11 European Neighbourhood Policy: EU-Egypt
Action Plan
| (27599)
10560/06
COM(06) 282
| Draft Council Decision on the position to be adopted by the European Community and its Member States within the EU-Egypt Association Council with regard to the EU-Egypt Action Plan
|
| Legal base | Article 15 EU; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 12 April 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxiv (2005-06), para 10 (5 July 2006); also see (26434) 7313/05 HC 38-xv (2004-05), para 14 (6 April 2005); (26155-60 and 26174) 16164/04, 16166/04, 16162/04, 16167/04, 16218/04, 15991/04 and 16178/04: HC 38-ii (2004-05), para 9 (8 December 2004); and HC 38-vii (2004-05), para 8 (2 February 2005); (25708) 9921/04: HC 42-xxii (2003-04), para 22 (9 June 2004); and (25744-50) —: HC 42-xxiv (2003-04), para 6 (23 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
11.1 The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) proposes a new framework
for relations with the eastern European neighbours of the enlarged
EU (Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova), its southern Mediterranean
neighbours (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Palestinian
Authority, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) and three countries of the
southern Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). A closer
relationship with the EU is offered in return for progress on
internal reform, with the objective of promoting regional and
sub-regional cooperation, political stability and economic development.
The ENP does not prejudge future applications for EU membership
by eligible countries.
11.2 Our predecessors cleared the European Neighbourhood Strategy,
along with the Country Reports on seven "First Wave"
partners — Ukraine, Moldova, Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan
and the Palestinian Authority — in June 2004.[28]
Later that month, they cleared what the then Minister for Europe
described as "some of the elements which could form part
of the EU's offer" and the likely priorities of each Plan.[29]
Then, on 8 December 2004, the then Committee cleared the Action
Plans on the seven "First Wave" partners that were subsequently
approved by the 13 December 2004 General Affairs and External
Relations Council.[30]
Each of the Action Plans, the then Minister said, combined "opportunities
for closer co-operation in areas of common interest, with a stronger
desire from the EU to establish a set of shared common values
including on issues such as human rights, democratisation, counter-proliferation
and counter-terrorism".
11.3 Finally, the previous Committee cleared the Commission Communication
that presented the key elements of Country Reports for Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Egypt and Lebanon and made recommendations
on Action Plans for these countries. Each Country Report assessed
bilateral relations between the EU and the partner country, reflecting
progress under their respective Partnership and Co-operation or
Association Agreements, and described the political, economic
and social situation in each country.
The Council Decision
11.4 The Council Decision is the device whereby the Council approves
the proposed Action Plan for Egypt, which is then approved by/implemented
via the ongoing EU-Egypt Association Council/Agreement. The Action
Plan forms part of it. It builds on and reflects the existing
state of relations and includes commitments on human rights, the
fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Egypt is offered new partnership, economic integration
and cooperation perspectives — particularly an upgrade in
the scope and intensity of political cooperation, a significant
degree of economic integration, support for institution-building
and for cross-border and trans-national cooperation and the possibility
to participate progressively in EU cultural, educational, environmental,
technological and scientific programmes.
11.5 In his 29 June 2006 Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the
draft Action Plan, the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) said that key among a comprehensive
set of priorities were:
— Pursuing
legislative reform and application of international human rights
provisions;
— Taking
forward political dialogue, re-enforced cooperation in the fight
against terrorism and respect for human rights;
— Development
of a favourable environment for growth and foreign investment;
— Cooperation
in matters of employment and social sector; and
— Facilitating
trade and negotiating an agreement for liberalisation of trade
in services.
11.6 The Minister believed that, in setting out jointly
agreed areas for reform, the Action Plan would support Egypt's
own reform programme and that the approach rightly combined opportunities
for closer cooperation and for targeting technical assistance
in areas of common interest with a stronger desire from the EU
to establish a set of shared common values. He saw this as the
right moment to develop a more differentiated approach to each
partner country within a wider policy long-term framework which
would evolve gradually over time. It was "essential that
EU Member States remain actively involved in shaping this policy,
to ensure it supports our objectives to the region and to Egypt".
This last, rather cryptic remark was also accompanied by the observation
that negotiations with Egypt had taken some time, and the Commission
had proceeded with transmitting the document to the Council —
despite not yet having final Egyptian agreement to the text —
as a means of signalling that there were to be no further negotiations.
11.7 For our part, we noted that with its ENP, the
EU is seeking to work with countries, many of whose societies
and traditions are very different from those of Europe, without
what has hitherto been seen as the major stimulus for progress.
It was perhaps no coincidence therefore that the Minister began
with those areas that would determine whether or not, over time,
"a set of shared common values" could be established.
Much would depend on the starting point. In that respect, we felt
that a franker assessment of that starting point would have been
valuable.
11.8 We had no wish to hold up the Action Plan, whose
aspirations we endorsed, and cleared the draft Council Decision.
But we asked for a fuller exposition; in particular:
— We
asked the Minister first how he assessed the genuine readiness
and capacity of the Egyptian government and civil society to work
together towards achieving the very detailed and challenging agenda
set out in the Action Plan, especially in those areas that he
had highlighted;
— Secondly,
we asked for his views on why, at the outset, the Commission had
felt the need "to send a message to the Egyptians that there
will be no further negotiations" — what were the areas
of difficulty? and
— Thirdly,
we asked him to explain what he meant by saying he believed it
is essential that EU Member States remained actively involved
in shaping this policy, "to ensure it supports our objectives
to the region and to Egypt". This suggested at least the
possibility of some sort of tension between Member States and
the Commission, and we asked what those "objectives to the
region and to Egypt" were, which he implied might in some
way be jeopardised, and to explain what was meant by "active
involvement" in this context.
The Minister's letter
11.9 The Minister begins his letter of 12 April 2007
by apologising for the delay in responding, which he says was
due to his judgement that it would be best to wait until he had
further news on progress on the Action Plan. He says that he is
"now pleased to say that the Action Plan was agreed at the
EU-Egypt Association Council on 5 March in Brussels", and
continues his response as follows:
"In answer to the first question that the
Committee raised, the Government considers that Egypt has begun
a gradual process of reform. This is evident from their first
ever multi-candidate Presidential elections in 2005, and the improvement
in the parliamentary elections also in 2005. That is not to say
that the elections were any sort of model: indeed, they had many
flaws including allegations of fraud and episodes of violence.
But the Egyptians have shown that they are willing to start the
ball rolling. I would draw the Committee's attention to progress
made on economic reform and freedom of the media. The past few
years have seen a dramatic increase in press freedoms: both in
the number and range of newspapers and satellite channels and
in their increasingly critical reporting of current events and
the government. Economic reform has progressed particularly since
the appointment of Prime Minister Nazif in 2004. Significant moves
have been made on tax and customs reform, privatisation and Qualified
Industrial Zones (which encourage partnerships with Israeli investors).
"The EU welcomes reform which leads to wider
participation in political life in Egypt. The EU is following
the steps taken towards realising the pledges of political reform
made in 2005. In this context, Member States have followed closely
the amendments to the constitution which were approved by referendum
on 26 March 2007 and which affect the executive, legislative and
judicial branches of the state. We have concerns that the amendments
were put to a referendum just one week after they were approved
by the People's Assembly, but we and other Member States hope
that they will pave the way for measures which have the effect
of enhancing pluralism and transparency, including through the
establishment of an independent electoral commission, and expects
the introduction of new anti-terrorism legislation to meet international
human rights standards.
"As for the capacity of the Egyptian government
to take on these reforms, that is something the Action Plan will
assist with. Under the 2007-13 Financial Perspective, the EuroMed
region, along with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the Southern
Caucuses, will be eligible for funding under the European Neighbourhood
and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The ENPI includes a Governance
Facility, which will reward those countries that undertake the
reform commitments in their ENP Action Plans. So adoption and
effective implementation of an Action Plan could qualify Egypt
for increased ENPI funding. The ENPI has approximately €11
billion, and the European Commission is proposing a Governance
Facility of €300 million.
"The Committee also asked about the difficulties
the European Commission has had over negotiations of the EU-Egypt
Action Plan. The Commission, in consultation with EU Partners,
commenced negotiations with the Egyptian government in 2005. Details
of the negotiations are confidential between the Egyptian government
and the European Commission, but we are delighted that the Action
Plan was ultimately adopted on 6 March, and look forward to this
strengthening EU/Egypt relations.
"Finally, the Committee asked whether there
were tensions between Member States and the Commission in the
context of EU/Egypt relations. To my knowledge, this is not the
case. My original Explanatory Memorandum simply aimed to underline
the importance of both Member States and the Commission working
together to achieve our objectives of political and economic reform
in Egypt. The ENP Action Plan will provide a framework for that".
Conclusions
11.10 As we have noted throughout our and our
predecessors' consideration of the European Neighbourhood Policy,
a particular challenge will be how to give reality to the agreed
basis of "shared values", especially in the areas embraced
by "good governance", with those partners outside the
"near neighbourhood" who do not have the incentive of
even a prospect of ultimate EU membership.
11.11 We are grateful to the Minister for his
further views, which demonstrate that, despite the progress to
which he refers, there remain important areas where the commitment
of the Egyptian authorities to these "shared values"
remains to be seen.
11.12 Elsewhere in this Report we look at the
EU-Lebanon Action Plan,[31]
and in particular the machinery that has been established to allow
for more detailed discussions and closer scrutiny of progress
across a similar range of policy areas, to enable the EU to monitor
more closely progress made towards the objectives set out in the
Association Agreement, and for "the EU to calibrate its engagement".
We should be grateful to know if similar machinery will be set
up within the EU-Egypt Association Agreement, and how and when
progress will be assessed and published for scrutiny.
28 (25708) 9921/04: see HC 42-xxii (2003-04), para
22 (9 June 2004). Back
29
(25744-50) -: see HC 42-xxiv (2003-04), para 6 (23 June 2004).
Back
30
(26155-60 and 26174) 16164/04, 16166/04, 16162/04, 16167/04, 16218/04,
15991/04 and 16178/04: see HC 38-ii (2004-05), para 9 (8 December
2004); HC 38-vii (2004-05), para 8 (2 February 2005). Back
31
See paragraph 13 of this Report. Back
|
