On the sidelines of attending “The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Focus on Eastern and South Eastern Europe,” an event organised last week at the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, Jean Lemierre, President of the EBRD spoke to Tejinder Singh (Tito) about the EBRD’s expanding role with a new policy to go further east and south in a changing world since its inception in 1991 when communism was crumbling in central and eastern Europe and ex-soviet countries needed support to nurture a new private sector in a democratic environment.
Q: With a “no-dividend” policy for 2006 although mentioning record profits, how strong is the EBRD position to expand its business?
A: The decision to put all of the profits for 2006 into reserves was fully consistent with the new strategy for the bank unveiled in May 2006 which foresees a shift in the bank’s activities further east and south and the assumption of greater risks. The bank needs these reserves in order to prepare for possible greater risks as we increasingly step up the pace of our investments, especially in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans. Business volume in 2006 was 4.9 billion Euro and we expect roughly the same magnitude of investment in 2007.
Q: What is your opinion on how best to use the profits?
A: The final decision on the use of the profits will ultimately be taken by our shareholders but the debate on how to allocate income started at our Annual Meeting in Kazan this year. This issue needs a thorough debate and the discussions will continue until our next Annual Meeting in Kiev in 2008. There are three options under consideration. In addition to adding further to reserves there will be the option of using funds to support the bank’s activities, in areas such as providing technical assistance, training, supporting nuclear decommissioning projects and also supporting the bank’s activities in promoting energy efficiency. And then there is the option of returning some of the profits to the shareholders. The shareholders will take this decision.
Q: You are extending your role to Balkans and the Commonwealth of Independent States. How far you ready to go in Mediterranean other than EU members?
A: An expansion outside of the current countries of operation is not under discussion.
Q: How soft are the EBRD loans and what kinds of activities are being financed?
A: Not soft at all. The EBRD does not provide soft loans. If it did it would be competing with the private sector which is precisely what the Bank does not do. The bank invests either with loans or with equity stakes, usually in projects where the commercial sector is either not prepared to go at all or not prepared to invest alone. By investing in such projects the EBRD provides what we call “additionality.” The projects are aimed at promoting the process of economic transition, whether by working to improve corporate governance, possibly by taking a seat on a company board, or by helping to develop management or to support efforts to cut energy costs via energy efficiency measures. The bank is active across all sectors. Development of a vibrant financial sector is particularly important to the development of a market economy overall. But we are also active in working on infrastructure projects to help remove the bottlenecks that are obstacles to economic development. And we support private sector industry, either by direct loans or by loans to banks which then act as intermediaries and lend on to micro and small and medium enterprises.
Q: How much does politics play a role in loan dispensing? Does EBRD give any consideration to human rights records of the countries?
A: Politics and human rights do play a role. This is stipulated in Article 1 of the bank’s founding treaty which says the Bank will foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in countries “committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.” Where this is an issue we restrict our activities largely to investments purely in the private sector. And we also use policy dialogue to help produce positive developments.
Q: What is your vision for EBRD in coming years?
A: The vision is to carry out our role in supporting the further transformation of the economies in the areas where we are active; To see more countries in Europe preparing the way to accession to the European Union and benefiting from that membership; To see other countries increasingly becoming an integral part of the global economy, by joining the World Trade Organisation and playing as an equal partner in the global economic arena; To see in oil and gas rich countries a greater diversification of the economy to build for a sustainable future.
The process of transition has been hard. The collapse of the previous system was a huge shock. The pain endured by many people was great. The vision is also to see all people in the region ultimately benefiting from this huge challenge.
Interview with: Jean Lemierre taken at the end of June 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 736
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
EU expresses `surprise` as US joins `Banana War`
Have patience, do not react and this too shall pass! The mantra advocated by many in the labyrinths of power in Brussels seems to have slipped badly as eleven years down the road the "Banana Wars" of late 90s are back knocking on the doors of the European Commission. The US, latest to join the fray at World Trade Organisation said in a statement, "The US request relates to the EU's apparent failure to implement the WTO rulings in a 1996 proceeding initiated by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and America."
Launching the formal step saying, "We are hopeful that this formal step will facilitate the removal of that discrimination," the US Trade Representative Susan C Schwab added, "We regret that efforts between the EU and its Latin American trading partners to negotiate a solution to the banana issue have not been successful. We share the concern of Ecuador and several other Latin American banana exporters regarding the continued existence of a discriminatory tariff rate quota in the EU's current banana regime."
The US statement pointed out that WTO ruling had said "the EU's regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against distributors of such bananas, including several US companies," adding "The EU was under an obligation to bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999."
After the 1996 WTO ruling, the EU had committed to bring its tariff-quota regime for banana in compliance with the ruling no later than January 1, 2006, said the US statement, lamenting the fact that "the EU banana regime put in place on January 1, 2006 features a zero-duty tariff quota that is allocated exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Bananas of Latin American origin do not have access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject, instead, to a 176 Euro/ton duty."
The European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel introduced a personal element of surprise to a more than decade old dispute last week.
Answering a question from New Europe about the new WTO banana dispute with US joining others, the Commissioner wondered why at the first place the US is interested in banana sector as it is not a banana producer but then she answered her own doubts with the mention of Chiquita as the possible cause for US to intervene. The Commissioner however added that the EU will look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US could not be contacted for their immediate reaction but European banana sector sources told New Europe that other US exporters including Del Monte and Dole are also affected adding that the European Commissioner has her facts correct that no bananas are grown in the US but in the trade circle of today's era of globalisation everyone is aware of the large farming interests of these leading world exporters globally especially in the Latin American region.
Coming back to the US request to WTO panel to review whether the EU banana import regime breaches the obligations of the international trade body, the EU this week in Geneva as a defending party may veto under WTO rules the request but the WTO will comply with the US request a month later unless the complaint is withdrawn.
The US is following the footsteps of Colombia and Panama which this year decided to follow the beaten track of Ecuador.
December 15, 2006 saw the first day of the proceedings at Geneva of revival of the "1990s banana wars" with the then-winner Ecuador coming back to haunt the European Union. Ecuador, the world's largest banana exporter, complained to the WTO against the EU's single tariff of 176 Euro that came into force on January 1, 2006, terming it "high."
Commenting on the decisions, Michael Mann, European commission spokesman for agriculture had said, "This is very regrettable. We had a consultation process going which we felt was making good progress."Over the past years negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations. Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.
Eurostat data of the first quarter 2007 compared to the same period 2005 made it clear how Latam share compared to ACP banana growing countries is slipping down the banana ladder. The imports of the latter are climbing double as fast as their counterparts in Latin America.The EU's current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free ( i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne.
On the other hand, an "autonomous" tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.Prior to the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) May 15, 2007, Spain threatened to veto the EU-ACP commitments unless its domestic producers were better protected from an expected rise in banana imports. The fallout was immediately visible when the GAERC endorsed the commission proposal to fully open European to imports from the ACP, with phased-in access for rice and sugar but the banana sector was shelved.
Debating in early December last year in the European Parliament on the need for an assistance to EU farmers, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Member of European Parliament argued, "The assistance provided for banana producers in the EU is necessary in order to compensate for the dysfunctions within the world trade system, in particular the current gap between the social and environmental standards of European countries and those of Central and Latin American countries. To be effective, these internal regulatory measures need to be in line with external regulatory tools by increasing budget allocations as and when any decrease in the customs tariff occurs."
The MEP was pointing to the fact that money coming in through import tariffs goes in to fill the coffers of EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) from where the money goes to EU farmers.Boel had said that the current system of handouts to banana farmers was hard to justify in world trade talks and that it needed to be brought in line with EU agricultural reforms in other sectors.
While bananas grown within the European bloc account for only 16 percent of the total EU supply, production is important to the Spain's Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal's Madeira and Azores islands.Europeans eat some 4.6 million tonnes of bananas every year, making the bloc the world's biggest banana market.
Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America and a further 17 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.To meet all these requests the only way out is to grant duty free quotas to all regions or countries but that seems difficult with the arrival of French President Nicolas Sarkozy for whom the big chunk of winning votes came from French farmers and traders. It may have been a coincidence that Sarkozy went for his post-victory yacht trip with Vincent Bolore whose companies are loading bananas for Europe in Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroun.
Written on July 9, 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 737
Launching the formal step saying, "We are hopeful that this formal step will facilitate the removal of that discrimination," the US Trade Representative Susan C Schwab added, "We regret that efforts between the EU and its Latin American trading partners to negotiate a solution to the banana issue have not been successful. We share the concern of Ecuador and several other Latin American banana exporters regarding the continued existence of a discriminatory tariff rate quota in the EU's current banana regime."
The US statement pointed out that WTO ruling had said "the EU's regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against distributors of such bananas, including several US companies," adding "The EU was under an obligation to bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999."
After the 1996 WTO ruling, the EU had committed to bring its tariff-quota regime for banana in compliance with the ruling no later than January 1, 2006, said the US statement, lamenting the fact that "the EU banana regime put in place on January 1, 2006 features a zero-duty tariff quota that is allocated exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Bananas of Latin American origin do not have access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject, instead, to a 176 Euro/ton duty."
The European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel introduced a personal element of surprise to a more than decade old dispute last week.
Answering a question from New Europe about the new WTO banana dispute with US joining others, the Commissioner wondered why at the first place the US is interested in banana sector as it is not a banana producer but then she answered her own doubts with the mention of Chiquita as the possible cause for US to intervene. The Commissioner however added that the EU will look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US could not be contacted for their immediate reaction but European banana sector sources told New Europe that other US exporters including Del Monte and Dole are also affected adding that the European Commissioner has her facts correct that no bananas are grown in the US but in the trade circle of today's era of globalisation everyone is aware of the large farming interests of these leading world exporters globally especially in the Latin American region.
Coming back to the US request to WTO panel to review whether the EU banana import regime breaches the obligations of the international trade body, the EU this week in Geneva as a defending party may veto under WTO rules the request but the WTO will comply with the US request a month later unless the complaint is withdrawn.
The US is following the footsteps of Colombia and Panama which this year decided to follow the beaten track of Ecuador.
December 15, 2006 saw the first day of the proceedings at Geneva of revival of the "1990s banana wars" with the then-winner Ecuador coming back to haunt the European Union. Ecuador, the world's largest banana exporter, complained to the WTO against the EU's single tariff of 176 Euro that came into force on January 1, 2006, terming it "high."
Commenting on the decisions, Michael Mann, European commission spokesman for agriculture had said, "This is very regrettable. We had a consultation process going which we felt was making good progress."Over the past years negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations. Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.
Eurostat data of the first quarter 2007 compared to the same period 2005 made it clear how Latam share compared to ACP banana growing countries is slipping down the banana ladder. The imports of the latter are climbing double as fast as their counterparts in Latin America.The EU's current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free ( i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne.
On the other hand, an "autonomous" tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.Prior to the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) May 15, 2007, Spain threatened to veto the EU-ACP commitments unless its domestic producers were better protected from an expected rise in banana imports. The fallout was immediately visible when the GAERC endorsed the commission proposal to fully open European to imports from the ACP, with phased-in access for rice and sugar but the banana sector was shelved.
Debating in early December last year in the European Parliament on the need for an assistance to EU farmers, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Member of European Parliament argued, "The assistance provided for banana producers in the EU is necessary in order to compensate for the dysfunctions within the world trade system, in particular the current gap between the social and environmental standards of European countries and those of Central and Latin American countries. To be effective, these internal regulatory measures need to be in line with external regulatory tools by increasing budget allocations as and when any decrease in the customs tariff occurs."
The MEP was pointing to the fact that money coming in through import tariffs goes in to fill the coffers of EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) from where the money goes to EU farmers.Boel had said that the current system of handouts to banana farmers was hard to justify in world trade talks and that it needed to be brought in line with EU agricultural reforms in other sectors.
While bananas grown within the European bloc account for only 16 percent of the total EU supply, production is important to the Spain's Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal's Madeira and Azores islands.Europeans eat some 4.6 million tonnes of bananas every year, making the bloc the world's biggest banana market.
Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America and a further 17 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.To meet all these requests the only way out is to grant duty free quotas to all regions or countries but that seems difficult with the arrival of French President Nicolas Sarkozy for whom the big chunk of winning votes came from French farmers and traders. It may have been a coincidence that Sarkozy went for his post-victory yacht trip with Vincent Bolore whose companies are loading bananas for Europe in Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroun.
Written on July 9, 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 737
Human trafficking: slavery
CoE Convention ushers in new era in legal protection
Thousands of human beings are trafficked across international borders each year with more than 80 percent being women and 70 percent forced into various forms of sexual servitude, according to top officials of the Council of Europe (CoE). The deputy secretary general of the CoE, Maud de Boer- Buquicchio last week told a high level conference on the monitoring mechanism of the Council of Europe “Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,” that “The scale of trafficking in human beings in Europe has long been underestimated.
National responses and sporadic international co-operation with a limited geographic scope are not enough to make a real difference in stopping this modern form of slavery, which very often ... involves children trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.”
Welcoming the recent ratification by Cyprus, Boer-Buquicchio said, “Two and a half years after the Convention was opened for signature on the occasion of the Third Summit of the Council of Europe Heads of State and Government, we have finally reached the threshold of 10 ratifications which are requited for the Convention to enter into force.” “... Europe will finally be able to use this important, ground-breaking and farreaching instrument to combat trafficking in human beings,” she added.
The Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings will enter into force on February 1, 2008, following its tenth ratification earlier this month. Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia have now ratified the convention, which has been signed by a further 27 countries.
The human rights organisations had put in their recommendations during the formative areas urging the Convention to include clear provisions to provide assistance and support to victims of trafficking, to prevent the prosecution of trafficked people for immigration offences, and to ensure that there are no safe havens for traffickers.
Jill Heine, Legal Adviser for Amnesty International, had said: “While European states have taken steps to criminalise trafficking and prosecute traffickers, it is widely recognised that they need to do more to protect the rights of trafficked persons. This is the time to seize the opportunity and establish the highest standards of protection for victims of trafficking.”
Mary Cunneen, Director of Anti-Slavery International, said: “In order to ensure that the protection of victims’ rights is at the heart of the new treaty, it must be strengthened so that it requires states to provide comprehensive protection and support, including support and assistance, and a minimum ‘reflection period’ of at least three months, to enable victims to begin to recover, and to receive help.”
Now, the Council of Europe is in the process of setting up the Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), an independent human rights monitoring mechanism. This quasi-judicial body will monitor the implementation of the Council’s convention on human trafficking.
Addressing the subject of the composition and working methods of GRETA at the high-level conference involving Council of Europe member states, observer countries, other international organisations (OSCE, United Nations and the European Commission) and NGOs (Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International) in Strasbourg, Deputy Secretary General said, “In our experience, proper monitoring is indispensable to the effectiveness credibility and impact of our legal instruments.”
Venla Roth, an expert from Helsinki University told New Europe, “Finland is the only country to have these laws in place. The law that came into force in August 2006 criminalises human trafficking leading to sexual exploitation, forced labour and removal of organs.”
Moreover, Finland since early 2007 has put into practice legal instruments to provide assistance to victims of trafficking by giving them residence permits and a reflection period, she said.Although Finland has a National Plan of Action since August 2005, the government has drafted a new National Plan of Action for further implementation to strengthen this fight against human trafficking, Roth added.
The main features of the new Convention include:
- Compulsory assistance measures and a recovery and reflection period of at least 30 days for the victims of trafficking
- The possibility to deliver residence permits to victims not only on the basis of cooperation with the law enforcement authorities, but also on humanitarian grounds
- The possibility to criminalise “the clients”
- A non-punishment clause for the victims of trafficking
- A strengthened international cooperation system and an independent monitoring mechanism, GRETA, which will monitor the proper implementation of the Convention by the Parties
The 27 member states which have signed but not yet ratified the convention are Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
Urging the member states to ratify, Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio said, “While we are all delighted that we have reached the ratification threshold of ten, it is also clear that the Convention will only have full impact when the scope of its geographic application is extended throughout Europe – and beyond.”
Talking of Europe she added, “The measures introduced by the Convention will be fully applied in EU member states only when the Convention is ratified also by the EU. I think an early ratification would be the best way to mark the recently-created EU Day against Human Trafficking.”
Trafficking in human beings is a worldwide phenomenon often linked to organised crime. It is a modern form of slavery, in which human beings are treated as a commodity for sexual exploitation or forced labour. According to the International Labour Organisation, up to 2.45 million people throughout the world are victims of human trafficking every year.The illicit profits of this trade amount to USD 33 billion annually, making it the third most profitable criminal activity after illegal drugs and arms trafficking.
Thousands of human beings are trafficked across international borders each year with more than 80 percent being women and 70 percent forced into various forms of sexual servitude, according to top officials of the Council of Europe (CoE). The deputy secretary general of the CoE, Maud de Boer- Buquicchio last week told a high level conference on the monitoring mechanism of the Council of Europe “Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,” that “The scale of trafficking in human beings in Europe has long been underestimated.
National responses and sporadic international co-operation with a limited geographic scope are not enough to make a real difference in stopping this modern form of slavery, which very often ... involves children trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.”
Welcoming the recent ratification by Cyprus, Boer-Buquicchio said, “Two and a half years after the Convention was opened for signature on the occasion of the Third Summit of the Council of Europe Heads of State and Government, we have finally reached the threshold of 10 ratifications which are requited for the Convention to enter into force.” “... Europe will finally be able to use this important, ground-breaking and farreaching instrument to combat trafficking in human beings,” she added.
The Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings will enter into force on February 1, 2008, following its tenth ratification earlier this month. Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia have now ratified the convention, which has been signed by a further 27 countries.
The human rights organisations had put in their recommendations during the formative areas urging the Convention to include clear provisions to provide assistance and support to victims of trafficking, to prevent the prosecution of trafficked people for immigration offences, and to ensure that there are no safe havens for traffickers.
Jill Heine, Legal Adviser for Amnesty International, had said: “While European states have taken steps to criminalise trafficking and prosecute traffickers, it is widely recognised that they need to do more to protect the rights of trafficked persons. This is the time to seize the opportunity and establish the highest standards of protection for victims of trafficking.”
Mary Cunneen, Director of Anti-Slavery International, said: “In order to ensure that the protection of victims’ rights is at the heart of the new treaty, it must be strengthened so that it requires states to provide comprehensive protection and support, including support and assistance, and a minimum ‘reflection period’ of at least three months, to enable victims to begin to recover, and to receive help.”
Now, the Council of Europe is in the process of setting up the Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), an independent human rights monitoring mechanism. This quasi-judicial body will monitor the implementation of the Council’s convention on human trafficking.
Addressing the subject of the composition and working methods of GRETA at the high-level conference involving Council of Europe member states, observer countries, other international organisations (OSCE, United Nations and the European Commission) and NGOs (Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International) in Strasbourg, Deputy Secretary General said, “In our experience, proper monitoring is indispensable to the effectiveness credibility and impact of our legal instruments.”
Venla Roth, an expert from Helsinki University told New Europe, “Finland is the only country to have these laws in place. The law that came into force in August 2006 criminalises human trafficking leading to sexual exploitation, forced labour and removal of organs.”
Moreover, Finland since early 2007 has put into practice legal instruments to provide assistance to victims of trafficking by giving them residence permits and a reflection period, she said.Although Finland has a National Plan of Action since August 2005, the government has drafted a new National Plan of Action for further implementation to strengthen this fight against human trafficking, Roth added.
The main features of the new Convention include:
- Compulsory assistance measures and a recovery and reflection period of at least 30 days for the victims of trafficking
- The possibility to deliver residence permits to victims not only on the basis of cooperation with the law enforcement authorities, but also on humanitarian grounds
- The possibility to criminalise “the clients”
- A non-punishment clause for the victims of trafficking
- A strengthened international cooperation system and an independent monitoring mechanism, GRETA, which will monitor the proper implementation of the Convention by the Parties
The 27 member states which have signed but not yet ratified the convention are Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
Urging the member states to ratify, Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio said, “While we are all delighted that we have reached the ratification threshold of ten, it is also clear that the Convention will only have full impact when the scope of its geographic application is extended throughout Europe – and beyond.”
Talking of Europe she added, “The measures introduced by the Convention will be fully applied in EU member states only when the Convention is ratified also by the EU. I think an early ratification would be the best way to mark the recently-created EU Day against Human Trafficking.”
Trafficking in human beings is a worldwide phenomenon often linked to organised crime. It is a modern form of slavery, in which human beings are treated as a commodity for sexual exploitation or forced labour. According to the International Labour Organisation, up to 2.45 million people throughout the world are victims of human trafficking every year.The illicit profits of this trade amount to USD 33 billion annually, making it the third most profitable criminal activity after illegal drugs and arms trafficking.
Ryanair sues EU over French aid
Ryanair knocked on the gates of the European Court of First Instance with a legal case against the European Commission, accusing it of not preventing alleged illegal French state aid for Air France.
“Ryanair... today (Thursday, November 8, 2007), (exactly 18 months after its original complaint), lodged a case in the European Court of First Instance against the European Commission’s failure to act on Ryanair’s complaint about one billion Euro worth of State to Air France in the form of unlawful reduced domestic airport charges in France,” Ryanair said in a statement.
Confirming the legal action, Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European Commissioner for transport, Jacques Barrot told New Europe, “The Commission is aware that Ryanair has launched an action under Article 232 for failure to act in connection will an allegation of state aid to Air France.” Ryanair added, “... (Ryanair) has called on the Commission several times to investigate this obvious abuse of EU competition rules, but the Commission has repeatedly failed to do so.”
Commenting on the subject, Cercone said, “The complaint is that by means of a differentiated system of airport charging in France where lower charges are imposed on operators flying routes inside France that the French authorities have favoured Air France.”
“While the Commission has not yet seen the content of the case lodged by Ryanair, it is confident that this action for failure to act will not be upheld. Ryanair’s complaint dates from May 8, 2006 (there was a supplementary submission on May 30, 2006).
“On receipt of the complaint the Commission services have taken action and have written to the French authorities to request information and clarifications on June 21, 2006, January 30, 2007, April 27, 2007 and June 28, 2007. Replies have been received on August 24, 2006, May 11, 2007 and August 29, 2007 and are being examined,” explained commission spokesman.
Announcing the launch of the latest proceedings Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s CEO, said in a statement: “This is just another example of the Commission’s unevenhanded application of the State aid rules. They apply one rule to flag carriers by ignoring blatant State aid to Air France, Alitalia, Olympic, Lufthansa among others, while at the same time wasting time and money investigating baseless complaints from flag carrier airlines against open market commercial deals at regional and secondary airports.
“The French Government’s operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France – almost all of which supports Air France – amounts to approximately one billion Euro of illegal State aid to the benefit of Air France, yet the Commission has refused to do anything about this for the last 18 months! The Commission has previously outlawed differentiated domestic/intra EU airport charges in Finland, Portugal, the UK and Ireland, so why should France be any different?” asked Ryanair’s CEO.
Getting into the technicality of the subject, Cercone, the European Commission spokesman said, “In this connection it is the intention of the Commission services to examine this complaint both under the combined provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and under the State aid rules. To this end the Commission has on October 23, 2007 issued a letter of formal notice under Article 226 to France concerning discriminatory charges levied at French airports. “The Commission is also examining any possible advantage given in the context of State aid investigation into airport charging systems in airports in France and inquiries in relation to one such airport are already at an advanced stage,” Cercone added.
The Ryanair CEO in his statement called for fair competition saying, “It appears that the Commission applies different rules for the high fare flag carrier airlines compared to low fares airlines. We are calling on the Commission to start promoting competition and stop protecting flag carrier airlines who continue to receive unlawful State aid.”
Dublin-based Ryanair is currently involved in a number of separate legal challenges. It is challenging a European Commission decision to block its bid for fellow Irish airline Aer Lingus, and is fighting planned flight cuts at Rome’s Ciampino airport. Ryanair is also challenging the French government’s demand that the airline applies French working practices for its staff working in France.
“Ryanair... today (Thursday, November 8, 2007), (exactly 18 months after its original complaint), lodged a case in the European Court of First Instance against the European Commission’s failure to act on Ryanair’s complaint about one billion Euro worth of State to Air France in the form of unlawful reduced domestic airport charges in France,” Ryanair said in a statement.
Confirming the legal action, Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European Commissioner for transport, Jacques Barrot told New Europe, “The Commission is aware that Ryanair has launched an action under Article 232 for failure to act in connection will an allegation of state aid to Air France.” Ryanair added, “... (Ryanair) has called on the Commission several times to investigate this obvious abuse of EU competition rules, but the Commission has repeatedly failed to do so.”
Commenting on the subject, Cercone said, “The complaint is that by means of a differentiated system of airport charging in France where lower charges are imposed on operators flying routes inside France that the French authorities have favoured Air France.”
“While the Commission has not yet seen the content of the case lodged by Ryanair, it is confident that this action for failure to act will not be upheld. Ryanair’s complaint dates from May 8, 2006 (there was a supplementary submission on May 30, 2006).
“On receipt of the complaint the Commission services have taken action and have written to the French authorities to request information and clarifications on June 21, 2006, January 30, 2007, April 27, 2007 and June 28, 2007. Replies have been received on August 24, 2006, May 11, 2007 and August 29, 2007 and are being examined,” explained commission spokesman.
Announcing the launch of the latest proceedings Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s CEO, said in a statement: “This is just another example of the Commission’s unevenhanded application of the State aid rules. They apply one rule to flag carriers by ignoring blatant State aid to Air France, Alitalia, Olympic, Lufthansa among others, while at the same time wasting time and money investigating baseless complaints from flag carrier airlines against open market commercial deals at regional and secondary airports.
“The French Government’s operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France – almost all of which supports Air France – amounts to approximately one billion Euro of illegal State aid to the benefit of Air France, yet the Commission has refused to do anything about this for the last 18 months! The Commission has previously outlawed differentiated domestic/intra EU airport charges in Finland, Portugal, the UK and Ireland, so why should France be any different?” asked Ryanair’s CEO.
Getting into the technicality of the subject, Cercone, the European Commission spokesman said, “In this connection it is the intention of the Commission services to examine this complaint both under the combined provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and under the State aid rules. To this end the Commission has on October 23, 2007 issued a letter of formal notice under Article 226 to France concerning discriminatory charges levied at French airports. “The Commission is also examining any possible advantage given in the context of State aid investigation into airport charging systems in airports in France and inquiries in relation to one such airport are already at an advanced stage,” Cercone added.
The Ryanair CEO in his statement called for fair competition saying, “It appears that the Commission applies different rules for the high fare flag carrier airlines compared to low fares airlines. We are calling on the Commission to start promoting competition and stop protecting flag carrier airlines who continue to receive unlawful State aid.”
Dublin-based Ryanair is currently involved in a number of separate legal challenges. It is challenging a European Commission decision to block its bid for fellow Irish airline Aer Lingus, and is fighting planned flight cuts at Rome’s Ciampino airport. Ryanair is also challenging the French government’s demand that the airline applies French working practices for its staff working in France.
Monday, November 12, 2007
EU-India dialogue continues
Journalists lament news lost in bureaucratic labyrinth
The European Union, boasting 27 member states and with more lined up to join, has a lot of similarities with India, a federal democracy with 28 states and seven union territories. India was one of the first countries to initiate diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1962 and cemented it further with bilateral agreements in 1973 and 1981.
With the ongoing expansion of the EU, the largest financial giant in the world, and the booming economy of India, a nation of over a billion people, there has been no slowdown in the European Union’s role as India’s foremost trading partner and largest foreign internal investor.
The two nations declared on September 7, 2005 at their sixth summit in New Delhi, that they would enhance their ongoing co-operation with the creation of a pragmatic EU–India strategic partnership. According to the European commission declaration, “The action plan covers a wide range of issues grouped under five main chapters:
1. Strengthening dialogue and consultation mechanisms
2. Political dialogue and cooperation
3. Bringing people and cultures together
4. Economic policy dialogue and cooperation5. Developing trade and investment”
In view of these ambitious goals and commitments, it has come as a surprise to Brussels-based journalists that there appears to be a translucent wall shielding information from the media with regard to visits and discussions between these two strategic partners, with the exception of an odd commission press release after the visit is over.
In the latest episode of this ongoing saga, Brussels-based journalists later learned of an official visit to Brussels by an Indian delegation led by Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel. This information came from a post-visit commission press release, with more details emerging from media reports out of Delhi after the minister’s return to the Indian capital.
Speaking to New Europe, concerned journalists confirmed their lack of any prior knowledge of the visit. There are numerous dialogues, including a bilateral trade agreement and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round consultations that are being discussed between the European Union and India, and those in the media are voicing concerns of an apparent lack of transparency and availability of information to journalists.
Moreover, it has yet to be explained why the Indian permanent mission to the EU stays tight-lipped about such visits. A recent informal survey of journalists interested in EUIndia relations found that none of the respondents had received any recent emails or other forms of communication from the Indian diplomatic quarters in Brussels regarding the visits or any other ongoing bilateral discussions.
It has been the standard procedure of the European Commission whenever there is a visiting foreign minister from another country, that there is usually a VIP corner (where the commissioner concerned and the visiting dignitaries give a few minutes to the Brussels press corps), if not a full press briefing. Yet somehow, we have yet to see such an opportunity in the recent past when an Indian minister or delegation is visiting.
It seems that the visiting Indian aviation minister did have a fruitful discussion and that an agreement to allow European airlines flying to India to offer multi-modal transport facilities to passengers and vice-versa for Indian air-carriers, may be in the making.
Moreover, the European Commission has been looking forward to acquiring an umbrella agreement for open skies with India, instead of the present bilateral agreements which India has with various EU member states.
Such an agreement will benefit passengers and the citizens of Europe and India. By keeping the press out of the loop, there has been a virtual blackout of these discussions and it seems the press will come to know only when such agreements are finalised and announced in a press release, buried among a plethora of other subjects. Clearly this method provides no opportunity for cross-examination of the pros and cons of the agreement, nor does it allow for discussion to fine tune the negotiations. But the talk of transparency and openness to the European citizens from the European Commission will continue as usual.
There is concern as to the process by which the VIP corners or full press briefings are arranged in the European Commission for the visiting dignitaries. Moreover, there is a consensus among many members of the media that the permanent Indian delegation to the European Union also shoulders some of the responsibility about this lack of availability of information.
On its website, the European Commission announces, “The relationship between India and Europe pre-dates history. Most of Europe owes its linguistic heritage to India — and much of its cultural base … This symbolises the relationship between India and the EU, at one and the same time very old, yet dynamic and entirely modern. Besides the political, economic and trade dialogues which tend to dominate the vision of EU–India cooperation, there is a strong supporting cultural and social interrelationship encompassing many sectors and levels of both societies.”
In view of this statement, there should be a free and frank flow of information to the press corps in Brussels in order to carry the message to the European and Indian citizens, and to strengthen the bonds between the two nations which have existed for centuries, as confirmed by the European commission.
The first ever EU-India Summit was held in 2000 in Lisbon, Portugal and seven years later Portugal again has the EU Presidency, and the opportunity to rekindle these ties, hopefully with much more transparency so that European and Indian citizens can better understand each other’s culture and points of view.
The European Union, boasting 27 member states and with more lined up to join, has a lot of similarities with India, a federal democracy with 28 states and seven union territories. India was one of the first countries to initiate diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1962 and cemented it further with bilateral agreements in 1973 and 1981.
With the ongoing expansion of the EU, the largest financial giant in the world, and the booming economy of India, a nation of over a billion people, there has been no slowdown in the European Union’s role as India’s foremost trading partner and largest foreign internal investor.
The two nations declared on September 7, 2005 at their sixth summit in New Delhi, that they would enhance their ongoing co-operation with the creation of a pragmatic EU–India strategic partnership. According to the European commission declaration, “The action plan covers a wide range of issues grouped under five main chapters:
1. Strengthening dialogue and consultation mechanisms
2. Political dialogue and cooperation
3. Bringing people and cultures together
4. Economic policy dialogue and cooperation5. Developing trade and investment”
In view of these ambitious goals and commitments, it has come as a surprise to Brussels-based journalists that there appears to be a translucent wall shielding information from the media with regard to visits and discussions between these two strategic partners, with the exception of an odd commission press release after the visit is over.
In the latest episode of this ongoing saga, Brussels-based journalists later learned of an official visit to Brussels by an Indian delegation led by Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel. This information came from a post-visit commission press release, with more details emerging from media reports out of Delhi after the minister’s return to the Indian capital.
Speaking to New Europe, concerned journalists confirmed their lack of any prior knowledge of the visit. There are numerous dialogues, including a bilateral trade agreement and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round consultations that are being discussed between the European Union and India, and those in the media are voicing concerns of an apparent lack of transparency and availability of information to journalists.
Moreover, it has yet to be explained why the Indian permanent mission to the EU stays tight-lipped about such visits. A recent informal survey of journalists interested in EUIndia relations found that none of the respondents had received any recent emails or other forms of communication from the Indian diplomatic quarters in Brussels regarding the visits or any other ongoing bilateral discussions.
It has been the standard procedure of the European Commission whenever there is a visiting foreign minister from another country, that there is usually a VIP corner (where the commissioner concerned and the visiting dignitaries give a few minutes to the Brussels press corps), if not a full press briefing. Yet somehow, we have yet to see such an opportunity in the recent past when an Indian minister or delegation is visiting.
It seems that the visiting Indian aviation minister did have a fruitful discussion and that an agreement to allow European airlines flying to India to offer multi-modal transport facilities to passengers and vice-versa for Indian air-carriers, may be in the making.
Moreover, the European Commission has been looking forward to acquiring an umbrella agreement for open skies with India, instead of the present bilateral agreements which India has with various EU member states.
Such an agreement will benefit passengers and the citizens of Europe and India. By keeping the press out of the loop, there has been a virtual blackout of these discussions and it seems the press will come to know only when such agreements are finalised and announced in a press release, buried among a plethora of other subjects. Clearly this method provides no opportunity for cross-examination of the pros and cons of the agreement, nor does it allow for discussion to fine tune the negotiations. But the talk of transparency and openness to the European citizens from the European Commission will continue as usual.
There is concern as to the process by which the VIP corners or full press briefings are arranged in the European Commission for the visiting dignitaries. Moreover, there is a consensus among many members of the media that the permanent Indian delegation to the European Union also shoulders some of the responsibility about this lack of availability of information.
On its website, the European Commission announces, “The relationship between India and Europe pre-dates history. Most of Europe owes its linguistic heritage to India — and much of its cultural base … This symbolises the relationship between India and the EU, at one and the same time very old, yet dynamic and entirely modern. Besides the political, economic and trade dialogues which tend to dominate the vision of EU–India cooperation, there is a strong supporting cultural and social interrelationship encompassing many sectors and levels of both societies.”
In view of this statement, there should be a free and frank flow of information to the press corps in Brussels in order to carry the message to the European and Indian citizens, and to strengthen the bonds between the two nations which have existed for centuries, as confirmed by the European commission.
The first ever EU-India Summit was held in 2000 in Lisbon, Portugal and seven years later Portugal again has the EU Presidency, and the opportunity to rekindle these ties, hopefully with much more transparency so that European and Indian citizens can better understand each other’s culture and points of view.
Musharraf gets flak
MEPs, NGOs join hands to lambaste curtailing of human rights
There was an outcry against the imposition of a state of emergency in Pakistan by President Pervez Musharraf as members of the European Parliament were joined by human rights NGOs to voice their strong condemnation at a public hearing on Bangladesh and Pakistan by the EP Human Rights Subcommittee.Reiterating the warning already given in an earlier EP resolution on October 25 against “the imposition of emergency rule,” the chair of the subcommittee, MEP Helene Flautre, described the situation in both countries as “worrying.”
MEP Jo Leinen described the unfolding events in Pakistan as “unacceptable” and asked “how can free and fair elections take place in an emergency situation?” a point underscored by MEP Laima Andrikiene. Accusing Musharraf of “destabilising Pakistan” while proclaiming “the notion that he was the single person” to hold the Taliban at bay, Brad Adam of Human Rights Watch argued “the EU should assess all programmes with Pakistan from top to bottom,” so as to send a political signal.
Although the key demand of most of the speakers boiled down to a complete cut-off in aid, there was a catch as senior European Commission official Helen Campbell pointed out that most of the aid going through NGOs is directed at education, health and poverty eradication programmes. There is, however a small percentage of aid going to the government and Campbell agreed, “Of course it is not business as usual” in EU relations with Pakistan.
A statement read out on behalf of Mohammed Tahseen of the Pakistan Coalition for Free and Fair Elections, who was unable to attend the hearing, criticised Musharraf’s actions, notably “pre-election rigging” and attacks on the judiciary and media.
Also on the agenda of the meeting was Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) – another Asian country reeling under a state of emergency. Adams brought to the notice of the audience the negligible restraining influence over the military which was ruling by proxy.
Moreover, Rosaline Costa of Hotline Human Rights Bangladesh listed violations of minority rights and the extrajudicial “crossfire” killings by the Rapid Action Battalion, an elite anti-crime squad.Costa urged the EU to press for the lifting of the state of emergency and the holding of free and fair elections.
Earlier, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had added his voice to international concerns over the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan.Even if the country was confronted by a difficult political situation, “deviation from the general democratic line cannot be the solution,” he said, calling for a return to regular law and order. Solana also called for the scheduled general election to go ahead next January, adding: “Abandoning the path to democracy is not the answer.”EU envoys in Pakistan also reiterated the call for holding of free and fair elections on schedule and said there must be a restoration of civilian rule, respect for the independence of the judiciary and freedom of the media.
The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) expressed concern at the ongoing grave situation with annihilation of free expression and brutal crackdown along with censorship.Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary outlined a protest programme in the coming weeks along with a proposed delegation visit to Pakistan.
There was an outcry against the imposition of a state of emergency in Pakistan by President Pervez Musharraf as members of the European Parliament were joined by human rights NGOs to voice their strong condemnation at a public hearing on Bangladesh and Pakistan by the EP Human Rights Subcommittee.Reiterating the warning already given in an earlier EP resolution on October 25 against “the imposition of emergency rule,” the chair of the subcommittee, MEP Helene Flautre, described the situation in both countries as “worrying.”
MEP Jo Leinen described the unfolding events in Pakistan as “unacceptable” and asked “how can free and fair elections take place in an emergency situation?” a point underscored by MEP Laima Andrikiene. Accusing Musharraf of “destabilising Pakistan” while proclaiming “the notion that he was the single person” to hold the Taliban at bay, Brad Adam of Human Rights Watch argued “the EU should assess all programmes with Pakistan from top to bottom,” so as to send a political signal.
Although the key demand of most of the speakers boiled down to a complete cut-off in aid, there was a catch as senior European Commission official Helen Campbell pointed out that most of the aid going through NGOs is directed at education, health and poverty eradication programmes. There is, however a small percentage of aid going to the government and Campbell agreed, “Of course it is not business as usual” in EU relations with Pakistan.
A statement read out on behalf of Mohammed Tahseen of the Pakistan Coalition for Free and Fair Elections, who was unable to attend the hearing, criticised Musharraf’s actions, notably “pre-election rigging” and attacks on the judiciary and media.
Also on the agenda of the meeting was Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) – another Asian country reeling under a state of emergency. Adams brought to the notice of the audience the negligible restraining influence over the military which was ruling by proxy.
Moreover, Rosaline Costa of Hotline Human Rights Bangladesh listed violations of minority rights and the extrajudicial “crossfire” killings by the Rapid Action Battalion, an elite anti-crime squad.Costa urged the EU to press for the lifting of the state of emergency and the holding of free and fair elections.
Earlier, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had added his voice to international concerns over the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan.Even if the country was confronted by a difficult political situation, “deviation from the general democratic line cannot be the solution,” he said, calling for a return to regular law and order. Solana also called for the scheduled general election to go ahead next January, adding: “Abandoning the path to democracy is not the answer.”EU envoys in Pakistan also reiterated the call for holding of free and fair elections on schedule and said there must be a restoration of civilian rule, respect for the independence of the judiciary and freedom of the media.
The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) expressed concern at the ongoing grave situation with annihilation of free expression and brutal crackdown along with censorship.Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary outlined a protest programme in the coming weeks along with a proposed delegation visit to Pakistan.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Parliament wants tighter grip on EU aid flow
The European Union, the toothless economic giant, pumps millions of Euro every year to Third World countries in the name of aid through different agencies, especially EuropeAid, but the question that keeps nagging concerned European citizens is how much of the European taxpayers’ money is put to good use. The translucent nature of operations is nowhere more visible than where they are needed the most: on the African continent.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, has been managing hundreds of millions in humanitarian and development aid but it seems it is yet to learn the importance of linking aid to accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights based on the local culture and civilisations.
European citizens are firm believers in respect for human rights, and, to appease them, there is always a lot of talk on the subject, but without access to potable water, basic foods and bare essential drugs, is it possible for the hungry suffering masses to visualise a rosy picture of democracy, human rights and power to people portrayed by the Commission? The answer is an emphatic no.
In recent times, the West has been claiming China has made big inroads into the African continent, forgetting that one of the oldest projects that Beijing did was the Tan-Zam Railway from Tanzania to Zambia. There is no doubt that China today is acting in the form of a hungry monster gourmandising on available raw materials and energy resources, and is bulldozing its way through Africa, intentionally ignoring the human rights records of regimes which are pariah to western aid for their dictatorial governance methods.
But we forget that we are expecting human rights evaluation from a single Communist-party ruled state which ruthlessly nips in the bud even any smell of dissenting voices in its domestic arena. This is the simple reason why Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Omar al-Beshir in Sudan are getting what they get from China. But the EU, the preacher of human values and upholders of democratic traditions, needs to get its act together and for that the European Parliament, the only democratically- and-directly elected European institution, has started doing the needful.
The Development Committee of the European parliament has had a legal right to scrutinise “the Country, Regional and Thematic strategy papers and Annual Action Plans” since this year. To be more accountable to European citizens - to whom the European Parliament is answerable - the Development Committee got the legal element, added to the political right of parliament, to control the EU executive, which is taken for granted as “God-given” in any functioning democracy.
According to committee sources, the EP has taken up the possibility to do this by organising into workgroups and systematically scrutinising the mentioned documents. This has already resulted in four resolutions in 2007 that have gone through plenary which indicate that the executive has overstepped its mandate.
Commenting on the subject, Maria Martens, Rapporteur of the Committee on Development said, “In my recent report on EUAfrika relations I strongly argue for more insight in and accountability of European development commitments. As parliament we must be able to control where and for what money is spent.”
Highlighting the lack of basic principles of accountability and transparency, Martens added, “On several occasions we have found that the Commission is using development money for other purposes than poverty alleviation. This is very worrying and makes the parliamentary control function even more necessary. My ambition is to do even better, and make sure that the development policies of the EU help more people more effectively.”
Moreover, there has been “serious concern” expressed by the parliament that the “governance profiles” developed by the Commission for each ACP country, which will guide programming for development assistance in relation to the 2.7 billion Euro additional funds under the 10th EDF, have been prepared without any participatory element. In this sphere again the parliament has asked “The Commission to consult and inform the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up and the implementation of these funds in order to make sure they are allocated to governance initiatives” and allied programmes.
There is hope, as the Development Committee is set to produce in 2008 an important report which will consist of the main political conclusions of the Committee regarding the Commission’s actions in development.One of the main concerns expressed by development pundits is that the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) is often used for other purposes than strictly for poverty reduction.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, has been managing hundreds of millions in humanitarian and development aid but it seems it is yet to learn the importance of linking aid to accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights based on the local culture and civilisations.
European citizens are firm believers in respect for human rights, and, to appease them, there is always a lot of talk on the subject, but without access to potable water, basic foods and bare essential drugs, is it possible for the hungry suffering masses to visualise a rosy picture of democracy, human rights and power to people portrayed by the Commission? The answer is an emphatic no.
In recent times, the West has been claiming China has made big inroads into the African continent, forgetting that one of the oldest projects that Beijing did was the Tan-Zam Railway from Tanzania to Zambia. There is no doubt that China today is acting in the form of a hungry monster gourmandising on available raw materials and energy resources, and is bulldozing its way through Africa, intentionally ignoring the human rights records of regimes which are pariah to western aid for their dictatorial governance methods.
But we forget that we are expecting human rights evaluation from a single Communist-party ruled state which ruthlessly nips in the bud even any smell of dissenting voices in its domestic arena. This is the simple reason why Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Omar al-Beshir in Sudan are getting what they get from China. But the EU, the preacher of human values and upholders of democratic traditions, needs to get its act together and for that the European Parliament, the only democratically- and-directly elected European institution, has started doing the needful.
The Development Committee of the European parliament has had a legal right to scrutinise “the Country, Regional and Thematic strategy papers and Annual Action Plans” since this year. To be more accountable to European citizens - to whom the European Parliament is answerable - the Development Committee got the legal element, added to the political right of parliament, to control the EU executive, which is taken for granted as “God-given” in any functioning democracy.
According to committee sources, the EP has taken up the possibility to do this by organising into workgroups and systematically scrutinising the mentioned documents. This has already resulted in four resolutions in 2007 that have gone through plenary which indicate that the executive has overstepped its mandate.
Commenting on the subject, Maria Martens, Rapporteur of the Committee on Development said, “In my recent report on EUAfrika relations I strongly argue for more insight in and accountability of European development commitments. As parliament we must be able to control where and for what money is spent.”
Highlighting the lack of basic principles of accountability and transparency, Martens added, “On several occasions we have found that the Commission is using development money for other purposes than poverty alleviation. This is very worrying and makes the parliamentary control function even more necessary. My ambition is to do even better, and make sure that the development policies of the EU help more people more effectively.”
Moreover, there has been “serious concern” expressed by the parliament that the “governance profiles” developed by the Commission for each ACP country, which will guide programming for development assistance in relation to the 2.7 billion Euro additional funds under the 10th EDF, have been prepared without any participatory element. In this sphere again the parliament has asked “The Commission to consult and inform the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up and the implementation of these funds in order to make sure they are allocated to governance initiatives” and allied programmes.
There is hope, as the Development Committee is set to produce in 2008 an important report which will consist of the main political conclusions of the Committee regarding the Commission’s actions in development.One of the main concerns expressed by development pundits is that the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) is often used for other purposes than strictly for poverty reduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
