The first exchange in the new parliamentary Committee on International Trade (INTA) on 2 October on trade agreements with Vietnam - a free trade agreement (FTA) and an investment protection agreement (IPA) - revived the debate between supporters of two strategies: the carrot and the stick.
MEPs will be called upon to ratify these agreements, signed last June, in the coming months (see EUROPE 12329/25).
However, many MEPs, both on the left and in the centre of the European Parliament, stressed that there is no evidence that their implementation would lead to a significant improvement in Hanoi’s human rights record.
“Access to the EU market comes at a price”, insisted Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D, United Kingdom), expressing surprise that ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions was also required by the EU from its less advanced trading partners (as part of its ‘Everything But Arms’ programme).
These MEPs are therefore calling for use of the ratification of the agreements as a lever to push Hanoi along the path of reform and to improve its social and environmental record. “This is about the EU’s brand image”, said Elsi Katainen (RE, Finland).
Several political groups also expressed concern about the EU’s efforts to assist Hanoi in implementing its commitments on the ground - in particular the provisions of the FTA’s chapter on trade and sustainable development.
The economic benefits of the treaty generally seem uncontroversial: it is the first comprehensive agreement with a developing country; the treaty anchors Europe’s economic presence in Asia.
There is no need to worry about fraud or abuse: no Chinese products will be able to surreptitiously benefit from the preferences granted to Vietnam, said Peter Berz of the Directorate-General for Trade in response to a question from Christophe Hansen (EPP, Luxembourg).
As for the IPA, we must balance rights, but also the duties of investors, left-wing MEPs stressed. (Original version in French by Hermine Donceel)