Europe, and the realities of implementing human rights

By Claude Moraes MEP

In the past few days, as an MEP and spokesperson for the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament, I’ve been involved with two key EU agreements with Pakistan and Libya under new powers that came into force through the Lisbon Treaty. Both the so-called Pakistan “Readmission Agreement” and the EU-Libya agreement this week test the boundaries of how we can implement good human rights practice in a world which faces the threat of terrorism and the potential for secrecy and corruption in international relations.

Pakistan is going through one of its most traumatic phases since independence – devastating floods, in the eye of the global storm over the Western response to terrorism and suffering for their inability to deal with endemic corruption.

In the midst of this trauma the European Parliament was tasked with agreeing the first of many “Readmission Agreements” between the EU and third countries. Such agreements oblige particular countries to readmit their nationals who may be living “illegally” in the EU.

Socialist and Democrat MEPs voted against the “Readmission Agreement”. We wanted a comprehensive agreement with high standards of human rights for the whole of the EU. As the deal did not meet these standards, we voted against it. The goal is not to have 27 imperfect and inconsistent readmission deals with Pakistan for people who can travel freely around the EU, but to have one comprehensive agreement which deals with concerns over terrorism, but upholds international human rights standards.

As Pakistan is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Refugees (1951), it was unacceptable that torture victims and other suspects would be automatically returned. This meant that during the debates, the Socialist and Democrats Group asked for an EU wide agreement based on human rights guarantees.

The deal was also suspect in other ways: it covers third-country nationals who have transited through Pakistan – including vulnerable Afghans – and children.

On this basis, the S&D refused to back an imperfect agreement, which nevertheless passed on the basis of votes from right and centre right MEPs. Labour’s opposition to this deal was extremely important, especially given the current situation in Pakistan. According to figures provided by the European Commission, around 13,000 Pakistani nationals were illegally resident in the European Union in 2008. Now, after the devastating floods in Pakistan, anyone who makes their way to Europe will come under the remit of the deal and very likely be returned to Pakistan.

As Socialist and Democrats Group spokesperson on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I have long argued that we are living at a time when the relationship between Europe and the wider global community is changing.

Just this week MEPs also had to determine the human rights and security relationship between the EU and Libya. Again we have a country which is not a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and has not signed a cooperation agreement with the UN High Commission for Refugees. Yet at the same time, there is a rush by some EU countries like Italy and the UK to create trade deals – often based on Libya’s oil and gas reserves. Again, we as a political group were deeply critical of the deal being cobbled together between the European Commission and the Libyan government because there were no human rights standards attached to the deal. Again, in a very difficult situation the responsibly of directly elected MEPs is to do what good parliamentarians would do in a national parliament and understand that trade and economic deals are vitally important but so too is the plight of human beings caught up in such deals.

I am writing about Pakistan and Libya on LabourList because such agreements – though vitally important – are rarely reported. They illustrate how the European Union can be a force for good in trade and development, but only if human rights too are respected. In a world where governments will rush to secure trade deals at any cost, good parliamentarians can send the message that abuse of human rights – for example the widespread torture of dissents – in the end is not only objectionable, but creates the worst possible environment for trade and development.

Getting the balance right is critical but for that you need accountability – good parliamentarians can provide this.