How Does the Philippine Left See Europe?

The Philippines stand out in Asia as one of the countries with the strongest and most militant Left, ranging from revolutionary communist parties to strong social democratic currents and combative trade unions.

To get a better understanding of how the Philippine Left views relations with and developments in Europe, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Liliane Danso-Dahmen spoke with Philippine labour organizer Josua Mata about how progressive actions in the country view Europe and what potentials they see for cooperation in the future.

Josua, what are your general ideas about the European Union as an institution? What would you criticize? What would need reform for the EU to be a progressive political actor?

That’s a big question. We would probably need an entire week to discuss it. My short response is that we’d like to see a European Union that is more democratic. I don’t see the EU as a real democratic institution. I see it as an effort for countries to band together, but it’s run mainly in the interest of the capitalist class. I think the European Parliament being very progressive, taking very progressive positions in many cases. But the European Council doesn’t even listen to the parliament, so in that sense, that’s one of the biggest problems I see in the EU.

Which part of this large organization do you think should be reformed first?

From the perspective of someone looking at the EU from the Global South, I believe that if you want to build more democratic mechanisms in Europe, it is pretty important that the European Parliament has some political power over decision-making processes. Many of the decisions are taken by a few executives, such as the European Commission and the European Council. I would like to see European parliamentarians having a clear say over how the EU should do things.

For example, at the height of the Duterte administration’s atrocious war on drugs, the European Parliament came out very strongly in support of human rights in the Philippines. And yet none of those resolutions made a dent -in the attitude and policy-making of the European Council. They just suspended the free trade agreement, but then continued tiptoeing around Duterte out of diplomatic concerns. They kept tiptoeing and continued providing us with GSP+ benefits, completely ignoring the fact that the + in GSP+ stands for human rights, and there was practically no respect for human rights under Duterte. And yet, we continue to enjoy GSP+ even today.

Could you briefly tell us what GSP+ stands for?

GSP+ is an EU trade policy that basically grants zero tariffs on the products of many developing countries like the Philippines. The ”+” in GSP+ is something that we support because it mandates that all countries benefiting from the programme must adhere to several conventions, including the ILO conventions.

If you want to build more democratic mechanisms in Europe, it is pretty important that the European Parliament has some political power over decision-making processes.

Clearly, many of the human rights conventions that GSP+ monitors were flagrantly violated by Duterte, and yet none of it triggered a review of the Philippines’ GSP+ benefits. That makes us wonder: What is the purpose of the “+” if the EU does not pressure the Philippine government to ensure the implementation of the ILO conventions and the protection of human rights in our country? That’s really problematic.

I remember meeting with the GSP+ monitoring body, which comes to the Philippines periodically. We from SENTRO met with the monitoring body during the height of the war on drugs between 2016 and 2018, and we asked them precisely when they intended to review the Philippines’ GSP+ benefits? At that time, around 10,000 people had already been killed in the war on drugs. Do you know what the EU representative from that monitoring body said to us? “Well, you know, the problem with the data is that some say it’s 2000 deaths, some say it’s 10,000 .You need to know how many deaths actually happened.” That was a horrendous response. How many deaths do you want before you even start reviewing the benefits?

Talks are once again underway to conclude a European free trade agreement with the Philippines. The European side claims that free trade agreements would improve environmental and social standards in the contracting partner countries. What is your opinion? Would perhaps at least this institution of the European Union be an advantage for organizations like SENTRO?

The FTA would essentially constrain our capacity to enforce domestic regulation. It would contain an extension of intellectual property rights to protect the interest of big pharmaceutical companies, many of which are from Europe, particularly from Germany. An FTA would have negative environmental and negative impacts on workers, particularly on jobs.

However, we are particularly concerned that the EU is restarting negotiations on a free trade agreement with a Philippine government under Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The policies and institutions that allowed the horrendous human rights violations under the previous administration are still in place. The fact that they’re starting to discuss a EU-Philippine FTA is evidence that the EU has fallen into the trap of believing that the Marcos administration is not to be blamed for the sins of the previous administration.

Now, that’s a bit problematic, because the Marcos administration has never done anything to roll back any of the policies that led to the war on drugs. It has not done anything to remove the institutions that paved the way for trade union and human rights violations, particularly the trade union repression. It sends a message that now, finally, the Philippines is okay. I think it’s a big mistake for the EU to start believing in the propaganda line of the Marcos administration.

What kind of changes need to be made?

We feel that the EU-GSP+ needs an effective mechanism for people from the countries who enjoy GSP+ benefits to lodge complaints. Civil society organizations, trade unions, and NGOs would need access to file complaints about violations of all the conventions the Philippines is obliged to adhere to under the GSP+ mechanism.

I hope that the Supply Chain Act of Germany and the other due diligence laws that are now being crafted in many European countries, as well as in the EU itself, will be robust enough to afford us in the developing countries meaningful access to address human rights violations, trade union rights violations, and file complaints.

However, that’s in the GSP+, not in the FTA. The Free Trade Agreement is a whole different animal. We will continue to be very concerned, because it will be negotiated secretly, without any meaningful participation from people who are supposed to be affected like us.

Let us talk a bit about the German Supply Chain Act, which is envisioned to be introduced at the European level. What is your perspective on this?

I think due diligence laws like the German supply chain law are steps in the right direction, but more as an opening, an opportunity if you like, for all of us to raise our concerns about the violations of transnational corporations, particularly those based in the EU and Germany.

Many people say that’s problematic because it doesn’t guarantee anything. Why would capitalism give any guarantees to workers? So why would you expect a capitalist instrument to actually guarantee workers’ rights? Capitalism will never guarantee workers’ rights. However, at the very least, due diligence laws present an opportunity to advance and protect our rights.

I hope that the Supply Chain Act of Germany and the other due diligence laws that are now being crafted in many European countries, as well as in the EU itself, will be robust enough to afford us in the developing countries meaningful access to address human rights violations, trade union rights violations, and file complaints.

How else could the European Union better listen to and support perspectives from the Global South?

Well I don’t have much to add about the European Union, but I do want to express my wish that the progressive movement in Europe, the trade union movement, the civil society movement, and the political parties would be able to strengthen themselves in order to deepen democracy in Europe. Because, honestly, the EU is in bad shape at this point. I think the only institutions that could strengthen democracy in your part of the world, you know, is the labour movement and the political progressive movement. We’re one with you in trying to build yourselves up to be much more powerful than we are today.

Edited by Marjohara S. Tucay.