5 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 | Minister's letter of 15 March 2011
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 428-xix (2010-11), chapter 3 (9 March 2011); also 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 | Cleared
|
Background
5.1 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.
5.2 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.
5.3 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.
5.4 The full background of the EU's recent dealings
with Fiji is set out in our recent Report. In sum, in December
2006, members of the Fiji Military Forces, led by Commander Bainimarama,
deposed the government. The coup was condemned by the international
community. Fiji was immediately suspended from the Councils of
the Commonwealth. In April 2007 a dialogue began in which Fiji's
Interim Government (IG) agreed to meet various commitments designed
to restore democracy and the rule of law — above all, free
and fair elections by March 2009 — on the basis of which
the original Council Decision was adopted in October 2007, for
two years. Failure to meet these commitments would jeopardise
continued EU financial assistance including vital support for
Fiji's sugar industry. In April 2009, 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. Since
then Bainimarama has announced that no elections will be held
until 2014 after fundamental land and electoral reform. As a result
the EC announced on 18 May 2009 that it would cancel the 2009
sugar allocation (totalling €24 million).
5.5 A year ago, with the Council Decision due to
expire on 1 October 2009, the Commission proposed a further six
month extension. It argued that, with an ongoing (but stalled)
joint UN/Commonwealth mediation initiative, and with the interim
Prime Minister having presented a roadmap for reforms and elections
that, while insufficient, was worth exploring as a basis for new
consultations, extension of the current policy was the only option.
The then Minister (Ivan Lewis) agreed. But "tangible next
steps" were, he said, necessary to avoid the current agreement
continually being extended; discussions were to 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. These failed to
materialise, and last October and November the Committee considered
and cleared a further extension of the current arrangements until
31 March 2011.[31]
The draft Council Decision
5.6 The draft Council decision extends the current
Article 96 arrangements for a further six months.
5.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 4 March 2011,
the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) said that, with no
further progress in 2010, the sugar allocation for that year was
also cancelled (c.f. paragraph 5.4 above).
5.8 The Minister then continued 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."
5.9 The Minister supported the EU's approach. He
again described 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 attached to
upholding the essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement and
the general principles in the Development Cooperation Instrument.
He then said:
"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."
5.10 The Minister then concluded 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."
Our assessment
5.11 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" was, we thought,
presumably what this exercise had been designed to achieve from
the outset. After three years, there was an unmistakeable air
of drift, with the Minister expressing the same hope as had 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. This seemed an
unsatisfactory situation — as did 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.
5.12 We had no particular wish to hold up this latest
extension. However, we asked the Minister to respond to our observations
before it was submitted to the Council on 21 March 2011.
5.13 In the meantime we retained the document under
scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 15 March 2011
5.14 The Minister says that he shares the Committee's
frustration at the lack of progress with "an increasingly
entrenched dictator", and that he "remains deeply concerned
about the situation in Fiji", citing reports over the past
month of an increasing number of human rights abuses as "a
particular worry."
5.15 He continues as follows:
"The Government believes that the only hope
for positive development is through a coordinated international
approach to help Fiji back to a civilian led democracy. In order
to achieve this goal, we work closely with our traditional allies
Australia and New Zealand who, for geographical and historical
reasons, have close ties to Fiji. We regularly discuss the situation
in Fiji with them, at both Ministerial and official level. We
are in agreement that it is important to isolate the regime to
show that the coup is unacceptable and the regime's behaviour
will not be tolerated. We continue to encourage the EU to develop
its relationships with Australia and New Zealand regarding Fiji."
5.16 Turning to the Committee's dissatisfaction at
not being notified of the decision to provide a degree of funding,
via third parties, from the suspended "sugar money",
the Minister says that he is sorry that the Committee was not
adequately notified, and continues thus:
"All former sugar protocol exporters have had
access to structural adjustment funds. Fiji is no exception. The
aim of the funds is to counterbalance expected negative trends
for exporting countries in general, not Fiji in particular.
Since the suspension of
the sugar protocol EU development assistance to Fiji has effectively
been halted: the political pressure was on the regime, but there
was no concomitant assistance to the Fijian populace. The funding
was arranged to try to rebalance this situation by alleviating
the suffering of the ordinary people of Fiji without providing
support to the regime. The Government is of the view that this
met our overall objectives and was the right thing to do."
Conclusion
5.17 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information. Unpromising as the prospects continue apparently
to be, we are content to let matters take their course, and to
hear from him further in six months time.
5.18 In the meantime, we now clear the document.
31 See headnote: HC 428-iii (2010-11), chapter 4 (13
October 2010) and HC 428-vi (2010-11), chapter 14 (3 November
2010). Back
| 
