EEAS) – Written Evidence

EUROPEAN UNION SUB-COMMITTEE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS European External Action Service Evidence - Written Contents Anti-Slavery International – Written evidence ................................................................................ 2 Rosa Balfour, European Policy Centre, Brussels and Kristi Raik, Finnish Institute for International Affairs, Helsinki – Written evidence .......................................................................... 6 Dr Federica Bicchi, Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science – Written evidence ....................................................................................... 12 Professor Steven Blockmans, Senior Research Fellow & Head of the EU Foreign Policy Unit, Centre for European Policy Studies – Written evidence ................................................. 17 Bond – Written evidence .................................................................................................................. 21 Brussels & Europe Liberal Democrats – Written evidence ....................................................... 25 Edward Burke, Associate Researcher, FRIDE / University of St. Andrews – Supplementary written evidence .................................................................................................................................. 27 Department for International Development (DFID) – Written evidence ............................. 32 Dr Hylke Dijkstra, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford – Written evidence .............................................................................................................. 34 The European Centre for Development Policy Management – Written evidence .............. 41 European External Action Service (EEAS) – Written evidence ................................................ 46 European External Action Service – Supplementary written evidence ................................... 56 European Peacebuilding Liaison Office ........................................................................................... 57 Dr Simon Duke, Professor, European Institute of Public Administration – Written evidence ................................................................................................................................................. 78 Hugo Shorter, Head of Europe Directorate – External, Foreign and Commonwealth Office – Supplementary written evidence ...................................................................................... 98 Global Governance Institute ............................................................................................................. 99 Professor Elena Korosteleva, Professor of International Politics, School of Politics and IR, Rutherford College, University of Kent – Written evidence .................................................. 107 Kristi Raik, Finnish Institute for International Affairs, Helsinki and Rosa Balfour, European Policy Centre, Brussels ..................................................................................................................... 116 David Spence, London School and Economics – Supplementary written evidence ........... 117 UK Independence Party – Written evidence .............................................................................. 128 Anti-Slavery International – Written evidence Anti-Slavery International – Written evidence Engaging with the EEAS on forced labour in Uzbekistan Introduction Anti-Slavery International is the world’s oldest international human rights organisation, working since 1839 on the elimination of all forms of slavery and forced labour from the world. Anti-Slavery’s engagement with EEAS on Uzbek cotton In recent years one aspect of Anti-Slavery’s work has focused on the use of forced labour of children and adults for the production of cotton in Uzbekistan. Anti-Slavery has frequently raised this issue with the EEAS, most recently in a letter from the Cotton Campaign dated 29 October 2012. In light of the systemic nature of forced labour, including forced child labour, in this industry we have asked the Commission to remove trade preferences for cotton from Uzbekistan entering the EU. This action has been supported by almost 14,000 petitioners. However in a reply dated 29 November 2012 from the EEAS, we are told that “The EU does not favour a purely sanction-based approach, as this can increase poverty.” This statement indicates that the EEAS has not understood the nature of our concern in Uzbekistan. It is true that richer people in Uzbekistan may be able to bribe their way out of participating in the harvest. However the implication of the EEAS assertion is that, contrary to the available evidence, the EEAS chooses to presume that people, including children, enter into this exploitation voluntarily as a result of poverty, rather than being coerced into the exploitation in order to enrich others. The reply goes on to say that “we rely on cooperation and dialogue as more effective tools. In this spirit, the diversification of agricultural production and economic development in rural areas are two key objectives of a recently launched EU co-operation programme (with funding of €10 million) in Uzbekistan, which should allow Uzbekistan to reduce its reliance on cotton monoculture.” This statement raises a number of concerns. First Anti-Slavery International would argue that relying on cooperation and dialogue with the government of Uzbekistan is entirely inappropriate when it is the state itself perpetrating 2 of 133 Anti-Slavery International – Written evidence the use of forced labour. This is despite the fact that the government has, by signing ILO conventions 105 and 182, committed to protecting its citizens from the abuses it is itself perpetrating. (It should also be noted that the Uzbek government has been completely uncooperative with the ILO). Diversifying agricultural production and economic development in rural areas misses the point that under the current system farmers are as coerced as those forced to pick the cotton. They are told what to grow and have little choice or opportunity to diversify into other products. In other words the reality of forced labour in Uzbek cotton production fundamentally undermines the aim of the EU programme for diversifying agricultural production that has been cited by the EEAS. Given this, there is an enormous risk to the explicit aims of the EU programme, as well as a further risk that the programme could inadvertently be used to prop up the current exploitative system. Anti-Slavery has in the past asked what measures are in place to ensure that the funds are not used in this way but have never received a response. Finally in our communications with the Commission and EEAS, we have found that these bodies consistently conflate slavery abuses with child labour. In the letter cited above the EEAS says “the issue of child labour will also continue to feature prominently on the agenda of the relations between the EU and Uzbekistan.” Different abuses necessitate different responses. As ILO Convention182 makes clear, state parties should take immediate and effective steps to end forced child labour. Contrary to this the EEAS appears to endorse a slowly, slowly reform approach, which is more reflective of the type of response we’d expect to the longer-term resolution to, often poverty related, child labour: To reiterate – it is forced child labour, coerced by the state, that is being perpetrated in Uzbekistan. Conclusions Anti-Slavery’s experience with the EEAS relates to only one issue but from this we would argue a number of points related to the questions raised by the House of Lords Committee: 1. Has the creation of the EEAS led to a more politically informed development policy? If so, has this been beneficial or detrimental to the efficiency and delivery of EU development assistance? Has it had an impact on EU development priorities? Are there new reporting obligations? 3 of 133 Anti-Slavery International – Written evidence It is not clear what is driving the Uzbek-related development policy articulated by EEAS, but it is, in the opinion of Anti-Slavery, that the policy is lacking in understanding of some of the most fundamental labour and child rights issues relating to development. This lack of understanding of how the systemic used of forced labour and forced child labour distorts the entire rural economy in Uzbekistan certainly poses a considerable risk to the effective deliver of EU development assistance in that country. 2. What has been the impact on NGOs of the role of the EEAS in development? Are NGOs able to feed in suggestions and, if so, how? Is this done better directly in Brussels or in Member State capitals? Has the creation of the EEAS affected the capacity of NGOs to act on the ground? If so, in what way? Our experience of trying to engage with EEAS has been frustrating resulting in negligible impact on the delivery of development assistance. This has been all the more frustrating because in certain key respects our interventions have related to simply trying to ensure that the EU adhere to international standards as set by, in particular, the relevant ILO Conventions. Not only does it appear that EEAS has chosen to disregard these standards, but also, as noted above, to have failed to understand them. It should be stated in making these criticisms that there is significant evidence that EEAS has contributed to building better coordination in-country. For example,

Load more