EU 2013 Policy Priorities External Affairs and Trade
This report outlines the main policy proposals the EU institutions will be putting forward in the field of external affairs and trade policy throughout 2013. The report offers a brief overview of the stand points of the European Greens on these specific policies, and points to the national contexts where these policies are likely to stir most discussions. This report was researched and drafted by Benjamin Tannahill.
Overview Relevant Commissioners: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton; Commissioner for Trade Karel de Gucht; Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Füle. Relevant Committees: Foreign Affairs; European Commission – DG External Relations; Council of the European Union – General Affairs and External Relations; European External Action Service. Main Green actors in the European Parliament: Reinhard Buetikofer (Germany), Yannick Jadot (France), Ska Keller (Germany), Franziska Brantner (Germany), Ulrike Lunacek (Austria), Barbara Lochbilher (Germany).
Representing over 25% of global GDP and a fifth of global trade, with regional as well as global security and development interests and responsibilities, the European Union is an important political and economic player on the global stage. As the world’s biggest donor of humanitarian assistance, an increasingly active actor in conflict prevention as well as in environmental and economic conventions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or G-8/20 reforms, external policies are a key area of action for the EU. Since its creation in the 1950s, the European Union has developed links with the rest of the world through diplomatic relations, trade and cooperation agreements with individual countries or regions, financial and technical assistance. In 1993 the EU first developed its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) which allows for joint action on behalf of the Member States when the interests of the Union as a whole are at stake. Further to this, in 1999 the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) was developed which laid the groundwork for a potential common defence structure. As of 2009, the CFSP alongside other areas of the Union’s external representation have been taken over by the European External Action Service (EEAS), headed by the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – a position currently filled by the UK’s Catherine Ashton. The EEAS manages general foreign relations, security and defence policies but, although the EEAS can prepare initiatives, member states make the final policy decisions and the Commission also plays a part in technical implementation. The EU’s objectives with regard to external affairs and trade policy are to safeguard the common values and interests of the Union, preserve peace, develop respect for the rule of law, the spread of democracy and human rights and fundamental freedoms whilst creating a global system for fair and open trade. This paper will examine some of the key trade and external affairs priorities of the EU for 2013 and assess the Green response to these matters. First and foremost, this paper deals with the free trade agreement with the USA; the conflicts over investor- to- state dispute resolution mechanisms; trade conflicts with China over solar panel dumping; key EU enlargement affairs, and human rights issues in Russia, Syria and Egypt.
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
Key measures 1. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership In the 2010 Commission report Trade, Growth and World
Affairs: Trade Policy as a Core Component of the EU’s 2020 Strategy, it is clearly stated that the “over-riding aim of European economic policy is faster growth”. Trade is seen in this context as a key driver of this growth, as well as a key part of the EU’s external policies as a whole. The process for the development of Multilateral Free Trade Agreements (MFTAs) under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), most importantly the so- called Doha Round (which commenced in 2001), is widely seen as being beyond recovery following the collapse of negotiations in 2008 over irreconcilable differences. In the wake of the declining influence of the WTO on the global stage, bilateral negotiations have risen in importance and become the most effective way of promoting the trade interests of Member States, a development reflected in their recent proliferation. In this context, by July 2013 a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has already been negotiated and put into place with Peru; several FTAs have been negotiated but have not yet been put into place with Singapore, Columbia, Central American countries and the Ukraine (once political conditions are met)1. Negotiations are ongoing with the US, Japan, Canada, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Mercosur, and the Eastern Neighbourhood etc. Most important amongst these various developments is certainly the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) with the United States. The EU and the US together make up 40% of the world’s economic output2, making any potential agreement between them of considerable significance. The project was first mooted in early 2012, and in June of that year EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk in Washington DC chaired a "High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth" which finalised a report recommending the launch of negotiations of a comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States of America. In June 2013, the European Commission received a green light from the European Council to begin negotiating an agreement and Barack 1 2
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-282_en.htm http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=877
2
Obama and European leaders officially launched the “biggest bilateral trade deal in history”3 with the first round of negotiations set for the 8th of July, 2013. The purpose of the deal is to “realise the untapped potential of a truly transatlantic market place” in order to “generate new economic opportunities”. At the same time it seeks to strongly signal that, in times of “protectionist temptation” and the stalling of the Doha Development Agenda the world’s two largest economies remain committed to open markets. The deal will “encompass all the usual fields of trade policy”4, which in practice means the elimination, optimisation or standardisation of various tariff and nontariff barriers to trade and investment which will accelerate the emergence of a free transatlantic market. However, given that tariff barriers are actually quite low (imposing a cost of 3-4% on annual transatlantic trade [ECORYS 2009]) the real meat of the deal concerns the “behind the border” non- tariff measures and regulatory differences which are far more important impediments to trade flows. For example, if a product is made in France (a nice block of cheese, say) it goes through a series of regulatory hurdles before being allowed onto the marketplace; it then has to pass through another set of, often redundant, regulatory checks to be allowed into the US market. Under the TTIP, both sides could harmonise their systems and standards to allow for easier trading. The pros of the deal include the potential boost it could provide to the ailing economic growth rates on both sides of the Atlantic, which could also create more jobs (especially important in light of current unemployment rates). David Cameron has claimed that the deal would create two million extra jobs5. Furthermore, an agreement would strengthen the geopolitical standing of the Trans-Atlantic bloc against rising powers in Asia and Latin America. Potential disadvantages include the fact that, along the lines of the Doha Development Round, irreconcilable differences might arise with respect to key non-tariff barriers; e.g. the Europeans might not want to import hormone-treated beef and genetically modified corn from 3
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a785d93c-d73d-11e2-827900144feab7de.html#axzz2WYUdkhhE 4 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_ trade_001_transatlantic_partnership_with_us_en.pdf 5 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/g8-summit/g8summit-eu-and-us-trade-deal-could-produce-100bn-economicbonanza-says-cameron-29353716.html
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
3
the US and the Americans might be wary of bacteria from beef imported from Europe. If the final agreement turns out to be “full of holes” then the two most powerful trading blocs in the world would be setting “a bad example for other free trade areas”, according to Rolf Langhammer of the Institute for the World Economy in Kiel6. A further issue is that a deal could result in automatic discrimination against other states, essentially rerouting trade flows, rather than creating new ones. In contrast to the above-mentioned ‘pro’ of strengthening the Trans-Atlantic block, some commentators think that this effect could also result in Europe harming its economic relationship with emerging economies – potentially a poor economic choice at a time when the global economic tables are slowly turning.
their opposition (in this case) does not stem from a general (ideological) protectionism, nor a kneejerk rejection of free trade, per se. The Greens (as Ska Keller enunciated in a VoteWatch conference on the TTIP8) see free trade as a tool to achieve certain ends, not an end in and of itself. Accordingly the Greens would welcome higher joint standards in many areas, e.g. the solar industry, plugs and sockets, etc., provided that the outcomes are good for all stakeholders, and not just a selection thereof: fair trade is more important than free trade. Indeed, they see standards, norms and regulations as crucial in designing common ways of approaching the social and environmental challenges inherent in global trade. However, they fear that this agreement will lead to deterioration in standards rather than an improvement.
The different interests and priorities of EU Member States could also prove a barrier to the completion of a comprehensive deal. France, for example, has already managed to get audiovisual services excluded from the negotiation mandate in an attempt to keep movies and digital media off the negotiating table as a way of safeguarding their own film production from the influence of Hollywood. Now that France has won its battle other member states can be expected to raise their own concerns. Currently there seem to be two other main sticking points (although many smaller ones could be mentioned). The first is data privacy: MEPs from different political groups have said that revelations about US surveillance have strengthened their determination to maintain Europe's tougher data protection standards. The second is agriculture: the European Commission's mandate envisages safeguarding domestic industries threatened by a rise in imports, suggesting that some member states have already raised the issue at the European Council. However, EU trade commissioner Karel de Gucht has stated that he is “against carve-outs because I believe that when you aim at a comprehensive agreement it should be possible to discuss about everything”7. Given all these complications, the only thing that is clear is that negotiations will be long and tough—if a deal can be reached at all.
Indeed, it is noteworthy that, theoretically, the whole gamut of regulatory frameworks (encompassing environmental, social and health regulations) are up for modification, which represents a serious risk, should standards fall instead of rise. The question is: whose standards will prevail, those of the EU or the US (the latter being generally known for having lower environmental and social standards)? Compromises will inevitably have to be made and it would not be the first time that an FTA resulted in falling standards. The Greens call for the highest existing social, environmental and labour standards and, whilst the attainment of this goal is (theoretically) possible through such an agreement, there is, it seems, a greater likelihood that the opposite will occur. Such fears are further enhanced by the fact that one of the main stated justifications for this trade deal (namely, the reduction of trade tariffs) will, in practice, achieve little given how low current tariff levels are. Therefore, it is in the area of regulation standardisation that changes of real consequence will be made.
Green Response The Greens are very critical of the TTIP for a wide variety of reasons. The Greens themselves stress, however, that 6
http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/3404671-why-eushould-not-get-bed-us-over-trade 7 http://transatlanticalternatives.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/exe mpting-goods-from-u-s-deal-opposed-by-eu-trade-chief/
Furthermore, the Greens call the supposed benefits of this trade agreement into question. For example, the Commission predicts that the deal will be worth approximately €545 for each European household. The Greens question the providence of this (and similar) statistic on the basis that the calculations are never explained. Furthermore, free trade agreements in the past have often resulted in far less growth than is predicted in advance of their negotiation, or resulted in so-called ‘jobless growth’ – where the economy expands but no jobs are created. 8
VoteWatch Europe: Prospects for a EU- US Free Trade Agreement – 17/06/2013, European Policy Centre, Brussels
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
They also note some contradictions between ambitions in this policy area and those in others. Green MEP Ska Keller, for example, noted the conflict between current attempts to increase and improve regulation of the financial sector in the wake of the financial crisis, whilst the emphasis in the ongoing trade negotiations tends towards deregulation9. Bas Eickhout, a Green MEP from the Netherlands has emphasised that one of the main sticking points is simply the lack of debate surrounding the UE- EU trade negotiations. In their motion for a resolution on the topic they called for “the highest level of transparency”10 but, given the importance of these talks, it is surprising that the negotiations are being held behind closed doors—the Parliament does not even officially receive a copy of the Mandate guiding the negotiations (it was, however, leaked). In June 2013, the allegations (prompted by the release of confidential files by American whistleblower Edward Snowden) that the USA has been spying on its European colleagues, particularly Germany, has caused some speculation that the trade deal could be delayed or even pulled completely due to a lack of trust. The commissioner for justice and fundamental rights, Viviane Reding stated that: “partners do not spy on each other ... we cannot negotiate over a big transatlantic market if there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying activities on the offices of our negotiatiors”11. The Greens have called for talks to be delayed until the mandatory data protection standards have been guaranteed but this proposal was not adopted—a petition has since been launched on the matter at http://www.stop-us-negotiations.eu/. Ultimately, the Greens hold that this agreement could, theoretically, be an excellent trade agreement that could bring social, economic and environmental benefits for all concerned. However, they further hold that “any further integration of the global economy must be oriented towards a profound ecological conversion of our economic behaviour and the long- term sustainability of
9
VoteWatch Europe: Prospects for a EU- US Free Trade Agreement – 17/06/2013, European Policy Centre, Brussels 10
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bMOTION%2bB7-20130195%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN 11 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorismsecurity/2013/0701/Has-NSA-spying-put-US-EU-trade-deal-onthe-rocks
4
our economies”12 but are suspicious that the end result of this FTA will most likely be undesirable, from this perspective.
2. Investor-to-state Dispute Settlement As part of the various FTAs which are currently under negotiation, the European Commission wants to include and negotiate so-called investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms. These are not a specific piece of legislation but are rather procedures that allow foreign investors to ‘sue’ states which have put in place new legislation and/or regulation which could prevent them receiving maximum yield on their investments. This would allow companies investing in Europe to skirt around European courts and directly challenge EU governments at one of several international tribunals (e.g. the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes)—whenever they find that laws in the area of public health, environmental, labour or social protection interfere with their profits. The EU in principal supports such mechanisms but on the 8th of February, 2013, agreed new rules with the United Nations on making such procedures more transparent. EU trade commissioner Karel de Gucht’s spokesman John Clancy said that “the protection of investment and the availability of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms play a key role in attracting investors and encouraging economic growth. Having these new transparency rules in place will set a benchmark for all future EU investment treaties”13. Despite these new transparency measures, however, there is considerably conflict over the desirability of such mechanisms and their use is currently being debated in the trade agreements the EU is negotiating with the US, Canada, Singapore and India.
Green Response The Greens reject the inclusion of ISDSs in FTAs. In a move indicative of their general position, a motion for a resolution tabled by the Greens in March 2013 on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership they called on the Council “not to grant greater rights to US investors than to domestic investors, and to exclude the option of Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement from the negotiating mandate”14. There are several reasons for this. For example, at a conference organised by the 12
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION &reference=B7-2013-0195&language=EN 13 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=868 14 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
Green Group in the European Parliament 15, Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch noted that policymakers and legal scholars are increasingly questioning the basic concept of elevating an individual foreign firm or investor to the status of sovereign nations with the power to privately enforce a public treaty. Indeed, they ask why, in countries with well-functioning court systems, a parallel system of privatized justice would be necessary? Another reason is that such mechanisms can lead to lower environmental standards. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU presents particular problems from a Green perspective as it would grant energy companies farreaching rights to challenge bans and regulations of hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), a technology which the Greens staunchly oppose due to a multitude of environmental, economic, climate, health, and geographical reasons. “CETA will empower big oil and gas companies to challenge fracking bans and regulations through the back door. They would just need to have a subsidiary or an office in Canada”, warned Timothé Feodoroff, from the Transnational Institute16. The US company Lone Pine Resources Inc is already demanding $250 million in compensation from the Canadian government after the province of Quebec put a moratorium on fracking. EU member states also have experience with investor-state disputes undermining green energy and environmental protection policies. Germany is currently being sued by energy company Vattenfall because of the country’s exit from nuclear power. Vattenfall is seeking €3.7 billion in compensation for lost profits. The Greens also point to experiences elsewhere, such as in the US, which have shown how powerful interests from tobacco companies to corporate polluters have used ISDSs to challenge and undermine consumer and environmental protection.
3. Trade dispute with China on PV 2013 has also seen a resurgence of tension between the EU and China in matters of trade. Around 2008 disputes over textile imports led to several difficult weeks in EUSino relations and now this mood has (to a certain extent) returned, sparked by a conflict over the import of solar panels from China (which produces around 2/3 of the world’s solar arrays). The EU accuses China of ‘dumping’ its solar panels on the EU market, which consists of a 15
http://www.greens-efa.eu/transatlantic-trade-9822.html http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/eu-canadatrade-agreement-threatens-fracking-bans 16
5
company exporting a product to the EU at prices lower than the normal values of the product in its own domestic market – a practice condemned as unfair by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In line with the WTO AntiDumping Agreement if an investigation finds that the dumping is in fact taking place then anti-dumping measures can be imposed on the product in question. The impact of a glut in production and plunging prices for European solar firms was underscored in early July as German energy firm Conergy filed for insolvency17. In order to remedy this particular situation, in June 2013 the EU imposed an interim anti-dumping duty of 11.8 percent on imports of all Chinese solar panel products, including panels, cells and wafers in what has become the biggest anti-dumping case ever undertaken by the European Commission (Chinese PV panel imports to the EU represented €21bn in 2011)18. Thereafter the price of Chinese PV exceeded that of products from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan in the EU market. If both sides fail to come to an agreement by August 6th, the duty will be raised to an average of 47.6 percent – a level high enough to lock most Chinese players out of the EU market. The Commission justified these actions as “the level required to remove the harm caused by the dumping to the European industry”19. The decision was made unanimously by the European Commission but faces opposition from a number of Member States which fear it could spark a trade war, e.g. Germany—which is by far China’s largest EU trading partner. The solar industry itself was also largely sceptical of the measure. The initial reaction from China was not positive. For example, Beijing has (seemingly) retaliated by hiking up the tariffs on wine as well as imposing anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures on EU wine sales in the country. There are fears that such tit-for-tat protectionism could escalate and spread into other sectors if a deal is not brokered. Currently negotiations are still underway. In early July, however, officials from Europe and China said that, after more than two weeks of negotiations in Beijing, talks were going well and they aimed to agree a minimum price for Chinese importers above their production costs, although numbers are still fluid. 17
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/7/8/solarenergy/eu-and-china-close-solar-panel-deal 18 http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/top-news-ec-imposes-118-anti-dumping-duties-on-chinese-pvimports_100011582/#axzz2Xt7U9FOK 19 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-501_en.htm
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
Green response The Greens feel that the measures taken by the Commission to counter the dumping of Chinese PV panels were too little, too late. They were, however, better than nothing and went (at least part of the way) towards providing essential security for an industry (which provides some 25,000 jobs) that was under threat from unfair Chinese competition (they note that the price of Chinese panels should be 88% higher to classify as fair competition).
6
security policy and as the best method for conflict prevention in the world. They have previously warned Member States not to succumb to “enlargement fatigue” amid the continuing economic and political crises and to maintain negotiations and accession processes. Croatia and the Western Balkans
The Greens are particularly concerned with this issue as a strong industrial policy in the renewable energy sector is crucial for realising their vision of a 100% renewable energy-powered society by 2050. A flourishing solar industry will be a strong driver for the adoption of ambitious renewable energy goals at EU level and in Member States and it cannot, therefore, be undermined.
On the 1st of July Croatia became the 28th member of the European Union. The Greens welcome this development as it is hoped that the accession of Croatia could set an example to other Balkan states in discussions relating to their potential accession to the EU as well as contribute to stability in the region. In a motion for a resolution on the Commission Work Programme 2013, the Greens highlighted the importance of improving the accession process of the Western Balkans by making it more benchmark-driven, transparent, open and mutually accountable. They also urged the Commission to make fresh, convincing and genuine efforts in order to revitalise the enlargement process as well as to continue to prioritise in its enlargement policy conditions such as constructive political dialogue, consolidation of the rule of law, including ensuring the freedom of expression and the protection of minority rights, the effective fight against corruption and organised crime, enhancing the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, improving administrative capacities and track records in enforcing EU legislation, overcoming inter- ethnic and inter- religious tensions, and addressing of the situation of refugees and displaced persons as well as resolution of pending bilateral issues.
4. Enlargement
Eastern Partnership
The present enlargement agenda for the European Union regards the recent accession of Croatia and negotiations and/or informal talks with candidate countries Turkey and the countries of the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo). The criteria for membership in the EU include institutions that guarantee democracy, human rights, the rule of law, a market economy and adherence to the EU’s goals of political and economic union.
Also important in this context is the upcoming Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November. The Eastern Partnership is a forum for the discussion of strategic and economic deals and agreements between the EU and its eastern neighbours (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine) and this summit is set to be a major milestone in the EU’s relationship with those countries. Among the topics to be discussed in November are free trade agreements, visa liberalisation and cooperation agreements. Currently developments are a mixed bag; the 2012 Neighbourhood Policy stated that “in 2012, significant progress was made with the implementation of the Eastern Partnership (EaP), both on the bilateral and the multilateral track. Despite this achievement, in some partner countries limited progress in democratic reforms, respect for human rights and the
Yannick Jadot, a Green MEP from France, criticised the pressure China put on the EU and its member states. He further states that (with the “apparent complicity”20 of Germany in blocking the anti-dumping measures), China managed to create division among the Member States as well as among actors in the photovoltaic industry itself. He asked what kind of economic future Europe could expect for itself if it surrenders its right to fair competition to China, especially in an innovative, jobcreating industry which is set to expand over the next decades? A sovereign Europe, he went on, is the guarantor of strong and balanced relations with China.
The Greens hold enlargement to be in the interest of both the EU and the candidate countries, as they increase solidarity in Europe and allow the EU a stronger voice on the geopolitical stage. It also serves as a powerful 20
http://www.yannickjadot.fr/2013/06/04/photovoltaique-unrepit-bienvenu-pour-lindustrie-europeenne/
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
rule of law continued to pose a challenge for achieving the objective of political association and economic integration with the EU”21. The summit represents an opportunity to resolve some of these tensions. Foreign affairs spokesperson for the Greens, Werner Schulz, finds that “EU policy towards the East is at a crossroads. The upcoming summit in November in Vilnius is supposed to be a major breakthrough but might now instead signal the breakdown of the Eastern Partnership as such.22” He also called on the political elites of the partner countries in question to keep the Partnership afloat, but noted that ultimately it is up to them: the EU’s room for manoeuvre here is limited. He is not optimistic about developments in this area: "despite all the offers and efforts made over the last four years to align the six countries' standards and values with those of the EU, there have not yet been any tangible results. Thanks to the personal engagement of Commissioner Füle there are numerous creative initiatives in place that are aimed at easing internal crises in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. However the EU's room for manoeuvre remains limited since there is no political will or readiness for compromise within the political elites” 23. Turkey On the 28th of May, 2013, a wave of protests began, sparked by outrage at the eviction of a group of protestors from Gezi Park in Istanbul, who were trying to stop its planned demolition. Subsequently a range of parallel protests and strikes took place across Turkey due to a range of concerns such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The violence in Turkey and Prime Minister Erdogan’s less-than-diplomatic crackdown on protests have, however, raised questions in European institutions about the relative ‘European-ness’ of the country and whether or not accession talks should be frozen. After three years of silence at the negotiating table (seven years after commencement of accession talks) June saw Germany, backed by Austria and the Netherlands, block these talks, stating unequivocally that the recent violence in Turkey was not in line with their vision for human rights developments in the country. Talks will now not restart 21
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/docs/2013_enp_pack/2013_east ern_pship_regional_report_en.pdf 22 http://www.greens-efa.eu/neighbourhood-policy-9475.html 23 http://www.greens-efa.eu/neighbourhood-policy-9475.html
7
until at least October the 9th, when a report on reforms and human rights in Turkey will be published. However, despite some suggestions to the contrary, it seems unlikely that, given the importance of Turkey as a strategic partner (partly due to its geographical and political links with the Middle East), talks will be delayed on a longer-term or even permanent basis. In June 2013 the Green group in the Parliament tabled a motion for a resolution24 on the situation on Turkey, in which they expressed their support for the peaceful demonstrators and strongly condemned the excessive use of force employed by the Turkish police in response to the “peaceful and legitimate” protests. Relevant to the EU perspective they sought to remind Turkey that “freedom of expression and media pluralism are at the heart of European values and that a truly democratic, free and pluralistic society requires true freedom of expression”. However, in line with the Greens general approval of the enlargement of the EU (when and where appropriate and given the right conditions in the applicant country) they “demand[ed] that the Turkish Government not take the responsibility for the ongoing standstill in the negotiations and that it not miss the opportunity opened up by the Commission’s ‘positive agenda’ and by the Parliament’s request for the opening of [various negotiation] Chapters ..., which should give the negotiations a new dynamic”. On a wider note, Green MEP and co-chair of the EUTurkey joint parliamentary committee Hélène Flautre stated that the “original protests against the construction of Gezi Park were indicative of growing concern over excessive commercialisation, with little regard for social and environmental impact or public will”. Additionally, the Government’s reaction to the protests can be seen as “symptoms of wider problems within the political system in the country”25 which must be addressed.
5. Human Rights The European Union aims to play a major role globally in securing and maintaining human rights. The values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law are embedded in the founding treaty and are further reinforced by the the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, which was adopted in 2000 and strengthened again in 2009 when the Charter became legally binding with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. 24 25
http://www.greens-efa.eu/situation-in-turkey-10082.html http://www.greens-efa.eu/turkey-demonstrations-9972.html
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
Whilst EU activities in the sphere of human rights encompasses a very broad range of topics, the priorities of the EU in this regard roughly echo recent high-profile incidents across the globe; here, I will briefly review EU and Green positions on the situations in Russia, Syria and Egypt.
8
Syria The civil war in Syria, which began on 15 March 2011 had by June 2013, according to the United Nations, already claimed approximately 100,000 lives. Approximately four million Syrians have been displaced within the country and 1.5 million have fled to other countries.
Russia On the 19th May, 2013, the EU and the Russian Federation held their seventeenth round of human rights consultations in Brussels, during which the EU raised its growing concerns on developments affecting human rights in the region. The Union expressed particular concern at the wave of restrictive legislation aimed at the repression of civil society, particularly a law which requires NGOs which are active in politics and receive sponsorship from abroad to sign up as ‘foreign agents’ – a phrase used in the communist Soviet Union. The EU confirmed its intention to continue to closely follow developments affecting NGOs in the Federation. Already more than 600 organisations have been investigated and have been forced to publish all documentation from the last four years of their activities. Furthermore, the EU called on Russia to refrain from adopting federal legislation on criminalising “homosexual propaganda” out of fears that it could lead to an increase in discrimination and violence against the LGBT individuals – the was passed in June, however. Green MEP and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights in the EP Barbara Lochbihler, after a hearing in the EP (with members of the band Pussy Riot – the Russian punk-rock protest band), lamented the “alarming deterioration of the human rights situation in Russia after the retaking of office by Vladimir Putin”26. The Greens demand that the EU take a more active role, beyond its current “diplomatic” strategy. The Greens demand a clear change in the EU’s approach to Russian human rights behaviour and urges the EU to commit to clear messages and demands at government level and to active support of Russian civil society. They also assert that the release of all political prisoners must be the sine qua non of any closer cooperation with Russia. The next round of EU-Russian talks on human rights will take place in autumn, 2013.
26
http://www.greens-efa.eu/human-rights-in-russia-9923.html
In June, the European Commission and the High Representative adopted a joint communication, mapping out a comprehensive EU approach in response to the conflict and its consequences both in Syria and its neighbouring countries. The EU response aims to: support a political process that brings a sustainable solution to the crisis; prevent regional destabilisation from the spill-over of the conflict in neighbouring countries; address the dramatic humanitarian situation and assist affected populations; address the consequences of the conflict on and in the EU27. In a motion for a resolution on the question of Syria, the Greens have condemned the vetoing by China and Russia of the fresh Syrian sanctions at the UN, and have called on Russia to immediately halt all arms sales to the Syrian regime. Furthermore, they call on the Council and the Member States to continue to press for increased international pressure on the Syrian regime and call on the Member States to restrict their diplomatic ties with Syria and to expel Syrian Ambassadors from their territory. Egypt In November, 2012, hundreds of thousands of protestors started to demonstrate against Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi after he granted himself unlimited powers to “protect” the nation. Amidst continuing protests a military coup took place in July, ousting Morsi. In July 2013, MEPs adopted a resolution on the situation in Egypt. The Greens called for a UN peace conference to prevent bloodshed and guarantee an inclusive transition process. They are concerned about the current developments and the increased violence in Egypt and believe the international community should do more than just stand by and watch. They also stressed that military intervention can never be a solution to political differences and that Egypt should not reverse its democratic achievements by reverting to military dictatorship. Power should be transferred to 27
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-596_en.htm
EU 2013 Policy Priorities: External affairs and trade
democratically elected civilian authorities as soon as possible and in the meantime a civilian interim government composed of widely-respected, independent figures should be appointed to start a genuine and open national dialogue of reconciliation between all the components of the Egyptian society.
What’s missing? There are several points which the Greens would like to see included on the 2013 agenda for external affairs and trade which currently do not feature.
For more information >
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
>
European External Action Service: http://eeas.europa.eu/index_en.htm
>
DG Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
>
The Greens/EFA website: http://www.greens-efa.eu/%20%20
>
Green European Foundation: http://www.gef.eu
>
Video: Reinhard Bütikofer (MEP, Germany, Greens/EFA) on Green demands in the T-TIP
>
Campaign for stopping the TTIP: http://www.stop-us-negotiations.eu/en/
Extra-judicial killings (the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process) – especially with regard to the USA, which has been carrying out unsanctioned killings with unmanned aerial vehicles in, for example, Yemen and Pakistan.
More efficient security/defense mechanisms – the Greens wish to explore ways of obtaining more security with less military involvement via the controlled harmonisation of European armed forces, especially in tough economic times. Nuclear disarmament would also be a part of such a policy.
This text is the result of an original research carried out by Benjamin Tannahill for the Green European Foundation. Thanks go to Martin Köhler and Paolo Bergamaschi for their comments and advice. © Green European Foundation The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Green European Foundation. With support of the European Parliament. Green European Foundation asbl 1, rue du Fort Elisabeth 1463 Luxembourg . Brussels Office: 15 rue d’Arlon, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 234 65 70 - Fax: +32 2 234 65 79 E - mail: info@gef.eu - Web: www.gef.eu
9