Page 166 [166]
164 | Zsolt Nagy, Zoltán Simon, Viktor Szép, and Tamás Dezső Ziegler
preferential towards some countries, it is not preferential from the perspective
of the whole international trade system at large.
Second, there exist several streams of left-wing criticism of free trade
agreements. One of them highlights that through trade regimes that connect
more and more countries, people lose control of their own country’s trade
system. The larger and the broader our trade regimes that we create grow,
the less democratic their functioning seems to be (Rodrik 1997; 2012). In
Europe, public support for the TTIP - and other international trade deals ¬
has proven to be very fragile and volatile in a number of countries (Ziegler
2016, 23), which mirrors a general legitimacy crisis of free trade policies
across the continent. It seems that the more we push for open trade, the less
citizens have influence on its terms, alienating many of them.
Outsourcing dispute resolution to special courts is also criticised from a
legitimacy-democracy perspective. To a certain degree, opposition to free
trade could be interpreted as the citizens’ voice to reclaim power and control
over an area of crucial importance which has direct effect on their lives. Free
trade is not beneficial for everyone, but trade regimes do not take this into
real consideration. Free trade does have the potential to harm domestic
producers, and the free movement of persons (social dumping) can harm
those who are in competition for employment. While limiting free trade is
not the only possible answer to these challenges, it is definitely one of them;
or otherwise, the losers of globalisation should be compensated.
Another stream of left-wing criticism is voiced from a more radical
perspective. According to József Böröcz, EU countries remain in a post¬
colonial state, where they combine violence (military action) with trade to
gain influence over third countries (Böröcz 2010). This is also present in the
Unions trade regime, which merges protectionism and free trade for the
sake of its own interests. In this approach, the EU functions as a major world
empire: it exploits third countries through trade policies, or slows down their
development for the sake of its own benefits.°
A still different track of left-wing criticism is presented by Noam Chomsky,
who claims that the market is not free as long as we only grant the opportunity
to companies to move freely, but not to private persons. This means that
while companies may move freely, peoples’ movement remains restricted. In
relation to third countries and the EU, following Chomsky’s logic would mean
abolishing the policies that make a difference between third country nationals
and EU citizens, except some of the citizens’ rights vis-a-vis their state.
> According to this approach, the international (trade) system was built in a way that grants
incentives for Western powers. As a result of colonisation, and later the EU, which aggregates
Member States’ GDP and influence in the world, European countries can balance China’s
and India’s role in world production. However, this balance will slowly but surely change.
Also, many theorists of world systems or dependency theory would highlight that trade
regimes in which a more developed and a less developed country or region get connected
are not necessarily beneficial for both sides, which is often ignored by drafters of trade deals.