to privatisation. Like the General Agreement on Trade in Services (‘GATS’), the TISA doesn’t simply ensure non-discriminatory treatment for foreign providers, but goes further to restrict or prohibit some non-discriminatory government actions. The TISA would prohibit public monopolies and exclusive service providers in fully committed sectors. The research also identifies the proposed inclusion of ‘standstill’ and ‘ratchet’ clauses. The standstill clause will lock in current levels of services liberalisation, effectively banning moves from a market based to state based provision of services. The ratchet clause automatically locks in future actions to liberalise services. The combined effect of these clauses is to stop services being brought back into public hands. While this is a clear affront to the ability of governments to implement democratic mandates to pursue legitimate public policy objectives, the absurdity becomes clearer when considering the recent spate of failed privatisations in water, energy and transport. The TISA effectively stops failed privatisations being brought back into public hands, regardless of how disastrous the consequences of the privatisation are. The effects are even more worrying when considering the way public services evolve. If the TISA were previously in force it would have prohibited the establishment of public health systems , public transport systems, public education and public waste and sanitation in many countries . Future policy challenges such as climate change related energy and abatement measures, banking re-regulation or internet regulation are likely to require some form of public sector involvement. Financial Deregulation Astonishingly, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the TISA seeks to further deregulate the financial markets. This was confirmed when Wikileaks leaked the financial services chapter in May this year. Analysis by Professor Jane Kelsey from the Faculty of Law at University of Auckland in New Zealand showed that governments signing onto TISA will be ‘expected to lock in and extend their current levels of financial deregulation, lose the right to require data be held onshore, face pressure to authorise potentially toxic insurance products and risk legal challenge if they adopt measures to prevent or respond to another crisis’1 . Restrictions on public interest regulation In September this year further research by Ellen Gould examined TISA’s effect on the sovereign right to regulate. It concludes that the ratchet provisions would ‘automatically make permanent any experiment made in deregulation – with no ability to reverse course if the experiment proved disastrous’2 . Governments elected with...