4 EU Relations with Fiji
| (31912)
13071/10
COM(10) 454
| Council Decision amending and extending the period of application of Decision 2007/641/EC concluding consultations with the Republic of Fiji Islands under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and Article 37 of the Development Cooperation Instrument
|
| Legal base | Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement and Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 1 September 2010
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 7 September 2010
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 September 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (30874) 12744/09: HC 19-xxvii (2008-09), chapter 25 (14 October 2009); and (28857) 12379/07: HC 41-xxxiii (2006-07), chapter 17 (2 October 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 27 September 2010
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 Fiji is a signatory of the African Caribbean and Pacific-European
Community (ACP-EC) Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on
23 June 2000 (and known as the Cotonou Agreement). This provides
a framework for relations between the EU and 77 countries of the
African Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP). Article 96
of the Cotonou Agreement allows for consultations between the
EU and an ACP state where a breach of any of Cotonou's "essential
elements" — respect for human rights, democratic principles
or the rule of law — is perceived to have taken place.
4.2 Article 3(1) of the Development Cooperation
Instrument (DCI) confirms these same elements as general principles
of the EU that it will seek to promote in partner countries through
dialogue and cooperation. Article 37 of the DCI details the process
where a breach of these principles is deemed to have taken place.
4.3 Fiji was allocated €60 million under the
DCI thematic programme for ACP sugar protocol countries for the
period 2007-2010, which money was directed at reforming Fiji's
sugar sector.
Council Decision 2007/641/EC
4.4 On 2 October 2007, the previous Committee cleared
the Council Decision in question. It was adopted in the face of
adverse political developments in Fiji, which are set out in detail
in its earlier Report. In sum, on 5 December 2006, members of
the Fiji Military Forces staged a coup, led by Commander Frank
Bainimarama, which removed the democratically elected government,
and the Commander appointed himself briefly as President and later
as Prime Minister. In the following months the Commander sacked
many key figures, including the Chief Justice. He appointed military
figures to key positions in government ministries and put an interim
Cabinet in place; and then suspended the Great Council of Chiefs
after they refused to accept the President's (effectively, the
Commander's) nomination for the role of Vice-President. Many people
speaking out against the coup, including those in the media, were
detained by the military and intimidated. There were numerous
accounts of human rights abuses, including two deaths in military
custody. The independence of the judiciary was also compromised.
4.5 Against this background, the EU considered the
coup in Fiji constituted a violation of Cotonou's essential elements
and the DCI's general principles and on 27 February 2007 accordingly
opened consultations with Fiji. During these consultations, representatives
of Fiji's Interim Government agreed to a number of commitments
designed to return Fiji to democracy and the rule of law —
the key commitment being to hold free and fair elections by March
2009.
4.6 The Council accordingly agreed to conclude consultations
and adopt appropriate measures under Article 96 of the Cotonou
Agreement and Article 37 of the DCI. These included:
— making
the finalisation, signing and implementation of the 2008-2013
Country Strategy Paper, for which funding would be made available
under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF), subject
to the interim government meeting agreed commitments in respect
of human rights and rule of law;
— making Fiji's 2007 allocation under the
DCI thematic programme for ACP sugar protocol countries zero and
tying the provision of assistance under this programme in 2008,
2009 and 2010 to the return to democratic government;
— certain cooperation activities already
underway or in preparation for funding under the 8th and 9th
EDFs were to continue, likewise implementation of the 2006 sugar
assistance provided under the Regulation establishing accompanying
measures for Sugar Protocol countries affected by the reform of
the EU sugar regime (Regulation 266/2006);
— support for activities which would help
the return to democracy and improve governance would also be permitted
as would humanitarian aid and direct support to civil society;
Fiji would also continue to be able to participate in regional
cooperation activities;
— cooperation with the European Investment
Bank and the Centre for Development Enterprise would continue
subject to the timely fulfilment of commitments;
— the EU would follow the situation closely,
and enhanced political dialogue with the interim Fijian authorities
would be conducted to ensure respect for human rights, restoration
of democracy and respect for the rule of law.
The previous Committee's assessment
4.7 In clearing the document, the Committee noted
that the interest it had hitherto taken in the application and
effectiveness of the "Article 96" process had now amplified
by the addition of similar "governance" provisions in
the new Development Cooperation Instrument. Given the widespread
interest in the House in EU development assistance policy and
activity, and the importance these provisions now had therein,
it considered that the stage now reached in the EU and the Government's
endeavours to return Fiji to the path of democracy and the rule
of law warranted a Report to the House.[16]
The extension to Council Decision 2007/641/EC
4.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24 September
2009, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Mr Ivan Lewis) reported that: the situation worsened again
in April 2009, when the Fiji Court of Appeal declared Bainimarama's
regime illegal; the following day the President, at Bainimarama's
behest, abrogated the constitution, suspended the courts and re-appointed
Bainimarama Prime Minister; and since then the military had restricted
public gatherings, severely censored the media and ensured impunity
for abuses by military personnel. Moreover, Bainimarama had announced
that no elections would be held until 2014 after fundamental land
and electoral reform.
4.9 The Council Decision noted that:
— the
review of the current Decision, which was to expire on 1 October
2009, coincided with an ongoing joint initiative by the United
Nations and the Commonwealth to mediate, to which the EU had given
its full support, but which was then stalled;
— the interim Prime Minister had recently
presented a roadmap for reforms and elections; while the roadmap
was insufficient as it stood, it might be worthwhile to engage
in dialogue regarding it and to consider whether it might serve
as a basis for new consultations;
4.10 and said that, taking into account the above
considerations, the Commission could only, at that stage, propose
an extension of the current policy.
4.11 The then Minister said that, as a result of
Fiji's failure to meet the commitment to hold free and fair elections
by March 2009, the EC had announced on 18 May 2009 that it had
taken the decision to cancel the 2009 sugar allocation for Fiji
(totalling €24 million); though this action would have serious
impact on Fiji's failing economy, the then Government fully supported
the Commission's approach to Fiji. The Article 96 consultations
had offered the opportunity to promote a return to democratic
government and rule of law in Fiji and to demonstrate the importance
that the EU attached to upholding the essential elements of the
Cotonou Agreement and the general principles in the Development
Cooperation Instrument. The then Minister also noted that the
UK currently held the local EU Presidency in Suva and had, he
said, played an important role in monitoring progress; it would
continue to use every opportunity to press the Fiji authorities
to behave transparently, respect human rights and the rule of
law and return the country to democratic rule as soon as possible.
The measures outlined in this Council Decision would aid these
efforts. He strongly believed tangible "next steps"
were necessary to avoid the current agreement continually being
extended. Discussions on what these next steps should be would
take place in Brussels over the next six months, with a view to
having a decision in place before the end of the extended period.
The previous Committee's further assessment
4.12 The previous Committee reported these latest
unfortunate developments to the House for the same reasons as
two years ago.
4.13 It also asked the then Minister to write to
the previous Committee when he knew what the "next steps"
were likely to be.
4.14 The then Minister for Europe having forewarned
it in a letter, which it had considered on 22 July 2009, that
it might be necessary to adopt this Council Decision during the
then upcoming Summer Recess if the situation were to develop in
the way that it had, the previous Committee agreed, in these particular
circumstances and on this occasion, not to take issue with the
Minister for having agreed to its adoption before scrutiny had
been completed.
4.15 It then cleared the document.[17]
The proposed Council Decision
4.16 This Council decision extends the current Article
96 arrangements for Fiji for six months, until 31 March 2011.
The Government's view
4.17 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 29 September
2010, the Minister for Europe (David Lidington) supports the proposed
extension, which, he says, will allow the opportunity for possible
further consultations.
4.18 After rehearsing the background in similar terms
to the previous Minister, he says that he too supports the Commission's
approach to Fiji, similarly saying that the Article 96 consultations
have offered the opportunity to promote a return to democratic
government and rule of law in Fiji and to demonstrate the importance
that the EU attaches to upholding the essential elements of the
Cotonou Agreement and the general principles in the Development
Cooperation Instrument.
4.19 He continues as follows:
"The UK is represented in Suva, and will continue
to use every opportunity to press the Fiji authorities to behave
transparently, respect human rights and the rule of law and return
the country to democratic rule as soon as possible. The measures
outlined in this Council Decision will aid these efforts. The
last six months have not provided conditions suitable for further
negotiations but it's expected that substantive discussions between
Fiji and the EC will start again soon in Brussels with the aim
of moving the EU/Fiji relationship forward. A further review of
the Cotonou arrangements in six months' time will ensure that
these intractable issues remain on the EU's agenda."
The Minister's letter of 24 September 2010
4.20 In his letter, the Minister writes "with
regret" that:
"due to time constraints, and the need to maintain
a legal basis for the current EU measures being taken against
Fiji, it has been necessary for me to agree the UK's abstention
from this Council Decision as agreement through Scrutiny clearance
could not be obtained in time.
"The Decision is for an extension only; no changes
to the current arrangements will take place during the six months.
Member States are in agreement. I would like to emphasise that
any documents on new arrangements will be put before the Committee
for scrutiny in the normal way prior to agreement. I will make
every effort to avoid a similar situation arising in the future,
and have instructed officials to review the events which led to
the conclusion that this matter could not be considered at the
Commons and Lords Scrutiny Committee meetings of 15th and 20th
September, respectively."
Conclusion
4.21 We are not satisfied with the Minister's
explanation. Neither the previous Committee nor we have heard
anything for a year, notwithstanding the request it made to the
previous Minister for further information after the upcoming discussions
in Brussels to which he had referred. Now, the Minister's Explanatory
Memorandum says nothing about what has happened in the interim,
either in Fiji or in the discussions between the Commission and
those in charge there. Nor does his letter explain why this Council
Decision has appeared out of the blue, when the timeline was well-established
long in advance.
4.22 We therefore ask the Minister to address
these issues, and in the meantime shall retain the document under
scrutiny.
16 See headnote: see (28857) 12379/07: HC 41-xxxiii
(2006-07), chapter 17 (2 October 2007). Back
17
See headnote: (30874) 12744/09: HC 19-xxvii (2008-09), chapter
25 (14 October 2009). Back
| 
