3 EU Relations with Fiji
| (32530)
6686/11
COM(11) 63
| 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
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 4 March 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (31912) 13071/10: HC 428-vi (2010-11), chapter 14 (3 November 2010) and HC 428-iii (2010-11), chapter 4 (13 October 2010); also 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 | 21 March 2011
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 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.
3.2 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.
3.3 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
3.4 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.
3.5 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.
3.6 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
3.7 In clearing the document, the previous 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, 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.[21]
The extension to Council Decision 2007/641/EC
3.8 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.
3.9 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;
and said that, taking into account the above considerations,
the Commission could only, at that stage, propose an extension
of the current policy.
3.10 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. 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
3.11 The previous Committee reported these latest
unfortunate developments to the House for the same reasons as
two years earlier and cleared the document.
3.12 It also asked the then Minister to write when
he knew what the "next steps" were likely to be.
[22]
The most recent extension to the Council Decision
3.13 Last October and November the Committee considered
a further extension of the current Article 96 arrangements for
Fiji for six months, until 31 March 2011.
3.14 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24 September
2010, and in subsequent correspondence prompted by what the Committee
regarded as an unnecessary failure to submit the proposal in a
timely fashion, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) said
that:
— he
supported the proposed extension, which he said would allow the
opportunity for possible further consultations and thus the opportunity
to promote a return to democratic government and rule of law and
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 UK mission in Suva would continue
to use every opportunity to press Fiji's authorities to behave
transparently, respect human rights and the rule of law and return
the country to democratic rule as soon as possible, and that the
measures outlined in this Council Decision would aid these efforts;
— UK officials continued to work closely
with the Commission and key regional partners, especially Australia
and New Zealand, to ensure a coordinated response to the challenges
posed by an increasingly entrenched military regime. The common
goal remains to encourage Fiji to an early return to a civilian-led
democratic state with full respect for human rights and the rule
of law. Further review of the Cotonou arrangements in six months'
time would ensure that these intractable issues remain on the
EU's agenda;
— the last six months had not provided
conditions suitable for further negotiations but he expected substantive
discussions between Fiji and the EU to start again soon in Brussels
with the aim of moving the EU/Fiji relationship forward;
— any documents on new arrangements would
be put before the Committee for scrutiny in the normal way prior
to agreement;
— he would make every effort to avoid a
similar situation, whereby this matter could not be considered
at the Committee's meeting on 15 September 2010 and the Minister
had to abstain at the Council meeting in order to avoid over-riding
scrutiny, arising in the future.
Our assessment
3.15 It seemed that what the then Minister feared
12 months earlier — the current agreement continually being
extended in the absence of tangible "next steps" —
had in fact materialised. We found ourselves none the wiser as
to what the options for future EU relations with Fiji might be,
nor why the Commission had yet to put specific proposals to Member
States. We therefore asked the Minister to ensure that, when he
provided an update or, should a further extension be required,
an Explanatory Memorandum, it dealt with this matter.
3.16 With regard to the timing issue, we noted that
the point we were endeavouring to make was that, with the expiry
date well-known in advance and there having been no developments
in Fiji that were likely to affect its nature, it was still not
clear why putting forward this Council Decision had been left
to the last minute. Welcome as "heads up" letters and
informal conversations were (and are), we reiterated our view
that these are no substitute for the timely submission of the
relevant Council Decision with a fully comprehensive Explanatory
Memorandum.
3.17 That having been said, we saw no need to retain
the Council Decision under scrutiny any longer, and accordingly
cleared it.[23]
The draft Council Decision
3.18 The draft Council decision extends the current
Article 96 arrangements for a further six months.
The Government's view
3.19 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 4 March 2011,
the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) says that, with no
further progress in 2010, the sugar allocation for that year was
also cancelled (c.f. paragraph 3.10 above).
3.20 The Minister then continues as follows:
"In November 2010, the Commission proposed to
use €8m of the suspended 'sugar money' (roughly a third of
the original allocation) on rural development goals. The project
would have three components: vocational training; housing and
micro-projects; and access to micro-credit. The UK was consulted
in advance and ministerial support was received on the basis that
no funds would be directed through Fiji authorities. The Minister
was reassured that this work was being carried out with the help
of AUSAID and NZAID. The project was approved in Brussels on 22
December.
"On 1 February 2011 the EU wrote to the Fiji
authorities confirming that an indicative total of €51,094,000
(£43.7 million) had been allocated to Fiji for the period
2011-2013 as a financial allocation under the Accompanying Measures
for former Sugar Protocol countries. This letter also highlighted
that the availability of this allocation would be conditional
to an agreement in the Article 96 consultation process."
3.21 The Minister says that he supports the EU's
approach. He again describes the Article 96 consultations as an
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.
He then says:
"The Government encourages the EAS and Commission
to develop a policy which allows the EU to provide development
assistance to the people of Fiji so that they do not suffer unduly,
while maintaining political pressure on the regime to bring about
the restoration of democracy.
"The Government also encourages the EAS and
Commission to work in close consultation with other key regional
partners, notably Australia and New Zealand."
3.22 The Minister then concludes with by-now-familiar
words, viz:
"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 is hoped that substantive discussions between
Fiji and the EU can 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."
Conclusion
3.23 A policy which "allows the EU to provide
development assistance to the people of Fiji so that they do not
suffer unduly, while maintaining political pressure on the regime
to bring about the restoration of democracy" is presumably
what this exercise has been designed to achieve from the outset.
After three years, there is an unmistakeable air of drift, with
the Minister expressing the same hope as did his predecessor a
year ago — that, somehow, "substantive discussions
between Fiji and the EU can start again soon in Brussels with
the aim of moving the EU/Fiji relationship forward" —
and Member States at large seemingly at their wits end, or having
lost interest, and turning instead to the EAS and Commission to
develop what they have so far failed to do.
3.24 This seems an unsatisfactory situation —
as does the failure to notify the Committee of the decision to
provide a degree of funding, via third parties, from the suspended
"sugar money", notwithstanding the absence of any of
the positive changes whose absence had led to its suspension.
3.25 We have no particular wish to hold up this
latest extension. However, we should be grateful for the Minister's
response to our observations before it is submitted to the Council
on 21 March 2011.
3.26 In the meantime we retain the document under
scrutiny.
21 See headnote (28857) 12379/07: HC 41-xxxiii (2006-07),
chapter 17 (2 October 2007). Back
22
See headnote (30874) 12744/09: HC 19-xxvii (2008-09), chapter
25 (14 October 2009). Back
23
See headnote: (31912) 13071/10: HC 428- vi (2010-11), chapter
14 (3 November 2010). Back
| 
