Dear Editor,
Following an intensive year-long investigation into the human rights record of Sri Lanka, the Council of the European Union (EU) decided to temporarily withdraw GSP+ trade benefits from that country as from August 15, 2010. According to some estimates, the withdrawal could cost the country some US$150M annually. But, as is to be expected, its government deemed the sanction a “strategic interference in the national affairs” of the country and it was reported on the February 25, 2011 that it indicated to an EU review delegation visiting the country that it was no longer interested in GPS+ and wanted to develop trade cooperation on a new basis. However, the head of the EU delegation insisted that there are human rights concerns that still need to be addressed.
Unlike Guyana, whose trade cooperation with the EU is rooted the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) process, Sri Lanka’s cooperation is governed by an updated 1975 agreement, which covers political, trade and economic, educational, cultural and humanitarian development aid. Under the heading of Human Rights and Good Governance, the agreement states that “Human rights and democracy are important areas of European Commission co-operation and support for … Sri Lanka as well as in other countries.”
When in 2002, Sri Lanka applied to the EU to be part of its GSP+ scheme, a thorough review of the country’s implementation of core ILO labour standards was done and an implementation road map devised that allowed the GPS+ arrangement to begin on July 1, 2005. Some key elements of the road map were: continued progress with respect to the strengthening of the freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain; the elimination of all forms of child labour; the removal of the minimum age restriction for membership in a trade union; the removal of restrictions on the rights of public officers to join organizations of their own choosing, consistent with the requirements of ILO standards and strict monitoring of the implementation of administrative measures to protect workers from anti-union discrimination through the filing of complaints of unfair labour practices with the Department of Labour to ensure implementation within a reasonably expeditious time period.
Although accepted in the scheme, Sri Lankan trade unions still had concerns relating to the implementation of ILO core labour conventions, especially ILO Conventions 87 and 98, which deal with freedom of association, protection of the right to organize and collective bargaining. Since its ‘defeat’ of the Tamil Tigers in 2009, the Sri Lankan government has been facing increasing international calls for independent investigations into allegations of war crimes. To acquire national and international trade union support to help in averting the threatened EU sanctions in October 2009, the government and the trade unions agreed to another road map for effective implementation of the ILO Conventions, but as stated above, this proved insufficient and the GSP+ arrangement was withdrawn.
Recently, these matters came to the notice of our Public Service Union (PSU) and they invited me to give a talk on labour rights in the context of the Cariforum-EC Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). It was quite surprising that after the controversy that surrounded the final signing of that agreement, and particularly the emphasis that was placed on the so-called WTO+ issues, most of the participants were taken aback by the fact that the EPA contains significant human and labour rights commitments, which perhaps could aid their cause of restoring collective bargaining in the public service.
An intricate relationship exists between the Cotonou Agreement, which was signed between the EU and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in 2000 (and is the successor of the Lomé Conventions, 1975-2000), and the EPA process. The Cotonou Agreement claims a commitment to sustainable development through partnership and as such includes commitments to a gamut of non-trade issues, including labour relations.
Under Article 9 of the agreement, the parties undertake to promote and protect all fundamental freedoms and human rights, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural, and respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, which underpin the ACP-EU Partnership, shall buttress the domestic and international policies of the parties and constitute the essential elements of the agreement.
Article 50 deals specifically with labour rights and states that the parties reaffirm their commitment to internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined by the relevant International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions, and in particular the freedom of association and the right of collective bargaining, the abolition of forced labour, the elimination of the worst forms of child labour and non-discrimination in employment.
The EPA is an outcrop of the Cotonou Agreement and Part 1, Article 2 of the EPA tells us that it is based on the Fundamental Principles as well as the Essential and Fundamental Elements of the Cotonou Agreement and is intended to build on the provisions of that agreement. It further states that the parties agree that the Cotonou Agreement and the EPA shall be implemented in a complementary and mutually reinforcing manner.
On the specific issue of labour relations, Title 1V: Chapter 5, Article 1 of the EPA states that the parties reaffirm their commitment to internationally recognised core labour standards as defined by the relevant International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions, and in particular the freedom of association; the right of collective bargaining; the abolition of forced labour; the elimination of the worst forms of child labour and non-discrimination in employment.
Both the Cotonou Agreement and EPA contain institutional mechanisms for implementation and review. The EU human rights intervention process appears many-sided. But it seems as if political dialogue may be opened at any level: national, regional or international, and the Cotonou Agreement states that if, after that dialogue, one party fails to fulfil an obligation stemming from respect for human rights, the Council of ACP Ministers will be supplied with the relevant information with a view to seeking a solution acceptable to the parties. The council shall invite the other party to hold consultations that focus on the measures taken or to be taken by the party to remedy the situation. The consultations shall be conducted at the level and in the form considered most appropriate for finding a solution. Where necessary, at the end of the process, “appropriate measures” proportional to the violation can be taken, suspension from the ACP being a measure of last resort.
The EPA also provides for institutions. For example, the Cariforum-EC Consultative Committee, which is to assist the Joint Cariforum-EC (Ministerial) Council to promote dialogue and cooperation between representatives of organisations of civil society, including the academic community and social and economic partners, and the Cariforum-EC Parliamentary Committee, a forum for members of the European Parliament and the Cariforum states legislatures to meet and exchange views. But, as is not unusual with the Caribbean Community, some three years after the signing of the EPA, none of the committees are in place and the Joint Cariforum-EC (Ministerial) Council may have met but once.
Both Sri Lanka and Guyana are identifiable in the literature on bi-communal countries, but the human rights violations in the former appear much graver. However, both of these countries have important human rights and trade agreements with the European Union and as we have seen in the case of Sri Lanka, the EU takes these commitments seriously and is prepared to act in defence of them. Whether a specific condition warrants such an intervention and what would be the precise mode of operationalising that involvement is for the interested parties to investigate.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
