The resolution indeed addresses issues of double-standards and lack of coherence of the EU policy on Human rights with third countries.
«The EU is today the principal funder of development and an unavoidable trading partner. Installing Human rights as an « essential element » of this foreign policy was a first major achievement for us », said Sidiki Kaba, President of FIDH, «however the policy needs harmonisation and above all implementation. »
FIDH regrets that the EU adapts its language on Human rights with third countries depending on the size and the economic importance of the country, or the historical ties that member States have with that country... rather than on the scale of the human rights violations. This seriously harms the credibility and, hence, the effectiveness of the approach.
In that respect, FIDH proposes that the implementation of the 2001 Communication of the European Commission on « Human rights and democratisation in third countries [1]» be evaluated, and that the EU develop a body of core recommendations, which would be systematically addressed, for each of the third parties concerned. Such core body of recommendations could include, inter alia:
– The realisation of all the rights included in the Universal Declaration on Human rights, be they civil and political or economic, social and cultural;
– The commitment that the concern country ratifies all international and regional Human rights instruments, as well as their protocols;
– The commitment that the country cooperates fully with the UN Human rights mechanisms (Treaty bodies and Special Procedures);
– The reference to all recommendations addressed to the concerned country by the UN Human rights mechanisms.
FIDH recalls that the respect of such commitments and implementation of such policy are also binding to EU member States. Third countries are entitled to demand from their EU partners full implementation of the above.
Finally, FIDH calls for the clause to be considered as « essential elements » of all agreements: « The realisation of the right to food of the cotton producers, of the right to health of HIV infected people in Africa, of the right to education of the poorest of the poor are today clear and measureable objectives, that are directly affected by both global and sectoral trade policies », said M. Kaba, «we reiterate our call in favour of systematic human rights impact assessment of trade agreements».
Background information on the Human rights clauses
[2]
Since 1992, the agreements concluded between the EU and third states systematically include a provision stating that Human Rights and democracy are "essential elements" of those agreements. This provision links now the EU to more than 120 countries.
The human rights clause has the following consequence: one party to the agreement can take measures when the other party violates one essential element of the agreement; Human Rights and democracy being an essential element of the agreement, their violation by one party allows the other party to take measures under the agreement - which means to suspend partly or totally the implementation of the agreement. Today, the clause is largely a positive tool to encourage a greater respect for Human Rights and democratic principles in third countries. That positive interpretation complements the initial negative/repressive meaning of the human rights clause, but it does not replace it. As a consequence, in case of serious degradation of the situation in the field of human rights and democracy, sanctions should still be possible. If the conditions for an effective dialogue producing concrete positive results in the field of human rights are not gathered, the EU should outspokenly condemn violations and adopt negative measures. This approach was adopted by the European Commission, and is reflected in the Communication on Human Rights adopted by the European Commission on May 8, 2001 (para 3.1.1), and was endorsed by the Council (member states) on 25 June 2001.
Human rights Working groups
The agreements between the EU and third states generally foresee the possibility for the parties to establish a special working group in charge of the follow-up of a specific issue in the framework of the implementation of the agreement. FIDH has been advocating for the establishment of such working groups on human rights, in order to enable the parties to discuss much more in-depth the human rights issues and to identify the steps that might be decided in that field. Involving in those working groups not only officials but also interlocutors specialised in human rights on both sides would allow the parties to go beyond the mere declarations about human rights, and to really draw concrete programmes in that field.
Lack of coherence and harmonization of approaches
The use of the clauses and the more recent development of Human rights working groups has been inconsistent. FIDH raises a number of limitations, which are largely reflected by the European Parliament’s resolution:
– third states have been given the possibility to « negotiate » the issues on which they would accept negotiations and discussions and opt-out the consideration of individual cases.
– EU requirements on human rights differ from one country to the other.
– Civil society was scarcely consulted for the elaboration of the work plans, and not formally associated in roundtables with the third countries authorities, as recommended by FIDH.
– EU echoes considerations related to civil and political rights, rather than economic, social and cultural rights, which are nevertheless at the center of the development problematic of a large number of the concerned States.
– And finally, the evaluation of the dead-end to a discussion is not foreseen: the shift between the « positive » and the « negative » interpretations of the clauses, or the decision to adopt limited and targeted sanctions because of a grave breach of Human rights standards is not clearly spelt out, and left to a too vague political appreciation.