EU ‘ignoring’ its human rights clause

Date: 18/03/04

SINCE 1992, all European Union agreements with outside countries have had clauses stating that respect for human rights is an "essential element" in the relationship between the two sides.

With cooperation accords signed with states in which repression is rife - such as Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe - it might come as a surprise, then, that the EU has never fully suspended such an agreement.

However, it has cut direct budgetary support to Zimbabwe in response to the intimidation of rivals to President Robert Mugabe, to Ivory Coast and Haiti because of electoral irregularities, to Fiji and Comoros because of coups and to Liberia due to its role in the civil war in neighbouring Sierra Leone.

In addition, the EU stalled on deepening relations with Russia in the 1990s because of its military actions in Chechnya, Croatia because of its failure to uphold democratic principles in the early years of its independence, Pakistan due to its nuclear tests in 1998 and military takeover the following year and Algeria because of internal unrest in the country in the late 1990s.

Responding to several recent questions from MEPs, External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten described the human rights clause as a "dynamic instrument through which the Union can advance human rights in a positive manner".

"The inclusion of an essential elements clause is not intended to signify a negative or punitive approach," Patten added. "It is, instead, meant to promote dialogue and positive measures, such as joint support for democracy and human rights, the accession, ratification and implementation of international human rights instruments where these are lacking, as well as the prevention of crises through the establishment of a consistent and long-term relationship."

Some analysts have a less sanguine attitude.

In a study on Uzbekistan published last week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) bemoaned the virtual absence of reform in the country since it signed a partnership and cooperation agreement with the EU in 1999, underpinning its relations with Brussels institutions on a variety of economic and political issues.

Noting, for example, that torture remains widespread in prisons "despite the government's rhetorical commitment to act against it", the ICG urges that the EU should study whether or not the agreement has had any real impact.

It also recommends that the Union should cease to fund projects with the parliament in Tashkent until independent candidates are allowed to contest elections.

Lotte Leicht, director of Human Rights Watch in Brussels, describes as "deeply disappointing" the way the EU has often not upheld the'essential elements' clause with sufficient vigour.

She considers all of the Union's main institutions to be culpable in this regard.

The Commission, she says, has not established benchmarks to judge whether particular countries are respecting human rights and has not ensured sufficient openness about dialogue on related issues.

The Council of Ministers, she continues, has not been sufficiently unified in pressing for greater respect for human rights.

And the Parliament has not held the other institutions accountable in a systematic way, she alleges, complaining that MEPs do not make enough demands for human rights to be raised at high-level political meetings between the EU and its 'partner countries'.

"The Parliament has a very ad hoc way of handling things," Leicht adds. "It is an elected watchdog. But there have been very few occasions in advance of Council meetings where human rights clauses have been part of the agenda, where the Parliament has said 'hey, we're concerned about this and that'."

In particular, she is dismayed with how the EU has not imposed sanctions against Israel in protest at the attacks by its troops against Palestinian civilians and the settlements it has built in the occupied territories.

Israel first had a cooperation accord with the Union in 1975. But this has since been upgraded to a so-called association agreement, which came into effect in 2000.

Although threats have been made by some European Union figures to impose sanctions on Israel for placing 'made in Israel' on goods originating from the occupied territories, these have not been carried out.

Back in 2001, the Commission published a detailed paper, outlining how the EU can promote human rights and democracy in the wider world.

Despite signs that not enough attention is being paid to this communication, Leicht believes its main points should not be re-evaluated.

"There is no need for more paper," she says. "What we really need, desperately, is for the EU institutions to start implementing all the things they set out to do."

Brussels institutions have been criticised for not upholding human rights when agreeing co-operation accords with non-European Union countries.

• Primary Source

Human Rights Watch: Homepage http://www.hrw.org/

---