EUROPE EU, NEWS Thursday, 23 July, 2015
NO adoption of the Treaty TTIP – Hearing in the Senate to the Committees gathered IX, X and XIV (Agricoltuta, Indiustria and Commerce and EU policies
Massimo Lodi Rizzini
Honourable Senators for over 20 years, “globalization” is mentioned by many as the new road that will make rich and happy lands and peoples in the world, defining this setting as a novelty, as the evolution of the best previous systems of cohesion between people in defined territories.
But looking at the history, we realize that the “vast areas” that in them were formed from different nations and peoples and that allowed the free transit of goods and capital, were nothing more than empires, and empires were nothing and that a set of a small group of oligarchs in power.
In a Over time, the training of sovereign states has taken away power to those interests of a few, he has controlled the borders and duties, with customs, with rates and with more or less sophisticated systems of public credit, controlled by parliaments made up representatives elected by the people.
The oligarchic system behind the empire was born and consolidated at a time when a minority elite wants to assert its privileges against the majority of the population , and this minority exercises its domination by controlling finance, trade, production and raw materials, with the laws and agreements that legitimize this injustice, this looting, these practices designed to deprive more and more people the freedom, dignity and wealth of its territory, as is evident in 40 years of decline caused by free trade throughout the West, from which manufacturer physical wealth has turned into consumer societies in debt since 1971.
Instead, the principle of the republican system aimed at maximum development of the creative abilities of the citizens and the story was first codified by Solon, the wise legislator of Athens. In European Union policy this principle is not only totally absent, but all its minimum expression is sharply contrasted with demands for greater transfer of “sovereignty” originally intended to defend the common good.
By whom it was born the modern theory of free trade?
Adam Smith was an employee of the notorious Company of British indie that in 1776, the same year the American Declaration of Independence (British Empire) wrote his “Wealth of Nations”, an attack against the explicit will of the nascent republic to acquire manufacturing and infrastructure.
In this work, Smith recommends that States not to intervene in economic life and to let play laws competition – the “invisible hand” of markets – not knowing that the American manufactures could not have, since their inception, to compete with finished products of England.
Adopting such a system, the United States would not It had the only resource to produce raw materials and leave the British Empire manufacturing strength. It was therefore for Smith to bring America to remain in a state of economic dependence similar to that already knew before the war; in other words, keep colonialism under republican appearance.
So, the game is easy to colonial powers, the “markets”, remove power and legislative powers to the States to continue to dominate trades and financial that not only allow a huge and unjust concentration of wealth, but above all to monitor the freedom and happiness of others.
But even in modern times, from the end of the Second World War, we can note that where civilization was built with public investment in infrastructure – investments made possible and protected by the principle of Sovereign State and agreements between states, humanity has drawn great benefit relying and being part of the production processes and technology increasingly advanced physics able to create great wealth, well above the monetary wealth required for their implementation, thus allowing an increase in net wealth available to all – while where the republican principle of sovereign state has not been applied, and I refer to the colonies and post -colonie Africa for example, the domain of the “market” has prevented the development of civilization and the creation of widespread wealth.
But in terms of natural resources and strategic, the African continent is infinitely rich but because of the liberal practices and liberoscambiste, the population has not enjoyed at all, indeed, as is evident in recent years, multinationals push tens of millions of desperate migration to search for a minimum of human dignity that in their rich lands he was denied from always, the interests of a few who are empires, which are the “markets” – The City and Wall-Street.
***
Recalling the historical redici of “treated” free trade, now let’s see what these treaties have already applied where the product for some time, such as the free trade agreement NAFTA.
In 1994 he created between Member States, Mexico and Canada a single market for the free movement of goods and investment.
Twenty years later we can say that the main effect of the agreement was precisely to facilitate movement of several large US companies to Mexico, where they established their production facilities in the regions closest to the border. It is vast industrial parks that have been the focus of controversy in both countries because of near-slavery working conditions. The exchanges are indeed increased, and many more. But not being followed.
If we compare, for example, the level of trade between the United States and Mexico, we see tremendous growth in the last twenty years
According to the theory free trade was supposed to result in an increase in wealth; but the real household income has remained flat.
It is also incontrovertible the sharp drop in manufacturing employment in the United States, who have lost more than 5 million jobs in the last twenty years.
It is hard to deny that the benefits of the large market liberalization will NOT be seen by much of the population, in the US and also in Europe, where since the early nineties is essentially in the same direction.
At this point it is natural to ask why you want to move forward with a policy that does not work? The answer lies on two levels: that of the benefits for large economic and financial operators, and the geopolitical imperative to strengthen relationships within the western world.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a harm to the population, but some benefits from: for example large corporations that have made relocation a lifestyle . Pay workers much Italian coast; comply with regulations on safety and health at work is expensive. Therefore profits rise considerably when moving the production in poorer countries and less regulated (which also exist in Europe).
In addition, the negotiations on similar agreements TTIP and aim to remove the barriers that prevent some of make profits, but to protect the specificity and other national characteristics. The question is, however, who will draw the most benefit from the harmonization of rules and the reduction of barriers: take advantage of freer market will certainly be easier for large multinational companies.
Those countries which are spread smaller firms, less capitalized, and with labor costs higher, it will instead struggling to compete in the new environment.
The agreements of this kind are designed to protect the diversity, but rather to facilitate the penetration of the markets by large manufacturers, which not coincidentally are involved in negotiations with their representatives.
These aspects are the basis for public debate on the TPP in the United States. In recent weeks in fact President Obama felt compelled to defend the negotiations in the face of increasing attacks by Democrats and union leaders, who remember precisely the imbalance of the interests that are protected by the free trade agreements. The opposition front is led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, known for its broadsides against Wall Street and in favor of the Glass-Steagall Act, that is increasingly popular precisely because of his tenacity in fighting large financial interests and that in fact challenge Obama asking: “if the TPP will be good for workers and American consumers, because they do not make public the documents?”
The “Born economic” factor perhaps more important in the push to sign the new agreement between Europe and the United States is not strictly economic, but geopolitical. In fact the TTIP is seen as a fundamental step to strengthen the transatlantic strategic alliance. It speaks explicitly of the creation of a “Born economic” . Why invoke the military alliance created to counter the Soviet Union?
Why Western multinationals view with concern the advanced economic and strategic importance of the BRICS, the fear because the BRICS are an alliance of sovereign states interested in working in base agreements which take into account the mutual respect and the advantage of the other, in other words, the agreements between sovereign nations with the goal that each of them is to develop fully considering how their interest the development of the other and vice versa. The BRICS collaborate with each other, the free trade instead leads us to “compete” against each other, an attitude which in nature is typical of animals, while humans can and must work together in mutual respect and interest.
It does not matter who “compete” if humanity is suffering because of these consequences that push everything down, wages, rights, quality, justice, liberty , everything but gains a few
In fact, an argument just mentioned, but very strong contr or TPP, which also applies to the Transatlantic Treaty, is that it will cut all access to vital medicines for at least half a billion people . This is because its provisions will force countries to extend the life of the monopolies on brand name drugs major pharmaceutical companies, whose prices are very high, making it much more difficult production and marketing of generic matching.
This is was pointed out as early as last January by Doctors Without Borders, who received a preview of the documents then super secret.
The Solidarity Movement (LPAC) therefore calls to reject the Treaty TTIP in defense of civilization , human dignity , the economy and the republican principle that naturally protects the interest of more and defends it from speculative attacks of those who arrogate to themselves the right to goods, services, people and production.
Massimo Lodi Rizzini
No comments:
Post a Comment