Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-22-Speech-2-552-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120522.22.2-552-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the protection of human rights is already central to our relationship with Colombia and Peru, precisely because we have long used our cooperation programmes to further human rights in the region.
Firstly, civil society organisations and citizens have an important role in the implementation of the agreement. Both countries and the European Union will have to set up advisory groups of civil society representatives, including a balanced representation of economic, social and environmental interests. Those groups must be regularly consulted by governments about how the agreement is being put into practice, and they will also be able to make recommendations on their own initiative.
Concretely, there will be regular intergovernmental meetings, and on every occasion we will have to hold an open session where all civil society organisations and citizens can directly raise issues. All decisions and reports that governments make must be public. What this means is that civil society will help us in the Commission, and you in Parliament, to oversee the implementation of the provisions – on sustainable development in particular, but also the rest of the agreement.
Secondly, the agreement establishes a transparent, predictable and comprehensive mechanism to ensure implementation of core labour and environmental conventions. It establishes an arbitration system to deal with disagreements on trade and sustainable development. This can be triggered by the European Union, Colombia or Peru – regardless of whether the country targeted agrees. Once it has been set in motion, it will follow a fixed set of procedural steps and deadlines. A group of impartial and independent experts will study the matter to see if the country has lived up to its legal commitments under the agreement. They will then issue a full public report of their findings of fact.
I consider this system more, rather than less, effective than the general dispute settlement mechanism which applies to other parts of the agreement. True, it does not provide for the usual retaliatory mechanisms, like raising tariffs, but these would be counterproductive. They do not encourage permanent changes in a country’s policies, and too often they end up harming those they are intended to protect.
In addition, the arbitration procedure does not have to wear the straitjacket imposed by the regular dispute settlement mechanism. There is no obligation to prove that problematic measures have an effect on trade. That means that we will be in a position to open arbitration procedures in a much wider range of cases. This is far more consistent with the objectives and the rationale behind our trade and sustainable development chapters.
As if all this were not enough, the procedure is, in any case, backed up by the human rights clause. The very first article of the text states that respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and fundamental human rights is an essential element of the agreement. If a government violates this essential element, the European Union, Colombia or Peru would be able immediately to suspend the benefits of the agreement to that government’s country. I do not see how this could be expressed more clearly or more strongly.
Now, I know that some in this House are in favour of establishing some sort of action plan on implementation with Colombia, as the USA has done. But the situation is not identical. The US-Colombia free trade agreement does not contain a human rights clause, which is why an action plan is necessary in their case.
Nothing that you could put in any action plan would be as effective as what is already in our agreement with Colombia and Peru, and this could have a broader impact than you might think. If we were unilaterally to impose additional binding mechanisms
our partners could question the good faith of our negotiating positions.
I therefore urge you to look closely at this agreement – to examine it in great detail – because I think that when you do so, you will be fully reassured as to the balances it strikes.
Human rights is a priority area of focus under the 2007-2013 Country Strategy Paper for Colombia and we are undertaking a broad range of measures under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, covering labour rights, women’s rights, the rights of indigenous people and the rights of children and youth more broadly.
For example, we have actions promoting the reintegration into society of child soldiers and street children in Colombia. We are working to support the right to join and form trade unions, also in Colombia; and we have projects to support the implementation of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, in both Colombia and Peru.
In total, we have already spent some EUR 50 million in this area. But the politically relevant fact behind these figures is that, as in all areas, Europe’s assistance is demand driven. This means that we are not simply pursuing values that we cherish: we are pursuing the objectives that our partners identify as priorities. So not only the European Union but also Colombia – and Peru for that matter – have set the improvement of human and labour rights as a priority on our bilateral cooperation agenda.
However, we all know that cooperation is not sufficient. It needs to be matched by appropriate international commitments, and so it is. It is an undisputed fact that Colombia has acceded to all core ILO labour standards. The issue in the past has been about implementation of the standards on the physical safety of trade unionists, and the legal framework for trade union activity, but today it must also be an undisputed fact that the situation has improved enormously.
The incidence of violence against trade unionists has decreased considerably. The government’s protection programme for people under threat, including many trade unionists, has been completely overhauled. There are now higher levels of prosecution and conviction, and police and judicial capacities have been strengthened. The government has also moved to eliminate legal and practical obstacles to freedom of association and collective bargaining, for example, by reducing the scope for outsourcing and labour intermediation.
The legislation regulating strikes has been reformed, incorporating important international principles into the national legislation, such as making decisions on the legality of strikes the responsibility of the courts.
Peru, for its part, has implemented the key ILO conventions, and Peruvian law now provides a good framework for the right of association. The number of trade unions registered nationwide is increasing, although more effort is needed to increase their representativeness.
Although all of this progress is impressive, the situation is not yet as it should be. Indeed, the Vice-Presidents of both countries admitted as much when they travelled to Brussels to speak to the Committee on International Trade (INTA Committee) earlier this year. But I also want to make very clear that we would do no service to human or labour rights in either country by rejecting this agreement, because one of the core objectives of the agreement has been, precisely, to reinforce these positive developments. Allow me to illustrate this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples