Risking trade ties with the EU

Government officials and the local shipping community heaved a collective sigh of relief when the European Union (EU) recently decided to continue recognizing Philippine-issued certificates for seafarers, citing the country’s “serious efforts” to elevate its standards for training and certification to meet the bloc’s requirements. Had that crucial recognition been withdrawn, Filipino seafarers would have been barred from applying for jobs on ships that bear the flag of any of the 27 member nations that make up the EU. That would have dealt a severe blow to the roughly 50,000 Filipino masters and officers already working on EU-flagged ships.

But while the government had been more than eager to address the EU’s grave concerns over the quality of local maritime education, it has so far failed to show the same ardor to champion basic human rights principles that are at the heart of the EU’s diplomatic relations. Human rights clauses are included in all EU agreements on trade or cooperation with non-EU countries. Such posture has put the Philippines in very real danger of losing one of the biggest privileges that it has been enjoying since 2014: Entry to the lucrative EU market of 6,270 of its export products—from fruits to meats, coconut oil, vacuum cleaners, and automotive parts—at zero duty, making them cheaper than those from most countries. The scheme ensures a stable product demand that, in turn, creates more jobs and stimulates economic activity in developing countries.

The risk was described in no uncertain terms by EU Special Representative for Human Rights Eamon Gilmore, who said the Philippines would have to meet a “higher bar” with “greater scrutiny” on human rights standards to continue to qualify for the Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+). Failing that, the country could lose this special incentive arrangement at the end of the year, Gilmore warned in an interview with the Inquirer during his working visit to the country in late March.

Of utmost concern to the EU as well as the United Nations Human Rights Council is the lack of official action to exact accountability for the brutal war on illegal drugs waged by former president Rodrigo Duterte when he took office in 2016. The casualty count in the bloody campaign ranges from 6,248 official figures, to 30,000 lives lost, according to nongovernment organizations. Regardless of the number, what is not in dispute is that there have been only three convictions so far. It’s a “really worrying aspect,” Gilmore said. It’s “just not good enough by any standard,” he added.

The meager number of convictions puts in peril the renewal of the prized GSP+ arrangement currently extended to just eight countries, with the Philippines the only country to qualify in Southeast Asia. According to the Department of Trade and Industry, the Philippines has 2.03 billion euros ($2.21 billion) worth of exports under the GSP+ scheme as of 2021, accounting for a 26-percent share of GSP+ exports to total exports. Terminating the privilege is certainly within EU’s discretion, as this was granted on the condition that the Philippines meet conventions relative to human rights, good governance, and sustainable development. As noted by the European Parliament in February last year, the Philippines has been found wanting, which led the body to issue a resolution expressly calling for the temporary withdrawal of the GSP+ scheme, unless the Philippine government demonstrated “substantial improvement and willingness” to address the country’s dismal human rights situation.

While the killings have substantially abated since President Marcos assumed office in 2022, there has been no significant improvement in the country’s human rights record. Worse, the rhetoric of the Duterte administration lives on, with Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla blasting the International Criminal Court (ICC) for insisting on a full-blown investigation into possible crimes against humanity committed in the course of the widely condemned war on illegal drugs. It does not help that Mr. Marcos himself has said that the government was “essentially disengaging from any contact and communication” with the ICC after it rejected his administration’s appeal to suspend its probe. That move may be construed as flouting human rights principles, the basic precondition for the GSP+ privilege. Mr. Marcos would do well to demonstrate the Philippines’ compliance with trade conventions tied to fundamental human rights, as this will also strengthen the country’s position in the community of nations and its adherence to the rule of law, which we have been invoking to firm up our claim over the West Philippine Sea. Ignoring human rights, on the other hand, would risk our favored trade relations with the EU, the largest foreign investor in the Philippines and its fourth largest trading partner.

With the Philippine economy still recovering from the ravages of the pandemic and reeling from the escalating prices of basic goods and services, it’s a risk we can ill afford to take.