Page 166 [166]
OCR
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 postcolonial 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.
