Effets des clauses sociales dans les accords commerciaux: l'exemple de l'accord US-Jordanie

L’accord de libre échange entre les Etats-Unis et la Jordanie a été signé en 2000 et appliqué en 2001. La question du respect des normes du travail est directement intégrée à l’accord et fait l’objet d’un article spécifique (article 6). Il s’agit du premier accord commercial américain intégrant directement une clause sociale dans le contenu même de l’accord. Jusqu’alors, cela faisait l’objet, comme dans l’ALENA, d’un accord spécifique en marge de l’accord commercial proprement dit.

Cet accord de libre-échange prévoit que chaque partie doit s’assurer que les lois nationales soient en conformité avec les normes du travail internationalement reconnues et mentionne explicitement les conventions de l’OIT et plus particulièrement la déclaration sur les principes et droits fondamentaux au travail.

Lorsqu’une partie considère que l’autre partie ne respecte pas ses engagements, elle peut faire une demande de consultation. Si les deux parties ne trouvent pas de solutions dans un délai de 60 jours, la question est transmise à un comité joint (joint committee). Un panel est alors constitué, se formant de trois personnes : une personne nommé par chacune des parties et une personne nommé par les deux parties et faisant office de modérateur. Le panel a alors 90 jours pour présenter aux deux parties un rapport montrant si l’une des parties a manqué à ses engagements et proposant un moyen de résoudre le conflit. Après la présentation du rapport, le comité joint a 30 jours pour trouver une solution. Si aucune solution n’est trouvée, la partie subissant un préjudice peut alors «prendre toute mesure appropriée et proportionnée ».

Le mécanisme de résolution des différents est commun à toutes les dispositions de l’accord et inclut donc l’article 6 portant sur les engagements des parties en terme de travail.

L’accord est souvent cité comme un exemple de possibilité d’intégration efficace d’une clause sociale dans un accord commercial. Bhagwati (2001) dénonçait d’ailleurs une telle clause en considérant qu’elle pourrait servir de « modèle » pour d’autres accords, et in fine, à lever les objections à inclure une telle clause dans les règles de l’OMC.

Il semble toutefois trop tôt pour en évaluer les effets réels et beaucoup d’auteurs mettent en avant les obstacles qui empêchent une pleine application de l’accord.

1. Les obstacles à une pleine application de l’accord

Selon Elliott (2003), l’objectif premier de l’accord de l’intégration d’une clause sociale dans l’accord de libre-échange semble être de trouver un « mécanisme commerce-travail politiquement acceptable » permettant l’adoption de l’accord dans son ensemble. Selon l’auteur, s’il est clair que l’article 6 est utile dans la mesure où il apporte un précédent appuyant l’idée de l’importance des normes du travail, il n’est pas clair qu’il permette une amélioration significative de l’application de ces normes.

Le principal risque viendrait du langage « vague » de l’article 17 portant sur les mécanismes de résolution des différends. L’auteur insiste sur le caractère très général de l’article 6 sur le travail, et considère qu’il est très peu probable qu’un différend lié aux obligations des parties en terme de respect des normes du travail arrive jusqu’au stade de la sanction. La plupart des paragraphes de l’article 6 précise uniquement que chacune des parties devait « s’efforcer » de s’assurer à ce que les lois nationales soient en adéquation avec les « normes du travail reconnues internationalement ». L’accord prévoit par ailleurs le respect de la souveraineté des Etats en matière de régulation sociale.

La difficulté d’imposer des sanctions est par ailleurs confirmé par Trebilcock & Howse (2005, p578) qui affirment que les Etats-Unis et la Jordanie se seraient mis d’accord par lettre sur le fait que les différends ne conduiraient pas à des sanctions.

L’AFL-CIO, le syndicat américain qui fut l’un des principaux promoteurs de l’intégration de cette clause sociale, regrette, par la voix de son président John J. Sweeney, que malgré « des centaines de violations des droits de travailleurs clairement documentées, aucun pays n’ait jamais testé les mécanismes d’application contenus dans l’article sur les dispositions liées au travail, et que les gouvernements se soient engagés à ne pas y avoir recours». (Solidarity Center, 2005)

Cependant, malgré le fait que les deux parties se soient engagées à ne pas avoir recours aux sanctions, il est clair que l’accord en lui-même autorise cette possibilité (Bolle 2001), et que l’échange de lettres entre les deux administrations n’ayant en rien altéré le texte de l’accord, peut ne pas engager les futures administrations américaines (Solidarity Center 2005).

2. Des mécanismes incitatifs ? l’exemple des conditions de travail dans les zones industrielles qualifiées (« QIZs »)

La Jordanie a connu au cours des dernières années une augmentation significative de ses activités industrielles, notamment grâce à l’établissement des zones industrielles qualifiées (« QIZs ») israélo-jordaniennes. Dans le contexte de la mise en place de l’accord de libre-échange Etats-Unis Jordanie, la condition des travailleurs dans ces zones a suscité l’intérêt des ONG et du mouvement syndical américain. En mai 2006, le National Labor Committee, une ONG américaine, publiait un rapport dénonçant le travail forcé et les mauvaises conditions de travail dans cette zone (NLC 20006). En Septembre, l’AFL-CIO et l’Association nationale du textile demandait au gouvernement américain de lancer une procédure de règlement des différends en conformité avec l’accord de libre-échange Etats-Unis – Jordanie. Cette plainte mettait en avant le non-respect des normes internationales, ainsi que l’incapacité de l’Etat à faire appliquer sa législation sociale.

Il est impossible de dire si l’augmentation des activités industrielles suite à l’adoption du traité de libre-échange a détérioré les conditions de travail, notamment dans les QIZs. Certains pourraient considérer que la clause sociale n’a pas empêché de constater 5 ans après la mise en place de l’accord des cas de violations flagrantes des droits fondamentaux des travailleurs. Mais il est également possible que l’accord ait permis une sensibilisation plus grande des ONG et syndicats ayant provoqué une réaction des autorités.

En effet, la réponse des gouvernements américain et jordanien fut rapide. En septembre 2006, le gouvernement de Jordanie signait avec USAID un programme de formation sur le droit du travail comportant un programme spécifique sur les conditions de travail dans les QIZs. Le gouvernement a procédé à des fermetures d’usines et à des inspections et lancé un plan d’action comportant des réformes légales (augmentation du salaire minimum au 1^er janvier 2007, réforme du code du travail (Ministère du Travail Jordanien, 2007).

Le département du Commerce américain a noté suite au rapport du NLC une baisse des importations jordaniennes de matériel (Elis 2008). Les autorités jordaniennes ont consécutivement pris de nouvelles mesures pour améliorer les conditions de travail dans les QIZs. Le NLC reconnaît les améliorations tout en restant vigilant sur l’application des nouvelles dispositions (NLC 2007).

Le gouvernement pour sa part a refusé de lancer la procédure de résolution des différends dans cette affaire mais a choisi de financer le gouvernement jordanien pour lui permettre d’assurer une amélioration des conditions de travail (NLC 2007b).

Cette affaire ne permettra donc pas de voir si le mécanisme de résolution des différends constitue un cadre adéquat pour permettre le respect des normes internationales du travail. Néanmoins, on peut supposer que les réactions américaines et jordaniennes n’auraient pas été les mêmes en l’absence d’une telle clause.

Bibliographie

Bhagwati, J. (2001), “The Jordan Free Trade Agreement: the Wrong Template”, Testimony before Senate Finance Committee, Tuesday March 20, 2001

Bolle, M.J. (2001), “Jordan-US Free Trade Agreement: Labor issues”, CRS Report for Congress, RS20968

Eliott, K.A. (2003), « Labor Standards and the Free Trade Area of the Americas », Institute for International Economics, WP 03-7, http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/03-7.pdf

Ellis, K. (2008), “Jordan takes steps to improve labor conditions”, Women’s Year Daily

Ministère du Travail Jordanien (2007), “Labor Compliance in Jordan’s Apparel Sector actions to date and next steps”

NLC (2006), “U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement Descends into Human Trafficking and Involuntary Servitude”, National Labor Committee

NLC (2007), “US – Jordan Free Trade agreement: Progress on Worker rights but much remains to be done”, National Labor Committee

NLC (2007b), “USAID to oversee Jordan Labor reform, talks under FTA unlikely”, National Labor Committee

Solidarity Center (2005), “The Struggle for Worker Rights in Jordan”, American Center for International Labor Solidarity

Trebulicock & Howse (2005), “Regulation of International Trade”, Routledge; 3rd edition (November 2005)

Clinton is back.. Towards a ticket Obama - Edwards?

Clinton 39%, Obama 36% and Edwards 17%. Obama had 10% more in the polls. How to explain this result? Is it a new evidence of the so-called Bradley effect ("Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots.")? Difficult to say. Anyway, this second place of Obama is a very good result. And more and more people are pushing for a ticket Obama - Edwards (even if the name of more veterans politicians also emerge like Jack Reeds).

Read the live blogging from Social Europe Blog

Why the progressive should support John Edwards

Read the analysis of the comrade Daraka Larimore-Hall, it will become obvious.

"Democrats have three distinct opportunities to make history this year. Unfortunately, we have to choose between them. We could make history by electing the first woman President. We could elect the first black President. Or, we win the election by securing a mandate for truly progressive politics. Any of these would be phenomenal achievements, and they are each worth every ounce of sweat we can muster. It’s the third one, though, that is the most necessary and the most urgent. For this reason, my hopes and prayers are for John Edwards to (...) continue his campaign for the nomination." Daraka Larimore Hall

Read also his analysis after the vote in Iowa, and my blog post in French

Elections américaines: l'analyse des YDS

... non, non, non... je ne parlerai pas ici des élections internes au PS. C'est un blog INTERNATIONAL je vous dit.. ;-)

Alors je vous propose aujourd'hui l'analyse des élections américaines par les YDS, les Jeunes Démocrates Socialistes Américains. L'organisation est membre de la IUSY. Ils sont évidemment à Gauche du Parti Démocrate. Merci à Lucas qui me l'a envoyé!

YDS STATEMENT ON THE 2006 ELECTIONS
The following official YDS statement on the 2006 mid-term elections was passed today by our elected Coordinating Committee. YDS encourages members and supporters to distribute the statement for discussion. You can download, print and distribute a PDF version here: www.ydsusa.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/YDS%202006%20ELECTION%20STATEMENT.pdf

While the 2006 mid-term elections were a historic moment in American politics, their outcome does not point toward a clear progressive mandate for change. The sweeping Democratic Party gains that ended the Republican 12-year majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate did, however, open up new political space for activists. Americans registered their opposition to the Bush administration by voting in large numbers against the war, GOP extremism, and corruption. The election of Bernie Sanders as the first open socialist to the U.S. Senate, the outcome of state ballot initiatives, and the nature of the incoming Democrats' legislative agenda, all present new challenges and organizing opportunities. The work of the Left must now center on building an independent, grassroots movement and pressuring the new Democratic majority to enact progressive reforms.

While many of the newly elected Democrats are not even liberal, their victory is still important. The defeat of the Republicans reflects growing public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration's disastrous policies. Democratic Socialists hold no illusions that the new Democratic majority will suddenly implement a comprehensive agenda of social justice and economic redistribution, much less a socialist platform. However, the Democratic majority will be more easily pressured by progressive social forces. Additionally, numerous Congressional Progressive Caucus members, including some who have worked with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA - YDS' parent organization) will become committee and subcommittee chairs. These members of Congress, will now have the power to hold the Bush administration accountable and block conservative legislation. Now is the time to hold their feet to the fire and make sure they understand who helped bring them to victory. Defeating the radical right pushes us one step closer to building the progressive majority that can bring about a more just America.

The election was also a decisive repudiation of the Bush administration's war in Iraq. The American public has clearly lost patience with Republican unwillingness to concede that Iraq is in a state of chaos. Many Democrats campaigned on a change of policy in Iraq, and voters responded. Exit polls showed that 58% favored partial or full withdrawal of American troops. The next steps for the Democrats are unclear. The party is divided on how to proceed, and full withdrawal is unlikely to happen in the near future. But the new congress can be expected to investigate human rights abuses and war profiteering with greater diligence, and a Democratic majority will be more susceptible to pressure from the anti-war movement.

While the stunning recapture of the House and Senate by the Democrats gives the Left some much-needed hope for the future, America did not elect a progressive majority, nor did election results point toward a clear progressive mandate. Although many Democrats won their seats by campaigning largely on an anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush and economic populist platform, several conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats provided the decisive margin of victory for the Democratic majority in Congress. These more reactionary Democrats, for the most part, were able to defeat right-wing Republicans by opposing reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and comprehensive immigration reform. Such Democrats, whether independent or allied with the pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, will get in our way on many issues and progressives must keep them in check.

For Democratic Socialists this was a historic moment because of the election of Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate. Sanders has been the congressional representative for the state of Vermont for 12 years and will now be the first open socialist in the U.S. Senate. Young Democratic Socialists (YDS) is proud of the effort our parent organization, Democratic Socialists of America, put into organizing a nation-wide effort of grassroots fundraising for Sanders. The election of Sanders, an independent who will caucus with the Democrats, indicates that when socialists and progressives build community coalitions and make good on promises of economic and social justice, we can win. There is space in the American political landscape for democratic socialists.

It is not only the defeat of Republican candidates that is notable about this election cycle. The outcomes on many key ballot measures provided victories for progressive forces, even as several deplorable measures passed. Voters approved minimum wage increases in six states, illustrating the strategic value of pro-active legislative fights at the state level. In defensive battles, progressive coalitions were able to defeat a draconian anti-choice measure in South Dakota, which would have effectively made abortion illegal. Voters also shot down right-wing tax revenue spending limits in Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon that would have gutted the respective states' public sectors. Several states passed anti-gay marriage measures, but Arizona became the first state to defeat such an initiative. Unsurprisingly, racism and xenophobic nativism also demonstrated their continuing effect on American politics. Arizona voters passed a law making English the official language as part of growing anti-immigrant sentiment, and Michigan voted to ban affirmative action for schools and state jobs. Race and racism are still central to political life in the U.S. and progressives must address this reality in our activism.

The outcome of the mid-term elections also illustrates changing patterns of voter turnout based on age, gender, race, geography and religion. As a youth and student organization, YDS is especially encouraged by the exceptionally high turnout of voters under 30 and our demographic's strong preference for non-GOP candidates. With a 30% shift to the Democrats among Latinos since the last election, and a failure to erode African-American support for Democrats through the use of black candidates, misleading ad blitzes and voter suppression, Republicans fared poorly. Republican support among evangelical Christians waned, partly due to their realization that the eradication of poverty and global climate change are moral imperatives. The significance of pro-choice, pro-gay rights, economic populists winning in rural "red" states like Missouri, Montana, and Virginia proves that Democrats mustn't write-off any part of the country and can score victories without outflanking Republican conservatism on social issues. Women also continue to vote disproportionately for Democratic candidates as do white, male union members. These constituent voting results show the base from which progressives can build majority coalitions and begin to move the center of American politics to the left.

In an effort to counter the anti-worker legislative climate, the labor movement mobilized in record numbers for a mid-term election, spending over $100 million. Labor had a large presence in nearly all of the races where Democrats won, even in areas in which labor has traditionally been quite weak, such as in the decisive Senate race in Virginia, which gave Democrats the majority. In short, the Democrats cannot win without mobilizing their working class base, which is embodied by organized labor. Democrats should give labor more sway in policymaking and enact legislation which will help labor do its job: organize and represent working families. The Democrats must also move immediately to increase the federal minimum wage, which shamefully has not been increased since 1997. More important for the long-term vitality of the labor movement is labor law reform. Union density has hit a record post-New Deal era low of 12.5% in part because the Democrats have failed to do enough to help labor when it needs it most. To start, the Democrats could pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier to form a union by recognizing card-check agreements. This has long been a priority of the labor movement and passing this legislation is long overdue. The Democrats must also overturn the laws that put up unfair barriers to a union's right to strike.

The ultimate success of the work of the Left depends on holding elected officials accountable and pressuring the newly elected Democratic majority to enact a progressive legislative agenda. The incoming Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, have pledged to move to raise the minimum wage, tackle prescription drug prices, change direction in Iraq, and investigate certain abuses of power by the Bush administration. As socialists, we will continue to agitate for these and more far-reaching reforms that prioritize human needs and the environment over private profits. Raising the federal minimum wage is essential, but it is not the same as ensuring all workers are paid living wages and have full union organizing rights. We applaud the stated commitment to equip government with the power to negotiate prescription drug price discounts but will continue to push for universal, single-payer health care for every American. We support efforts to make college more affordable after a shocking five-year 40% average tuition increase, but still contend that higher education should be a right for all, and not simply a costly privilege. Talk of investing in renewable energy is welcome, but Democratic plans will fall short of the dramatic changes needed in our economy and nation's infrastructure to counter the catastrophic impact of global climate change. Democrats may provide oversight on Halliburton-style war profiteering and push for "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops, but America needs to withdraw from Iraq, cut military spending, and end its promotion of unfair corporate globalization throughout the world.

Young Democratic Socialists see hope in the future of progressive politics in this country. But with a lack of political will among the Democratic leadership and a razor-thin majority in the Senate, the much-needed reforms that socialists support will only come about when our movements are stronger. Through and between election cycles, the Left must work to strengthen the feminist, anti-racist, labor, student, anti-war, LGBT, environmental, immigrant rights, and global justice movements. There still needs to be a democratic socialist force willing to work both inside and outside electoral politics that ties an analysis of systems of oppression to a critique of capitalism. We in YDS want to be part of a broader movement and connect our vision with the struggles of others. With the end of Republican domination over all branches of government, we have taken a very important first step. Let us seize this moment to celebrate and be watchful for new organizing opportunities. The post-election political terrain we face is still largely unclear and in the making. Now is the time to strategize, to evaluate, and to reenergize the struggle for social and economic justice. It is time to create a truly progressive majority.

Young Democratic Socialists
c/o DSA 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 505
New York, NY, 10038
office: (212) 727-8610
fax: (212) 608-6955
yds@dsausa.org
www.ydsusa.org