Comments on: ‘GSP PLUS’ PRIVILEGES: THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT https://groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=%25e2%2580%2598gsp-plus%25e2%2580%2599-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment Journalism for Citizens Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:56 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.1 By: James https://groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2021 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:53:56 +0000 http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2021 It would be interesting to know – If good record of Human rights is the main criteria for Preferential Tariffs, and since the Developed Nations (think they do) have good Human Rights records, would the EU allow the best concessions to the Imports from Developed Nations???
Why dont the criteria be that the country wanting GSP table their best reasons why they should be given, and review the case for the extension of such facility when the time arises? – The qualifying factors could be,
1. How would the GSP help the exporting country to develop (Quantify) ?
2. How would such initiatives benefit or give credit to the EU ?
The GSP must not be made a glorified begging bowl

]]> By: punitham https://groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2020 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:27:10 +0000 http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2020 Anything and everything should have Human Rights as the bottomline. Had the developed countries started giving aid to developing countries on that basis over the last half a century we wouldn’t have so many intractable deadly intrastate conflicts around the world now.
Thanks Rohan, Asanga, Veedhur and Ethir.

]]> By: Deane https://groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2019 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:14:11 +0000 http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2019 Hopefully, Ethiveeasingham is right, although i don’t quite see it that way. A more pertinent question is why is there “Human rights” standards in a trade agreement in the first place?

]]> By: N. Ethirveerasingam https://groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2018 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:39:09 +0000 http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2018 Well argued Rohan, but Veedhur’s analysis is the reality on the ground. Garment production is based on the design, materials and specification of powerful multi-national retailers and middlemen in the West. Their lobbying cannot be matched. They care less about HR violations of the State. GOSL does not have to lobby, they have the captains of the garment industry in EU and SL to do that. EU and US pay lip service to please the HR lobby to show concern.

]]> By: Veedhur https://groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2017 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:02 +0000 http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/15/%e2%80%98gsp-plus%e2%80%99-privileges-the-need-for-constitutional-amendment/#comment-2017 A great post, but I think the GSP granting in its practical manifestation is essentially a political decision. It is not a legal one. So a legal and technical glitch will not clinch it one way or the other. It is evident if you look at the past track record:

In 2004 – A decision to grant ‘GSP plus (labour)’ was made not based on better labour standards, but more based on PR work by the industry and Govt, impending MFA phase out threats and the willingness for the EU to look at assisting the country. The ‘labour compliance road map’ which was put forward to placate the labour group was then conveniently forgotten by JAAF, the industry, the government and also the EU. In fact it became irrelevant even during its currency as local EU office showed no interest to pursue it and the local industry big wigs were gloating over their hood winking the labour groups!

In 2005 – The decision to grant ‘GSP plus’ to Sri Lanka again was made based on the MFA impact and Tsunami impact which were neatly packaged and sold by industry and Govt, which perfectly met EU’s desire to any way grant it to Sri Lanka. Again after granting no follow up was done. Even more pathetic is that the women workers in whose name (because they would be loosing jobs due to MFA) the facility was canvassed for by JAAF, the industry body – got zulch. When eventually factories closed down, the workers were left without even the wages in some instances and no one was compensated as per even the Sri Lankan laws. EU had no qualms about the facility being misused. The big industry guys made a killing out of the facility and have gone on to invest in India!

In 2008 too the industry and the government (like they used the women workers in 2004 and the tsunami dead and women workers in 2005) will invoke the spectre of closures and its impact on 200000 women workers and send EU on a guilt trip and win the concessions, it will of course be done under their latest PR exercise ‘garments without guilt!’. But of course this would be possible only if EU is disposed in the first place give it. Which is more a political decision than one based on evidence.

The operative clause is ‘ratify and implement’ – even in the most basic ones like core labour standards, the implementation is woefully patchy. I am not sure how with a straight face could GL Pieris and Amanugama defend the human rights record of the regime. They probably could try -‘in addition to apparel we also export war criminals to EU to face trial there and hence deserve a special GSP plus!!’ Good luck!

]]>