Nyköping, 07/05/2001 (Agence Europe) - During their informal meeting in Nyköping, the European foreign ministers generally expressed appreciation of the line proposed by External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten to give greater coherence and consistency to the European policy on human rights. The Commissioner presented the communication that the Commission should adopt on Tuesday on the subject, insisting on the need to focus on four aspects: 1) rule of law; 2) the fight against racism and xenophobia, and respect of minorities; 3) the death penalty; 4) torture and the fight against impunity in this field. Stressing that the existing Community instruments must be better used to support these aims, Mr Patten had proposed in a letter addressed to the Swedish Presidency and to ministers that they above all examine the use of the "human rights clause", included since 1992 in the new agreements between the EU and third countries (see EUROPE of 4 May, p.7). In this letter, Chris Patten questions ministers about the best road to follow for applying this clause, asking them whether the EU should: 1) defend human rights in the context of the agreements that it has with third countries (he cites the example of Côte d'Ivoire, member of the group of ACP countries), or pursue even a confrontational course, as it has done with the countries with which it has not concluded an agreement, such as Burma; 2) revise existing agreements to include the human rights clause in agreements not comprising such a clause; or 3) invoke the human rights clause in circumstances which are not directly linked to "non-democratic government changes" and, if this is the case, how.
Ministers are on the whole opposed to the idea of revising the existing agreements but have not had their final say on the two other aspects of the question.
Generally speaking, commented Council President Anna Lindh, the Member States have stated their conviction that a clear Community human rights policy is needed, while keeping up indepth dialogue with the countries concerned. French Minister Hubert Védrine gave his assurance that the "ministers have underwritten Chris Patten's ideas by demonstrating that they share a common approach to the subject, to a greater extent than I expected". "It is better to have a policy of dialogue rather than coercion", he nonetheless added. "It is better to set an example by being convincing than by giving lessons", came the remark along the same lines from Belgian Minister Louise Michel. Several ministers were rather sceptical about the role that could be played by the human rights clause to put pressure on large countries such as Russia or Israel, as Chris Patten suggested explicitly in his letter. Sanctions will not change the policy of countries like Russia, Israel and China, Danish Minister Mogens Lykketoft told his national press, adding that it is better to use dialogue to say what is or is not going well. German Minister Joschka Fischer remarked in passing that it is now up to Europe to represent the democratic countries at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, since a vote last week in Geneva chased the United States to the advantage of Sweden.
In his letter, Mr Patten notes that, so far the EU has "invoked human rights clauses nine times, and with seven countries" - Niger and Côte d'Ivoire (both twice), Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Comores, Fiji and Haiti, all ACP countries. With other countries of particular concern, such as Burma, Cuba and Iraq, either the EU does not have an agreement or it has no agreement comprising such a clause. In the case of Pakistan and Belarus, "the adoption of such agreements were halted precisely because of concerns about democracy and human rights", he recalls. Finally, Mr Patten notes that "until now our invocation of suspension clauses has always been related to the overthrow of democratically-elected governments or to flawed election processes". He considers that the EU "should be prepared to react to less clearly-defined circumstances", and cites recent developments in Zimbabwe.