EU’s courage put to the test over abuses of human rights

Date: 07/12/1995

WHILE the European Union is still battling to give its common foreign and security policy enough muscle to cope with situations such as the Bosnian conflict, there is one area where it has made significant progress since the Maastricht Treaty entered into force.

That is in the field of human rights, where the Union is playing an increasingly active role.

Human rights clauses are now an important part of EU agreements with third countries. But the conflict between trade and morals raises questions over whether the EU actually has the courage to invoke these clauses when the crunch comes.

That conflict was highlighted last month as the EU considered how to react to the execution in Nigeria of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other dissidents by the country's oppressive military regime. Nigeria became the third African country to be cut out of development aid through the EU's Lomé Convention. Sudan has been suspended from Lomé since 1990 due to the human rights violations during the country's civil war. Civil war in Somalia has prevented it from ratifying the current Lomé protocol. Both countries, however, continue to receive humanitarian aid.

The debate over how to ensure respect for human rights within the EU itself is also heating up, with member states asking the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to settle a long-running dispute over whether the Union as an organisation should ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights.

This issue is expected to feature high on the agenda for next year's Intergovernmental Conference, with both the Reflection Group and the European Parliament pressing for the treaty to include a list of human rights guaranteed to all EU citizens.

But as the Union manoeuvres itself into a position where it will have the instruments to become one of the world leaders in guarding and enforcing human rights, questions have arisen over whether it has the political will to use its new-found powers.

That question is closely linked to another, namely which EU institution should play the main role when it comes to suspending aid or trade agreements with countries guilty of serious breaches of human rights.

The EU's decision to break off links with Nigeria highlighted the on-going dispute between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission over which of them has the right to take action.

Several EU countries, led by the UK, protested when Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek announced the suspension of aid to Rwanda earlier this year without consulting member countries first.

A similar argument was avoided in the case of Nigeria, but only by using the phrase 'the European Union', without specifying who actually took the decision to act.

EU lawyers argue over the question of who can suspend aid to the ACP countries for alleged human rights abuses. The complexity of the question was highlighted in a note circulated by the legal service of the Council of Ministers last week.

One common rule of thumb is that the Commission has the right to suspend aid, while the broader question of suspending trade cooperation is left to government ministers.

But the situation is even more complex because the EU takes different approaches towards different countries - with tougher clauses on human rights and the possibility of suspension generally inserted into agreements with politically and economically weak countries.

As the EU has no formal list of human rights requirements of its own, it already refers to the Council of Europe's convention when dealing with non-EU states. The convention guarantees right to life, freedom of speech and a free trial, and it bans slavery, torture and the death penalty.

The link between human rights and aid was strengthened when the Lomé agreement with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) was revised, making it easier to suspend aid to members of the ACP bloc than to other countries.

But the wording is weaker in the Europe Agreements, struck with Eastern European states destined to become members of the Union. Such agreements describe “human rights, democracy and a market economy” as “essential elements in this relationship” and contain a clause allowing either side to “take the appropriate measures” if these conditions are not fulfilled.

When setting criteria for EU membership, the Union also uses Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) principles, which include free elections, independent political parties and civilian control over the military and police forces.

The OSCE demands respect for minorities, stable democracies and a functioning market economy - principles that the EU is trying to promote in the Central and Eastern Europe countries applying for membership of the Union.

In between comes a third group of human rights clauses used for countries with cooperation agreements with the EU, such as India or the countries of Northern Africa.

The new EU focus on human rights was prompted by the fall of the Berlin Wall, when it became apparent that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe would eventually seek membership of the Union.

The issue was raised when the EU started negotiating the first agreements with these countries and this eventually led to agreement on a Council of Ministers' resolution in November 1991, which stated for the first time that respect for human rights should be a decisive factor in agreements between the EU and third countries.

Prior to that, human rights were not really an issue, as highlighted by the proposed customs union with Turkey, which does not contain any reference to human rights because the agreement was drafted initially in the Sixties. But now the European Parliament, which is expected to vote on the customs union this month, is making it an issue.

While the EU now has the potential to act on human rights violations in close to 100 countries, there is still an on-going dispute between the member countries on how this new EU weapon should be used.

There are two schools of thought among diplomats. One camp argues for clear and usable procedures, while others prefer less powerful weapons and stress instead the importance of trying to resolve problems through dialogue first.

The EU has no formal schedule of measures it can take if a country abuses democratic or human rights principles, but considers what response to make on a case-by-case basis. Early reactions include reducing political contact by cancelling high-level visits and restricting entry visas for members of the country's government. That can be stepped up by recalling EU ambassadors to that country, and extending the visa restrictions to families of the government members.

In serious cases, the EU can consider arms embargoes and whole or partial trade sanctions. As we saw in Nigeria, sanctions are used with great care. Until now, the EU has only invoked its right of suspension in ACP countries, and has only wielded the weakest weapon at its disposal - the suspension of direct aid. Suspension of complete agreements has still not been attempted.

The focus is now turning to the former Soviet republics and Russia. As one EU diplomat put it: “What would the EU have done if the agreement with Russia had been in force when the Russian army entered into Chechnya?”