A proposed European Union-India bilateral trade and investment agreement is expected to be different from its predecessor in that it will likely have been stripped of conditionality clauses on human rights. This is a surprising and significantly negative new position on the part of the European Union (EU), which has traditionally placed human rights elements amongst its priorities. Instead, it has been suggested that institutional linkages will be established under the EU-India trade pact to address concerns of sustainable development, social and environmental protection.
The current Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the EU dates back to 1994. Negotiations and discussions are underway for drafting a new FTA, which is expected to be signed in 2008. Indian trade officials who have repeatedly met with their European counterparts in Brussels, most recently in the first half of September, have expressed relief that the EU did not raise non-trade?issues such as human rights or democracy during the discussions, which could have been “deal breakers”.
From a trade perspective, this represents a significant victory for India, as the inclusion of human rights conditionality clauses would likely have resulted in the country coming under pressure from the EU, potentially disrupting trade. The trade relationship is especially important to India. India’s share of trade in the EU is only around 1.5%, while the EU’s share in India is 25% and 21% in imports and exports respectively. Trade between India and EU has increased from 4.4 billion Euros in 1980 to over 46 billion Euros in 2006. From a political standpoint, this will also represent a significant victory for India. It is therefore highly disappointing that the EU appears to be willing to abandon significant leverage that it could have over India, which could lead to a direct positive impact on the human rights of large numbers of persons there, despite its minimal trade exposure.
It must be recalled that India is plagued by human rights violations, from widespread police brutality to deeply entrenched discrimination under the caste system to grave abuses by the military been committed in the countrys numerous low-intensity armed conflicts, most notably in the highly militarized North-East. So far EU has initiated trade sanctions or restrictive measures against 26 nations. Many human rights issues in India would justify similar actions, but the EU will be evading its responsibilities altogether if it capitulates on human rights out of greed.
The EU has been mainstreaming human rights in trade cooperation and partnership with other nations since 1995, highlighting it as an essential element of such agreements, following the adoption of resolution COM(95)216, 5/23/1995 by the European Commission. The EU reserves the right to withdraw funds or take measures such as the suspension of agreements in full or part if the partner country fails to live up to the human rights components stipulated in the agreements in question. The present position of the EU is a retreat from its commitments and practices and is tantamount to a green light to the government of India to perpetrate human rights violations. It is believed that studies commissioned by the EU on the trade potential with India have resulted in the planned sacrifice of human rights in exchange for profit.
India for its part always claims to have an admirable human rights pedigree, calls itself the worlds largest democracy, and boasts about its legally defined array of fundamental rights. It was given the highest number of votes in elections to the United Nations Human Rights Council earlier this year by members of the General Assembly. In truth, as mentioned above, the human rights situation in India is of serious concern. This is why the country is so defensive when democracy, good governance and human rights are linked with trade and investments. If there were no human rights problems, then the inclusion of such conditionality clauses would not be an issue. Endemic corruption, nepotism, delays in justice delivery, armed conflict, State-sponsored terrorism in some parts of the nation and gross violations of rights throughout are the reality of the situation in the country. The abandonment of human rights clauses in the future agreement would therefore represent an admission by the EU of the fact that the human rights situation in India cannot meet EU standards and requirements. The EU appears to be willing to put a price on its values as a result.
Development, sustainable or otherwise is not possible by mere enhancement of trade. Business requires the basic guarantees of the rule of law and fairness to flourish. Beyond the loss of the political leverage that this future deal will entail, that could ensure that the EU continues to play a positive role in India in terms of human rights, the lack of human rights provisions may also serve as a green light for unscrupulous foreign businesses, to violate the rights of local workers as well as those of the poor and marginalized, and the environment. The Asian Legal Resource Centre urges all actors involved in finalizing the new Free Trade Agreement to ensure not only that human rights clauses remain in agreement, but that such clauses are enforced in future. Anything less will represent a short-sighted and disturbing precedent that will undoubtedly be regretted in the future.
