Carolina Rudnick: “La situación de Chile es grave, no tiene criminalizado el trabajo forzado”

The United States has confirmed the implementation of a new tariff scheme for more than 60 countries, including Chile, arguing that they have not effectively implemented or enforced the ban on importing products made with forced labor. In the case of Chile, the new tariff reaches 12.5% ​​on a significant portion of imports. Regarding this, on #SinPretexto, we spoke with Carolina Rudnick, president and co-founder of Fundación Libera, who stated: “Beyond the moral motivations behind this tariff—because it’s no secret that it’s a trade decision—what the United States is actually investigating is whether the countries with which it has trade relations have a ban on importing products made with forced labor.” In that regard, she added that “the US conclusion is that Chile does not have a law of this nature, nor has it initiated any internal mechanisms, nor has it entered into agreements on the matter, which other countries have done… Chile’s situation is even more serious because it has not criminalized forced labor.” The lawyer, a graduate of the University of Concepción and a master's degree holder from the London School of Economics, recalled that in July of last year, her foundation submitted a request to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking them to include labor obligations that would criminalize forced labor and strengthen legislation in high-risk sectors. These negotiations, in light of the implementation of the new tariff, proved fruitless. “For decades, unions, organizations, and academia have denounced the existence of practices constituting forced labor in two key sectors: agriculture and salmon farming. These denunciations have led to ongoing lawsuits at the national and international levels, including before the USTR itself. And of course, this has always been accompanied by providing the relevant information to the State, but there has been no strengthening of labor oversight; quite the opposite,” she concluded.