A Little Less Conversation…

Civitas, 28 January 2011

Human Rights Watch World Report 2011 has slammed the EU for its overreliance on dialogue rather than action in tackling human rights abuse, and for its “obsequious” approach to known rights violators. Whilst there is no inherent harm in cooperative dialogue, the EU seems “particularly infatuated” with this discursive model.

This barrage of censure may seem surprising. Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, has promised a “zero tolerance” policy for member states violating the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, now directly enforceable by EU and national courts, and the EU appears to adopt a firm stance against potential human rights violation. Indeed, EU Digital Affairs Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, has given Hungary two weeks to respond to accusations that its controversial media law violates the “fundamental right of freedom of expression” and the proportionality principle enshrined in the Charter. If it fails to respond, the European Commission may initiate legal action.

Similarly, the EU has been relatively decisive in its reaction to the re-election of Alexander Lukashenko as President in Belarus, amidst vicious suppression of the opposition. A resolution drawn up by the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee urged the immediate release of all of the country’s political prisoners, and last week, the European Parliament issued a statement demanding new presidential elections.

Yet despite these seemingly encouraging steps, the EU’s commitment is incoherent. While EU ministers will discuss next Monday (31 January) whether to renew visa restrictions on key Belarusian officials, Poland has already announced its own unilateral ban. And although EU officials boycotted Lukashenko’s inauguration ceremony, this move is unlikely to intimidate “Europe’s last dictator”.

It is vital that the EU does not become complacent. Petr Miklashevich, Chair of the Belarusian Constitutional Court, has already denied that the EU can legally impose sanctions against the country, declaring that “the president, elected at free and democratic elections, is legitimate”.

The EU was even more taciturn in its reaction to Dick Marty’s report for the Council of Europe, examining the “mafia-like” network of organ harvesters, drugs and weapons smuggling perpetuated by the Kosovan premier, Hashim Thaci. Even though EULEX, the EU’s justice mission in Kosovo, has begun preparation for an investigation, the report specifically argues that the mission currently lacks sufficient capacity to tackle an operation of this magnitude, and accuses Western powers of long turning a blind eye to these crimes to maintain political stability.

HRW contends that part of this “reticence” is due to “a crisis of confidence”, engendered by the “shifting global balance of power”. This seems well substantiated, reflecting the paradox entrenched even in the EU’s most laudable actions. Indeed, in a move that has both stunned and dismayed, European Commission President, José Barroso, welcomed Uzbek President Islam Karimov to Brussels. It seems the EU has a short memory; in 2005, the Uzbek government sanctioned an appalling massacre in the city of Andijan.

So where lies the difference? Despite the Commission’s assertion that there was “absolutely no question of trading off one interest in exchange for the other”, Barroso has described the EU’s relationship with Uzbekistan as one of “critical, conditional and comprehensive engagement”.

Although the Commission President has insisted he has “raised all key concerns…notably regarding human rights” with the country’s leader, Karimov previously remained impervious to EU pressure for years. Having now reneged on sanctions, even though many key conditions remain incomplete, it is highly doubtful that the country will respond to future EU demands.

Kroes has yet to comment on the swingeing media restrictions in Uzbekistan, where many critical journalists have been imprisoned, and all foreign broadcasters are forbidden. Hungary is undoubtedly an easier target. Similarly, the EU does not have the tactical need to mollify Kosovo as it does Uzbekistan, and in any case the investigation could prove lengthy.

The EU’s approach – diffident, inconsistent, and conditioned on political context – increasingly grates against its professed commitment to human rights promotion. It will also undermine its more meritorious efforts; as HRW notes, “governments know there is nothing to fear from simply feigning serious participation”. Even the member state currently holding the six month European Council Presidency is demonstrating nascent resistance; Hungary’s offer to amend “paragraphs” of its media law is conditional on the government seeing “that some kind of political concerns seem justified during the application of the law”.

While dialogue has its place, a more robust, active approach, based on benchmarks and sanctions is essential. Speaking about the recent crackdown in Belarus, Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, announced to the European Parliament: “The time has come to act”. It must be hoped that the EU adopts this attitude, in a meaningful sense, to other states as well.