Fostering Human Rights among European Policies Bilateral relations with China, India and South Africa Akos Kopper (editor, Introduction & Conclusion) Rajendra K. Jain (Report on India) Magnus Killander, Justice Mkhabela, Bright Nkrumah, Kevashinee Pillay (Report on South Africa) Zirong Zhou, Lingying Yin, Fei He, Lifan Li (Report on China) 30 September 2016 FRAME Deliverable No. 6.5 Large-Scale FP7 Collaborative Project GA No. 320000 1 May 2013 – 30 September 2016 Report on case study: Bilateral relations with China, India and South Africa Work Package No.6 – Deliverable No. 5 Due date 30 September 2016 Submission date 30 September 2016 Dissemination level PU Lead Beneficiary EÖTVÖS LORÁND TUDOMÁNYEGYETEM (ELTE) Authors Akos Kopper (editor, Introduction & Conclusion); Rajendra K. Jain (Report on India); Magnus Killander, Justice Mkhabela, Bright Nkrumah, Kevashinee Pillay (Report on South Africa); Zirong Zhou, Lingying Yin, Fei He, Lifan Li (Report on China) http://www.fp7-frame.eu ii FRAME Deliverable No. 6.5 Executive Summary This report presents a study of the EU’s efforts in promoting human rights towards three partner countries: India, South Africa and China. These three countries were chosen for three reasons. First, they are major global actors, second they are culturally different from the west and finally they all share a level of resentment against Europe promoting its values given their historical legacies (although in greatly different ways). The question this report aims to answer is how are EU’s efforts for human rights promotion received in these three countries. To answer this question four major issue areas were identified as angles of study: 1. Human Rights dialogues and consultations; 2. EU influencing and empowering local actors (such as NGOs or CSOs); 3. the link between Human Rights and economic/trade relations; and finally, 4. criticism formulated by these countries against the EU. In order to meaningfully answer these questions this report took the approach of introducing these issues from the perspective of the EU’s partner countries themselves. Thus, one FRAME partner from each country studied was offered a general framework to work with including specific questions and was asked to draft a case study accordingly. This approach has some obvious merits, but it also has some potential weaknesses. Benefits include that readers get the opportunity to learn about how the EU is seen from the outside, i.e. what aspects of its human rights policies are praised and what aspects of it are criticised. Furthermore, they can also read suggestions on how local experts advise the EU to improve its policies in helping their country to improve human rights conditions. The possible weakness is that this approach emphasises these issues from the partner countries’ perspectives, thus, for example, issues which are sensitive to discuss in the partner country may receive less attention in the study. The first case study focuses on India. Human rights issues first came to the fore in the relations between the EEC and India in the 1990s, while formal human rights dialogues started in 2004. Although these dialogues are cordial, they are not in depth dialogues by experts and India emphasises that it does not want to be lectured by the EU. Since the year 2000 the EU has funded numerous small-scale human rights project in India, yet these are tiny compared to the size of India (and especially small knowing that Sri Lanka being much smaller receives a greater level of support). As a recommendation made by the report is that greater flexibility in administrative requirements could improve the impact of these EU projects. Concerning the link between trade and human rights issues India takes the firm stance that these should be treated separately. Concerning the EU, the Indian report underlines the impression that the ‘Europeans come with clichés and stereotypes in their heads’ and calls for the EU to be more understanding and self-critical in its stance and point out that, for example, the EU’s policy on migration also deserves criticism from a human rights perspective. For South Africa the EU’s (Europe’s) role in promoting human rights dates back to the Apartheid era, with the EEC’s sanctions against the regime. Since the fall of Apartheid regime the EU has been supporting South Africa’s efforts for democratisation and development including human rights. The report introduces the way the EU has engaged South Africa on two crucial human rights issues: LGBTI and women’s rights. Discussing the support to civil society in South Africa the report iii FRAME Deliverable No. 6.5 underlines the positive role the EU played, for example, by establishing and funding the Foundation for Human Rights that administer grants for human rights projects. At the same time challenges are also discussed in the report, including the problem of too stringent administrative requirements set by the EU or the lack of coordination. From the point of view of the relationship of economic policies and human rights issues, the significance of the agricultural sector is pointed out. It is argued that South Africa is in an ‘unequal trade relationship’ in terms of agricultural goods with the EU, given the EU’s internal agricultural subsidies. It is within this context that the trade agreement between South Africa and the EU (since 1999) and the EU and SADC Economic Partnership Agreement in 2014 are discussed. The study concludes that not enough time has passed yet to evaluate the latter, nevertheless there is a fear that it could have a negative impact on employment and aggravate poverty and thereby negatively affect human rights. Finally, the study on South Africa discusses the tension between highly progressive constitutional guarantees and local realities, in case for example of issues such as virginity testing that pose serious challenges for South Africa. The study also reflects briefly on the role of the notion of Ubuntu – the traditional normative framework entertained in Africa –, which emphasises communal attachments, contrary to the western conceptions of human rights rooted in individualistic values. Finally, the third case study focuses on China and offers a detailed critical account of the human rights dialogue, which started in 1995 and already had its 30th round by 2015. Next the role of international NGOs is scrutinised with a detailed account of how their operations are regulated in China. It is explained that for many in China both the concept of human rights and also that of NGOs is new and many lack experience with them. It is suggested that if NGOs want to operate successfully in China they should take a pragmatic attitude and avoid stumbling into topics sensitive for the authorities. On the relations of economic and human rights issues it is pointed out that similarly to India, China is averse to linking them to human rights issues. At the same time, it is also suggested that China is becoming increasingly assertive when using its economic clout and on occasions even warned its European partners that criticising it on human rights issues may have negative impacts on economic relations. The final section of the Chinese case study points out the significance of mutual understanding and explains Chinese fears of the EU using human rights simply as an excuse for gaining control over China. Following the case studies, the report concludes with a brief summary of the study and a section that highlight the main issues and recommendation raised in the case studies. iv FRAME Deliverable No. 6.5 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... v I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Research question ....................................................................................................................... 1 B. Case selection ............................................................................................................................. 1 C. The general framework of the report ......................................................................................... 3 D. The four core issue areas the reports focus on .......................................................................... 4 1. Human Rights dialogues and consultations ............................................................................ 4 2. The EU’s human rights projects in South Africa, India and China ........................................... 5 3. The link between Human Rights and economic relations / trade relations ........................... 7 4. Different understandings of human rights? / Human rights promotion and the EU under criticism ........................................................................................................................................... 8 E. A few comments on the merits and limitations of choosing such an approach ...................... 10 II. India, the European Union and Human Rights ................................................................................... 12 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................