bilaterals.org logo
bilaterals.org logo

Geopolitics & human rights

Bilateral free trade and investment agreements are not only economic instruments. They are tools to advance corporate and state geopolitical and “security” interests. Pro-free market journalist Thomas Friedman wrote: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, AirForce and Marine Corps.”

Neoliberal globalization and war are two sides of the same coin. Throughout many parts of the world there has been little “hidden” about the links between corporate interests, globalization, and militarization. Under the guise of the war on terror, the war on drugs and “humanitarian” missions, U.S. military forces continue to back U.S. corporate and geopolitical interests from Iraq to Colombia, from Honduras to the Philippines. We can see it in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and how the US Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded “reconstruction” contracts to corporate backers of the Bush Administration. We see it in plans for a U.S. free trade agreement with the Middle East by 2013, based on imposing a network of bilateral FTAs on individual Middle Eastern governments. We can see it in the renewed U.S. military presence in South East Asia, especially in their joint exercises with the Philippine military alongside a continued wave of killings of hundreds of activists linked to movements resisting imperialism. Their mission is to make the world safe for capitalism and the U.S. empire and to crush communities and economies organized around different values and principles. Free trade and free market policies are frequently accompanied by repression of dissent.

Meanwhile human rights is invoked cynically by governments to stave off criticism of FTA negotiations with countries whose human rights record is widely denounced as appalling. Canada, for example, claims that its controversial FTA with Colombia will help strengthen its social foundations “and contribute to a domestic environment where individual rights and the rule of law are respected”. Opponents argue that this deal will benefit Canadian mining and agribusiness TNCs, at the expense of the majority of Colombians who live with daily killings of trade unionists and other activists by paramilitaries linked to the state, while adding legitimacy to the pro-US, neoliberal Uribe regime (see Canada-Colombia section).

While US economic, trade and foreign policy invokes the “war on drugs” in relation to Central America and the Andean countries, Washington has "rewarded" its allies in the "war on terror" (e.g. Australia and Thailand) by negotiating FTAs with them while trumpeting its FTA with Morocco as proof of its support for “tolerant and open” Muslim societies. And it has demanded that the governments of Gulf countries scrap their boycotts of Israeli goods as part of FTA negotiations. Other governments also explicitly link their international trade and economic policy with security and geopolitical interests. For example, the EU-Syria agreement has a special provision committing Damascus to the pursuit of a “verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical, and their delivery systems”.

Besides the obvious ways in which US geopolitical concerns are embedded in Washington’s pursuit of bilateral trade and investment deals, other countries are also pursuing bilateral free trade and investment agreements to further geopolitical goals. Increasingly, we can see access to energy resources (eg. oil, gas, uranium, agrofuels and water) as a factor in determining the priorities of signing bilateral FTAs for countries such as China and Japan (see Energy & environment).

last update: May 2012


Asean gets tough on the US over trade, but tiptoes around South China Sea build-up
With Singapore as chair of the regional bloc this year, China has an advantage as the focus shifts from geopolitics to trade and investment.
Deported Mexicans: From exploited and precarious workers to forced migrants of return
Forced migrants, refugees and deportees are an irrefutable and undeniable example of the world as a chronically unequal and structurally inequitable scenario. In the era of globalization, human rights are not met or respected.
Moving past photo ops to make trade policy more gender responsive
Experts at WTO workshop say that pro-women trade policies can boost jobs for women and overall growth – when used with the right domestic policies.
Trade deals must work for rural women say participants at key UN session
Trade agreements must take into account the concerns of the millions of women who earn their living off the land in developing countries, participants said at a meeting held during the 62nd session of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations in New York organized by UNCTAD and the Asia Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development (APWLD).
China expanding its military, political influence in Latin America
New report has warned that Beijing is likely to increase its power through military and political means.
Proxy wars of the Asian economic power houses
Both and Japan are pursuing their own initiatives to call shots in Asia, which may have ramifications for businesses and economies in the Mena region.
Free trade or women’s rights?
After 30 years of neoliberal globalization, it has been increasingly acknowledged that austerity, privatization, deregulation of finance, markets and corporations, and trade and investment liberalization have had a devastating and discriminatory impact on women.
Ensuring the primacy of human rights in trade and investment policies
Model clauses for a UN Treaty on transnational corporations, other businesses and human rights.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples
The report provides an analysis of the impacts of international investment agreements on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Commentary on The EU-Canada Trade Governance Project
Canadians have seen a disingenuous process that is providing impunity for deceptive dealing in the current model