Public-Private Partnership Law and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union are Signed into Law
Originally published by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
“I was within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.” -F. Scott Fitzgerald ------------------------------------ .................................... .................................... "held, held fast by love in the world... your life a wick..." -Annie Dillard
These commercial norms tend to protect transnational businesses to the detriment of the human rights of the population and the environment, especially because they do not pay sufficient attention to the clear asymmetries between Europe and our countries. This is aggravated by the fact that the ADA establishes a double standard of protection: while the commercial [concerns can employ …] coercive mechanisms to [protect their interests …] the human rights [are defended only with very …] weak mechanisms, […] better described as exhortative expressions, which make it impossible to achieve results that are favorable for people. This fact has caused even the Social Democrats in Germany to object to the agreement in the German parliament.
The laws here are not equal. Here, there are some laws that are implemented: for instance, dollarization in 2001, implemented in fewer than 21 days and followed up immediately by who-knows-how-many regulations for implementation. The banking law is also implemented. You understand. But the environmental law is not. Only the laws at the service of the powerful are implemented.
It is no surprise that the P3 initiative has arisen in the immediate aftermath of signing the Partnership for Growthbetween the U.S. and El Salvador in November 2011. The agreement identifies crime & security and low productivity in tradables as the two critical constraints on El Salvador’s development. Explicitly, the second constraint ‘require[s] that the Government of El Salvador foster a more conducive investment environment’ while the United States will assist the GOES in ‘improv[ing] internal coordination’ (U.S. Department of State, 2011) (Voices P7).
Beyond the traditional discourse about sovereignty, states have responsibilities over their multinational businesses when they operate outside of the home country. It is necessary that states intervene and punish violations of fundamental social, cultural, economic and environmental rights, and even political rights. They must progressively adopt standards that face this new scenario, in which multinationals are a new world actor that gain more space, capacity and power in global decision-making with every passing day.