[Reader-list] NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff Barrier to International Trade?

[Patrice Riemens]

No Apps for X-posting!
;-)



NGO advocacy activism: A new form of Non-Tariff Barrier to International 
Trade?


Pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bangalore, India, at 
the moment is a (criminal) case brought forward by the Indian textile firm 
"Fibre and Fabrics International" (FFI) against two Dutch advocay NGOs, 
Clean Clothes Campaign and the India Committee for the Netherlands (SKK 
and LIW, by their local acronyms)  and their respective Internet access 
providers, XS4ALL and Antenna. FFI is a fairly large enterprise engaged in 
garment manufacture for export operating as a sub-contractor to major 
international clothing labels, among them G-Star, an originally Dutch 
multinational. SKK and LIW had both relayed internationally the seriously 
distressing findings of local unions and civil society groups regarding 
the working conditions at FFI's manufacturing plants, and this after the 
firm had managed to silence their local critics by judicial means. FFI was 
not best pleased with the subsequent international attention this 
attracted, especially since it seems to have lost it important clients in 
the process.

Now eight Dutch citizens, staff persons and directors of the 
afore-mentioned organisations, are indicted and required to appear in 
person before court in India under a mendacious, but cleverly constructed 
'cascade' of counts, starting with libel and diffamation, escalating into 
racism/ xenophobia carried on by means of 'cybercrime', and culminating in 
an alleged "international criminal conspiracy". The latter indictment 
constitutes an extraditable offense in the sense of international 
agreements on judicial co-operation between democratic, 'rule of law' 
states. The acting judge in Bangalore now needs only to sign an 
international arrest warrant for the real risk of deportation and delivery 
of these eight accused into an Indian remand jail to become effective. 
Though the Dutch minister of justice still would have the last word, he 
has not yet shown any inclination to take a stand in the matter, as he 
seems to see this as a purely private dispute. (The Dutch foreign 
ministry meanwhile, perceives the whole affair as profoundly embarassing - 
for the buoyant Dutch-Indian trade relations. )

This slightly out-of-control evolution of what in itself would be a fairly 
routinous incident in to-day's fiercely competitive globalised economy, 
might be taken as emblematic for the predicament into which the ongoing 
trend to lower procurement costs, and outsource and delocalise industrial 
production has landed us. Over the past two decades, scandals about labour 
and human rights abuses in emergent economies have been legion, national 
and international organisations, NGOs and CSOs have been locked in fierce 
struggles with corporates and governments big and small, and some, if 
slow, progress has been made to alleviate at least the worst excesses of 
labour exploitation. Both at the local and at the international level, 
agreements, rules and (self-)regulations have seen the light, and are 
being increasingly enforced and/ or respected. Yet the present case, and 
the case with India in general, is slightly different - and none too 
hopeful.

For reasons both demographic and cultural, India, since the 
'liberalisation' of its economy in the early 90s, has embarked in a mode 
of development that may be best characterised as elitist, with its entry 
into globalisation aimed to be at the upper reach rather than at a 
wholesale level, starting from below - as is the case with China. Unable 
to achieve this goal in glamorous sectors such as IT alone, India has been 
satisfied to allow the - very substanbtial - contribution of the more 
generic manufacturing sector (eg textiles) to be of a nature one can only 
very charitably describe as 'traditional', although it is in fact 
entirely, and scandalously so, at variance with 21st century ethical, or 
even plainly economic standards. As there is very little likelyhood that 
this dispensation will be altered - with the political will, and power, to 
do so obviously lacking, and this again, as opposed to the situation in 
China - India and its manufacturing export industry now are constantly 
confronted with damning, and very damaging, socio-political criticism, 
both at home and abroad.

Today however, it would appear that the Indian authorities and (part of) 
the business community have embarked in response in a spirited, if 
probably desperate, rear-guard action to spite and harass their opponents. 
India's minister of commerce, Shri Kamal Nath, has let it known that 
criticism of the modus operandi of the Indian textile export industry 
amounts to 'hidden protectionism' by parties unhappy with India's 
competitive provess and resenting the consequent delocalisation of their 
own manufacturing base, theoretising a fresh form of NTBtIT (Non Tariff 
Barrier to International Trade in WTO-GATTese) in the same breath. He also 
let known his sentiment in none too diplomatic language to his 
counterparts in various countries harbouring pesky and in his view 
objectionable activist NGOs, and has now even called European trade 
commissionner Peter Mandelson to the rescue. His next step could be to 
take the dispute to the WTO itself, where one can only hope, but not 
entirely be sure of, that he will bring the house down in roars of 
laughter.However, in the meanwhile, the Indian government appears to be 
entirely supportive of the 'robust' judicial steps taken by firms such as 
FFI to safeguard their frayed reputation and interests.

Rear-guard actions being what they are, their ultimate failure should not 
distract from the considerable, and sometime fatal damage they may inflict 
in the short term, to individuals, organisations, and principle of 
fairness the upholding of basic human rights.  A perverse consequence, or 
as some would say, an intended effect, of increasing international 
judicial collaboration in the wake of the globalisation of trade, but also 
of crime, threats, and risks, is the opportunity to have annoying 
opponents or critics, first of governments, now apparently also of 
corporate interests, delivered into the hands of whatever 'rule of law' 
jurisdiction the powers that be deem appropriate to intimidate, harass, 
and possibly even eliminate them.

This should not be allowed to happen. 


Check out for background (from the accuseds point of view):
http://www.indianet.nl/ffie.html
http://www.cleanclothes.org/

also for the latest scandal involving the Indian textile industry:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2200590,00.html
Googling for 'labour ('child-'), 'India' and 'textile(s) (industry) will 
unearth a further wealt of recent information...


Patrice Riemens
Firenze, November 9, 2007.