Mary Robinson Warns Attacks on Multilateral System Threaten Global Peace and Security

The subject of trade and human rights is not a new one. Twenty years ago the ‘Battle in Seattle’ protests formed a backdrop to a breakdown in WTO negotiations. Mary Robinson at the time was the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights - and along with then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - was vocal on the need for human rights commitments to matter in the context of trade, finance, and development. Twenty years later, she continues to make the case for bringing human rights into other policy areas - notably in response to the climate crisis.

At an event in London to mark the 10th anniversary of the Institute for Human Rights and Business, Robinson reflected on what, if anything, has changed in the past two decades. Whether governments give greater attention today to potential rights impacts of their decisions in areas from trade and investment to climate and sustainable development. And whether we have made any progress in ensuring that rights and accountability are a central part of policy making at every level. Her speech is available below.

The event also coincides with a statement made by The Elders, an independent group of global leaders working together for peace, justice and human rights, which Robinson chairs. The statement notes that the multilateral system is under unprecedented attack, with isolationist and arbitrary actions by leading powers, including the United States, threatening to undermine critical efforts to tackle global challenges from nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation to climate change, and the regulation of international trade. 

Opening Remarks of Mary Robinson
Next Generation Trade Event
London, 3rd December 2019

Check against delivery:

It is a mixed picture at best. The international system clearly hasn’t responded adequately to the downsides of trade for workers and communities. The reality is that it has been beneficial to the interests of some powerful actors to have a disjointed global legal, regulatory and policy framework. And it is often convenient for states if different international processes prevent them from addressing global issues that are politically or financially costly.

I recall during my time as High Commissioner often noting that if we could do more to help LDCs increase their share of world exports by just one percent, that could lift over 100 million people out of poverty and that doing so was vital to achieving a range of rights obligations they needed to deliver on - from health and education to decent work. In Africa alone, I believe the estimates at that time were that such a trade boost would have generated well over US$70 billion – more than five times what the continent received in aid.

I remember visiting African nations like Mali and Mozambique and learning about the struggles of Mali’s cotton industry and Mozambique’s sugar industry - problems that were directly linked to US and EU trade policies. Has the situation changed? The United States sugar industry, for example, continues to receive over $4 billion of assistance in the form of price supports, guaranteed crop loans, tariffs and regulated imports of foreign sugar.

Now if we think about what is happening today, we should be aware that new approaches like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) - with a focus on intra-regional trade – as opposed to international exports – could potentially be another way forward. If successful, it would help build cross-border agricultural value chains, link production and consumption zones across Africa, improving the process of getting commodities to the most efficient hubs etc. Experts suggest this would help put Africa’s value addition industries on a more stable footing, integrating all the actors in the agricultural value chain, in particular the farmers. I’ll be interested to hear from my fellow panelists and others here about what future trade strategies should look like given the ongoing challenges facing the WTO at present.

We also need to remember, 20 years on from Seattle, that over 90% of workers in global supply chains continue to work in insecure, low-wage, and unsafe jobs in addition to the mounting evidence of a global slump in wages and collective bargaining. I’m sure we’ll hear more from Sharan Burrow and others about urgent problems of child labour and forced labour that persist as well. For example, estimates suggest that at the current pace of reduction, the 2030 UN Development Agenda target to eradicate child labour by 2025 will not be met. Likewise, measures to eliminate all forms of forced labour, human trafficking and modern slavery have not been adequate to overcome the scale of the problem.

And all of these issues are directly relevant in our collective work to address the climate crisis and achieve a just transition out of carbon based energy systems. Take the example of copper and cobalt - essential for the energy transition. Mining these commodities continues to be an area where child and labor rights abuses are widespread in places like the DRC.

On this point, I do think there has been some progress in making the case for why international standards on human and labor rights and the environment have to be taken seriously in other policy domains including trade. For example, recent regional trade agreements like the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) include a number of provisions in support of climate action such as reducing to zero all tariffs on low-carbon products. We need to be pushing for ‘win-win’ opportunities like eliminating trade barriers on environmental goods and their components. Some are calling for so called green sanctions to raise the cost of financing carbon-intensive sectors worldwide.

I think the work of the OECD and others to advance the concept of the “circular economy” as part of rethinking the use of resources globally and addressing intersections with international trade is also a step in the right direction. A 2018 OECD report suggests that the transition to a circular economy will have multiple potential impacts on trade flows such as lowering import demand for primary and secondary materials as well as lowering exports of materials and waste. At the same time, new trading opportunities are likely to emerge, as the OECD notes “for services trade, such as waste management, recycling, refurbishment and remanufacturing, reuse, and repair, as well as new business models and product service systems” and circular procurement by subnational and national governments may also provide additional opportunities for international trade.

We all recognise that the global situation we face today is dangerous on multiple levels - growing authoritarian impulses by some government leaders, shrinking space for civil society in many countries, grave threats against brave women and men who defend human rights in their communities, ongoing discrimination and intolerance against migrants and others perceived as “outsiders” as well as growing impacts of the climate crisis that threaten the lives of millions today and many more in the years to come.

As I often say, quoting Desmond Tutu - I am a prisoner of hope. I truly believe that in the midst of our current chaos, including on the trade front, we have opportunities for great creativity. We can decide to reform and reimagine governance at every level, and find new and better ways of working together to solve the many problems we face.

Thank you.