Europe’s values must not die at her borders

Two MEPs discuss ethical business policy

The EU cannot, in the name of trade, turn a blind eye to human rights and ethical abuses in countries such as China, says Jana Hyb�ov�p>

The European Union is based on common values - respect for human rights, dignity and minority rights, the rule of law, freedom, democracy and equality. Its society treasures pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and gender equality.

These values have the same, if not higher, importance as the four single market freedoms - free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. The latter values should logically follow and strengthen the former. In the same vein, the same values should govern both the internal market and external trade.

The projection of the EU's common values beyond its territory is also among the principal goals of EU external relations and its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

European ethics should mean the recognition and full application of these values in Union policies including the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the single market, EU external trade and relation. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The EU's CAP seems to be openly exempted from some of the shared values, particularly solidarity towards agricultural producers in developing countries. To add fuel to the fire, Tony Blair, the British prime minster, has been touring the capitals of new EU member countries asking them to give up some of the solidarity they have received from the richer part of EU and accept cuts in regional development spending - the structural funds. This is done without cutting the controversial and discriminatory CAP.

At the same time, Tony Blair will be trying to tell sugar producers from the African, Caribbean and Pacific bloc in a meeting in Hong Kong that our democracy based on ethical standards will not be in a position to make our agricultural policy more favourable towards them in the near future, at least not until 2013. The very same message will come from the US side. The only consolation the EU can offer is that its policy is at least democratic, since 62% of Americans and 68% of Europeans support current CAP subsidies and support only a very gradual change.

As a result, our ethical behaviour sends the signal that some farmers are more equal than others, that our solidarity has limits, and that our democratic principles are not applied equally to all.

Based on the same ethics, a deal was struck last week between the French and the Chinese governments to sell 150 Airbuses and an assemblage line to China. A part of the deal is France's support for the lifting of the arms embargo imposed on China for serious human rights violations. Calling the embargo an "anomaly", the French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, loudly confirmed that EU values, namely respect for human rights, non-discrimination, tolerance, equality and human dignity in China are obsolete issues with little practical relevance to current politics. His position is seconded by the European Commission and the EU's High Representative for foreign policy, Javier Solana.

Yet the situation in China in these issue is still very unsatisfactory even more than 15 years after the tragic events on Tiananmen Square, which triggered the embargo. A number of dissident students detained on Tiananmen Square are still imprisoned, their rights and freedom violated. Political prisoners abound in China and undergo inhuman treatment and torture as confirmed last week by the UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak. The situation of millions of Chinese workers has been widely described as appalling.

Therefore, based on our common EU ethics governing both our internal market and external relations, including trade, the positions of France, the Commission and Solana weaken this ethics in exchange for business gains from China. By doing so, the EU risks slipping irremediably towards double standards and pragmatism at all costs. This risk is particularly high now after the rejection of the EU constitution and the need for Europe to appeal to its citizens.

But no matter how tempting it might be for Europe to inject a much needed dynamism to its stagnant economy through deals with richer, but still dictatorial, oppressive and human-rights-violating China, the political price is unacceptable for those of us who wish for a new Europe, true to its ethical discourse both internally and externally.

• Czech MEP Jana Hyb�ov�its on the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee as a member of the centre-right EPP-ED group.

The EU must find a way to nurture the fair trade movement as a means to a development-oriented trade policy, says Frithjof Schmidt

What does ethical commerce mean? Is it about rendering certain trade sectors more ethical, or is it an overarching principle to be applied to the international trading system? Does ethical imply environmental standards or social standards? And where does fair trade fit in?

Ethical commerce is not easy to define, but as a matter of fact, consumers' penchant for ethical purchasing is tangibly growing. People are increasingly aware that the international trading system is not conducive to sustainable development and hence does not merit the label ethical.

The EU falls short of providing meaningful support for ethical commerce. So far, there is not even a European policy on fair trade, the most advanced, experienced and comprehensive approach to ethical commerce, which sets the benchmarks for any other scheme. Try to speak to a fair trade administrator in the European Commission and you will find - despite repeated proposals made by myself and colleagues - no desk officer, let alone a unit for fair trade has been established.

Both the Commission and the European Parliament have repeatedly acknowledged fair trade's contribution to sustainable development and poverty reduction - but not much has actually been done. Fair trade ensures producers a living wage - a common sense approach, one would think. Fair traders also help their partners in the South to comply with European standards, to get better market access, to protect the environment, to receive affordable credits and capacity building. It is an embedded approach, taking into account the particularities and intricate needs of diverse communities. In Europe, the fair trade movement has been instrumental in sensitising the public and building up consumer pressure on coffee and banana companies to stop using forced and child labour and to look into their own business practices. As Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson put it rather nicely: "Not every consumer looks at the supermarket shelf and wonders which coffee will do most to make the world a b!

etter place. But if today some do, I don't think it an exaggeration to say that it's largely thanks to the private initiative of the fair trade movement."

And the EU policy on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), addressing the unethical commercial practices of companies? Years have been spent discussing in multi-stakeholder fora, but the long awaited communication is still not out. The task is too important to be left to businesses alone; trade unions, non-governmental organisations, parliaments as well as progressive businesses that operate already in a responsible manner need to be involved more consistently.

The EU should seriously promote and support fair trade and CSR, but even more importantly, the EU must make every effort to turn the international trading system into a tool for sustainable development.

The first step would be to tackle the commodity crisis, which causes unfair prices and worsens the conditions of production as well as the environment. Accordingly, commodity initiatives such as the recent Arusha declaration of the African Union, asking for tariff protection, supply side management and international co-ordination to be discussed at the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, need the unequivocal support of the EU.

Secondly, the EU trade negotiating strategy with respect to the WTO and bilateral accords such as the Economic Partnership Agreements is in dire need of recalibration, away from pressure to liberalise sensitive economic sectors prematurely, towards restoring sufficient policy space for developing countries - for them to be able to conceive clever development strategies, aligned to national or regional needs. After all, Europe itself would most likely not have been able to develop a social market economy under current WTO-plus-International Monetary Fund/World Bank conditions.

Fair trade is actually happening and crucial for global justice. The EU can provide practical support for fair trade initiatives in the north and their partners in the south. The ultimate goal however can only be trade justice. Here, the EU has a long way to go to translate lip-service into a development-oriented trade policy.

German MEP Frithjof Schmidt is co-ordinator of the Green/European Free Alliance group on the development committee and a substitute member of the international trade committee.

Two MEPs discuss ethical business policy, particularly in the context of international trade policy. Article forms part of a special report on 'Ethical commerce'.

• Primary Source