Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Free Trade

Freedom or Liberty? Time to dissect an operational framework for the notion of Freedom

Do you understand what is meant by Freedom? How do you apply your “freedom”. What are the restrictions attached to your acts of freedom?

If Liberty has a statewide political connotation of independence and autonomy (already a terrible headache in the UN), the notion of Freedom is far more confusing and subject to political maneuvering in the dialogues and discussions.

The problem in the English language is the restriction on the usage of the term Liberty, such as Liberation or being liberated (any other ways?)

For example “We are not freed from the shackles. Someone else liberated us from the shackles of slavery and bondage, by a political decision and not on our free will”

For example, you read oxymoron terms like “Free Trade, Free Market, Free Expression, Free Sex…”  What is free in these expressions? And how they are that free?

If we replaced these expressions with “Libre trade, libre market, libre sex, libre opinions...” the citizens will acquire useful political terminologies and political education. These terms connote political decisions among communities and the treaties are spelled out in details.

For example, “libre from addiction” would relate to a specific addiction since mankind behaves intrinsically within a network (a web) of habits and customs.

Also, “libre sex” means a politically tolerant society and is different from free sex that has a monetary connotation attached to it. Sure, there are first time free sex, but the second time is never that free, but highly expensive in many ways.

Until the English language is liberated and the politicians liberate the term Freedom from their political maneuvering and taking Freedom hostage in their discourse and speeches, we have to contend in navigating the meander of Freedom.

Setting up an operational framework for this general and confusing “value” of Freedom is an endeavor to giving flesh and new blood to the mishandled expression of “Freedom for the people

A clear taxonomy for the definition of Freedom is tightly linked on how we define the other “set of value systems” that are connected to the term of freedom and are interrelated in the various fields of applications such as in economy, finance, politics, individual rights, human rights, and range of opportunities…

There is two main divergences for comprehending freedom: Individual freedom and “Community Freedom

If we take the “western” position that freedom is an individual right, we must raise the question: “How would you define freedom for each one of the 7 billion people and increasing? All these people with various customs, traditions and idiosyncrasies?

7 billion struggling within fast changing social environments, fast communication means, interacting quickly and observing the reality of what’s happening outside their close communities and the limitations offered within their social systems?

This is a daunting task that must be confronted piece meal, one problem at a time.

In order to avoid the bad connotation attached to individual freedom such as “Give me my space: I want to do what I like to do…” the concept of responsibility was closely linked to Freedom.

First, you have to practice tolerance with respect to the other people living in your community before you expand your space for freedom

Tolerance was included as the linkage between freedom and responsibility. It is the community job to educate its members on what is expected to tolerate and how to work out the pragmatic differences in value systems.

“A field separates the ideas of right and wrongdoings. I meet there” Rumi

It is also the community responsibility to open channel of communications with neighboring communities and compare their corresponding educational system for absorbing daily confrontations.

For example, if a western State or the wider EU block enact laws that have to be applied to all its members, this is tantamount to forming “cultural blocks” within the larger community. A procedure that hinders the step by step process of  “nurturing tolerance assimilation“.

The multiple problems within a “Republic” State take roots by imposing a unique State “law framework” on communities that are not coherent due to historical and cultural discrepancies.

Any imposition of “forced tolerance” without the adequate financial means, economic opportunities and political determination to bridge the gap among communities will be faced with violent reactions of the “have’ and “have not” full rights within a society.

Another alternative is to work within “community Freedom” systems, with far lesser interrelations and a better framework of a consensus idiosyncratic life-style and world view to apply the concept of freedom.

The lazy way is to split the world systems into a preconceived mentality and confront one system against another. For example, the western culture, the Eastern culture, the Far-Eastern, the Middle-Eastern, the African or the Latino cultures.

That is the current approach of civilization clashes, of opposing value systems, pretty convenient to the colonial powers.

The still strong colonial domination blocks serious hurtful political concessions in order to come to term with a fast evolving world, each community vying for a corner under the sun.

Before stretching the concept of freedom to include all people, it is advisable that every State works out its value system, iron it out, implement it within the world framework.

This means to keep an opened and a flexible revolving door to understand other value systems for later connectivity), and observe, eyes wide open, the repercussions and consequences on the other societies.

Note: Margin for freedom

‘Free Trade’ and the death of democracy


A new free trade deal might expose governments to the will of corporations.

Dr Jason Hickel posted on Al Jazeera this Dec. 19,  2013

“Free trade”. The term itself is a trap – a brilliant framing device that neatly neutralizes opposition.

If you take a stand against free trade you appear to be taking a stand against freedom itself, which is clearly not a tenable position.

In fact, in recent decades the term “free trade” has become very closely associated with “democracy”, owing in no small part to the efforts of right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Business Roundtable, and the Cato Institute, which have built up a powerful PR campaign to establish this spurious connection in the minds of the public.

What does freedom really mean in this context?

It turns out that it has very little to do with meaningful human freedom, and rather a lot to do with corporate freedom – the freedom of corporations to extract and exploit without hindrance.

“Free trade” is an obvious propaganda term, a form of Orwellian doublethink that means exactly the opposite of what it claims.

If we take a look at existing free trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), we see that they focus primarily on battering down import barriers, curbing labour unions, reducing restrictions on pollution, legalizing capital flight, cutting corporate taxes, eliminating state subsidies for local industries, privatising public assets, and extending foreign patent protections.

None of these measures have to do with enhancing human freedom. Rather, they are designed in the interests of multinational corporations, who through them gain access to new export markets and investment opportunities, and cheaper labour and raw materials.

The disturbing thing about the rhetorical strategy of “free trade” is that the very things that do promote real human freedoms – such as the right of workers to organise, equal access to decent public services, and safeguards for a healthy environment – are cast as somehow anti-democratic, or even totalitarian.

These freedoms are reframed as “red tape”, as “market interventions”, or as “barriers to investment”, even when, as is almost always the case, they have been won by popular grassroots movements exercising democratic franchise.

A new global order

In this paradigm, democracy itself begins to appear as anti-democratic, inasmuch as it grants voters control over the economic policies that affect their lives. As this absurd logic moves steadily toward its ultimate conclusion, democracy becomes an obstacle that needs to be circumvented in the interests of “free” trade and investment.

If these deals come into effect, multinational corporations will be empowered to regulate democratic states, rather than the other way around.

This may sound extreme, but it is exactly what is happening today.

We can see it very clearly in two new “free trade” deals that are about to come into effect: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which will govern trade between the US and the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will govern trade between the US and a number of Pacific nations.

We hear very little about these deals because they are shrouded in secrecy, and because six of the corporations leading the negotiations happen to control 90 percent of our media. Yet, we need to pay attention, because these deals are set to form the blueprint for a new global order.

The TTIP and the TPP go far beyond earlier trade deals like NAFTA, which seem almost quaint by comparison.

In addition to battering down import tariffs and privatising public services, they grant corporations the power to strike down the laws of sovereign nations. You read that right.

If these deals come into effect, multinational corporations will be empowered to regulate democratic states, rather than the other way around. This is the most far-reaching assault on the ideas of sovereignty and democracy that has ever been attempted in history. And it is being conducted under the banner of “freedom”.

We only know about this because of a few intrepid whistleblowers who have leaked draft chapters of the TPP to the public.

The leaked chapters show that corporations will seize the power to sue governments for implementing policies that threaten to reduce their potential profits. The mechanism that facilitates this is known as “investor-state dispute settlement“, which sets up private tribunals to adjudicate between corporations and states. The hearings of these tribunals will be held in secret, the judges will be corporate lawyers, and there will be no right of appeal.

An assault on democracy

In other words, elected politicians around the world will find themselves stripped of power to defend the interests of their people and the planet against disasters such as economic crisis and climate change.

Let’s imagine that Malaysian voters elect politicians who promise to roll out new worker safety standards for garment sweatshops, or new limits on the toxic chemical dyes that sweatshops dump into local rivers.

Let’s imagine that these new rules are ratified by the national parliament with unanimous support. If the multinational corporations that run those sweatshops – say, Nike or Primark – believe that their profits will be negatively affected, they will have the power to sue the government to stop the implementation of the new rules, subverting the will of the people and overriding the power of their elected representatives.

Investor-state dispute settlement tribunals are already in use, so we know how they work.

In El Salvador, citizens recently voted to ban a gold mine planned by Pacific Rim, a Canadian corporation, because it threatened to destroy part of the national river system. Pacific Rim is now suing El Salvador for $315m worth of lost potential profits.

In Canada, Dow Agrosciences, a US corporation, is suing the government for banning the use of its pesticides on the basis that they may cause cancer in humans.

In Britain, presuming the TTIP goes ahead, US healthcare corporations are set to sue the government if it tries to prevent them from buying up the NHS, something British voters are overwhelmingly against.

In addition to allowing corporations to sue states, these new trade deals will pre-emptively prevent states from making certain laws.

For example, they will make it illegal for governments to stop commercial banks from engaging in securities trading, which was one of the main causes of the global financial crisis.

The deals will also prevent governments from limiting the size of too-big-to-fail banks, and will prohibit the proposed Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions. And, perhaps most worryingly of all, they will restrict governments from limiting the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

In other words, elected politicians around the world will find themselves stripped of power to defend the interests of their people and the planet against disasters such as economic crisis and climate change.

This unprecedented corporate power-grab amounts to something like an international coup d’etat.

It dispenses with the idea of national sovereignty, and pours scorn on the notion of elected government. The ideology of “free trade” has now overplayed its hand; it has exposed itself as a farce.

With democracy about to be sacrificed on the altar of free trade, it has become abundantly clear that free trade was never meant to be about freedom in the first place.

Note 1: Dr Jason Hickel lectures at the London School of Economics and serves as an adviser to /The Rules. He has contributed political critique and analysis to various magazines. He is currently working on a new book titled The Development Delusion: Why Aid Misses the Point about Poverty. 

Note 2:  Of bats and capitalism


The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.




June 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,230 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 770 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: