Analysis

A European Parliament resolution:

what next?

Proper understanding of the resolution is critical

By Workie Briye

December 24, 2005


The European Parliament (herein after the EP) has recently adopted a landmark resolution on the political situation in our country. Ethiopians have expressed their delight in various ways, and rightly so. We all understand what it meanse for our people that the crime of the regime is publicly and internationally denounced by an elected multi national legislative body, and that the Resolution is publicly and internationally available to any one. The EU Parliament represents nearly 400 million people and is the most important and democratically elected institution of the EU. The Parliament is the only institution of the Union, which is directly elected by the people. The Resolution is also partly the outcome of efforts made by Ethiopians in Brussels, London and particularly Edinborough. Congratulation is due to all Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia who have been closely involved in the matter.

This piece is based on my observation of the various reactions, views and interpretations expressed from various directions as related to the importance or implications of the resolution.

The various views or interpretations of the implication of the resolution can be summarized as follows. One extreme view considers the resolution as a mere pious wish of the Parliament and expression of solidarity to the people of Ethiopia, and nothing more. The other extreme view considers the resolution as a legal instrument having immediate effect and, without further procedural steps, binding on the other institutions of the European Union (herein after the EU). Still others, particularly experts of the Aiga forum web site, view the resolution as a worthless piece from a powerless institution maneuvered by one Member of the European Parliament, Mrs. Ana Gomes.

Neither of these views of the resolution is correct. On the one hand, considering the Resolution as mere pious expression devoid of any significance emanates from lack of proper knowledge of the EU institutions and the institutionalized relation between the Union and the ACP countries. On the other hand, to consider the resolution as a legal instrument having an immediate effect of its own also detracts Ethiopians from a serious of follow up activities required of them building on the importance and content of the Resolution.The importance of this resolution as a huge diplomatic victory partly depends on a clear understanding of the Resolution within the context of the EU Law and politics in tandem with its relation to our country.

The Resolution in my view is both plain and technical. It is plain in that it clearly identifies the problems in the country and outlines the critical steps to be taken by the regime and other concerned parties. It is technical in that the Resolution refers to some EU internal laws and procedures and to the so-called Cottonou Partnership Agreement to which Ethiopia is a party. To the extent that the Resolution is technical, it is incumbent upon some one with formal training on the Law and Institutions of the EU to explain a bit to help clear understanding and most importantly to alert to those critical aspects of the Resolution that require close follow up based on the content of the Resolution.

The records of the Parliament from that particular deliberation show that the discussion held before adoption was even more interesting than the Resolution. Understandably, the Resolution as an official and public document cannot fully reflect the anger and frustration reflected by many MEPs in the discussion. This kind of a document from a body of the Parliament’s stature is also understandably a result of compromise between views with different accent and emphasis on different aspects of the same issue and hence some gap between the adopted text and the draft motions is understandable. This is particularly evident from those few paragraphs dealing with the border problem with Eritrea, which is clearly out of alignment to the essence and content of the Resolution. We can imagine that there were some MEPs or some political Groups in the Parliament who feel as equally strongly to the border issue as they do to the massive crime being perpetrated by the regime. Those provisions dealing with the border might also have found their way to the Resolution as a result of some lobby outside of the Parliament. In any ways, given the gross human rights violation-taking place in the country, those border talks are very ostensibly a smoke screen.

The anatomy of the Resolution is that it has three important segments: identifies the main problems in the country, outlines the most important steps to be taken by the regime as immediately as possible, and failing this, the Resolution points out the measures to be taken by the executive arms of the EU, namely the Council and the Commission, following the relevant laws and procedures to which the Government in Ethiopia is a party. The Resolution makes it very clear that the Parliament has a clear and proper understanding of the situation in the country, which is quite an important achievement by itself. The measures that are expected of the regime in Ethiopia, as outlined in the Resolution, are also mainly, if not fully, in line with the demands of Ethiopians and opposition parties. This is also accomplished. The last and most important aspect of the Resolution is its third segment, which specifies the measures and legal steps to be taken by the other EU institutions. To be pragmatic, this third part of the Resolution is as well a decision of the Parliament as it is an assignment to all Ethiopians to be undertaken in the coming weeks and months.

Briefly, the most important parts of the Resolution are as follows;

1. The Parliament has observed that:
  • Democratic demands by the opposition and their supporters have been severely repressed with the use of armored vehicles, live ammunition, resulting a huge loss of lives;
  • Political and civil society figures, including elected MPs, are jailed and are awaiting unsubstantiated and politically motivated charges;
  • Thousands of civilians are arrested in death camps like Dedessa;
  • A crack down on independent media and Government monopoly on the media is taking an alarming magnitude; and that
  • The Government in Ethiopia has broken the “”Essential Elements “ provisions of the Cottonou Agreement (Art. 96), which deals with Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and the Rule of Law.

2. The Resolution further outlines the measures to be taken by the regime immediately, the most important ones being;
  • Release of political prisoners and journalists immediately and without precondition;
  • Establish international commission of inquiry into all human rights abuses;
  • Respect press freedom and put an end to state media monopoly;
  • Reform the election related institutions and investigate the vote rigging committed during the last May election.

3. Failing immediate and significant improvement in the situation in the country, the Parliament decides on the measures and procedural steps to be taken by the executive institutions of the Union. The most important ones include;
  • Targeted sanction against members of the regime in Ethiopia;
  • The EU to take a coordinated stance against the regime in line with Art. 96 of the Cottonou Agreement.

The Resolution also calls on the African Union to take a clear stand on this undemocratic situation, in furtherance of its own guiding principles of NEPAD and the Agreement establishing the African Union.

Accordingly, a clear understanding of Paragraph 7 of the Resolution that calls on the executive organs of the EU, “to take a coordinated stand in line with Article 96 of the Cottonou Agreement”, is critical to appreciate the implications and to take up the challenges raised by the Resolution.

First, what is the European Parliament itself?

The European Parliament is one of the five most important institutions (organs) of the EU, namely, the Council, the Commission, the European Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors. The Parliament is essentially a legislative body while the other institutions are executive, administrative, judicial and auditing bodies. The Parliament is the only institution of the Union interms of its democratic credential as a fully and directly elected body. It represents the entire population of the member countries of the Union, which currently stands at above 370 million.

The Parliament has exclusive competence on matters like the Union’s budget and all international agreements, which cannot be adopted by the Union with out the “Assent ” of the Parliament. The Parliament has the power of censuring the commission with the effect of dissolving the latter. As a co-legislator with the Council in many important areas in the affairs of the Union, the Parliament has evolved from a purely deliberative body some 50 years ago to that of a full-fledged legislative body, being the only one of its kind in the world. All other institutions of the Union, except the Court, submit annual reports to the Parliament. The Council and especially the Commission submit reports not only annually but also regularly and on the need basis to the Parliament and required to explain why the latter has delayed or not implemented the Parliament’s Resolutions, if that happens to be the case. The Parliament also developed a reputation of being the conscience of the world in that its decisions are largely not affected by the immediate interests or political exigencies of Europe, which is invariably the case in other countries and other parts of the world.

Accordingly, the Parliament is not a mere symbol or powerless institution where the Council and Commission has the final and binding say, as claimed by some commentators. The Resolution as well is not a product of one individual MEP, Anna Gomes. In fact, the records of that particular session of the Parliament indicate that neither Anna was the sole mover of that motion nor were the prime movers present at the meeting as they were on mission out of Europe. Nevertheless, neither the specific competence of the Parliament with in the institutional set up of the EU nor the identity of individuals who moved the motion does affect the content and importance of the Resolution. It is a unanimous decision by a parliamentary body in its capacity as representing 375 million Europeans who pay the tax so that Governments like ours can finance not only some public projects but also other purely political operations. The fact that this body has judged the regime in Ethiopia as human rights abuser has reached millions of Europeans and the entire media in Europe which is the most important achievement than even any further administrative action to be taken by the other institutions of the Union as envisaged by the Resolution.

Once again, the other important aspect of the resolution is still related to the same Paragraph 7 of the Resolution. The Cottonou Agreement is an international agreement between the European Union member countries and countries of the African, Caribbean, and the Pacific Group of States called the ACP Group (herein after the ACP). Members of the ACP are currently 78 countries of Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific regions. The Coutonou Agreement is a continuation of generations of similar agreements between the two parties, i.e., the ACP and the EU that began with the Lome Convention in 1975. The current agreement, which is referred to as the Cottonou Partnership Agreement, was signed in February 2000, in Cottonou, Benin.

The Cottonou Agreement is a trade and development assistance agreement. Under this agreement both parties, i.e., the EU and ACP countries has assumed respective obligations. The core of the obligations on the part of the EU is to provide development finance and preferential trading access to the EU market for all products of ACP countries. The most important obligation assumed by the ACP countries, including Ethiopia, is for their Governments to implement a process of democratization, respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and rule of law in their respective countries, as defined and elaborated in the various provisions of the Agreement. Human rights, fundamental freedom and rule of law are agreed to form “essential elements ” of the agreement. Article 96 of the Agreement, which is invoked in the Resolution, stipulates the consequences of breaking these essential elements of the Agreement by either party, the EU or ACP countries. Article 96 outlines the procedure to be followed when one country breaks the essential elements i.e., abuse of human rights, denies fundamental freedoms and undermines the rule of law. Following the procedure prescribed in Art.96, and depending on the out come of the “consultation” between the EU and the country that is said to have broken the “essential elements”, the consequence on the particular government ranges from a limited measure of freezing some funds to that of total suspension from the Agreement. Total suspension means that the Government suspended cannot have access to the financial assistance provided by the EU and the duty free market access accorded by the EU to that country or regime. The suspension, together with other accompanying measures as may be specified in the EU decision would remain effective until the regime complies with the measures it was required to take by way of improving the human rights situation in the country.

This is the general scheme and the scenario that is outlined in the recent Resolution of the EU Parliament on the human rights situation in Ethiopia: identifies the major problems, outlines the measures required of the regime, and instructs the executive arms of the Union on the logical steps to be taken against the regime as per the Agreement signed by the regime. In fact the Resolution goes further than usual by mentioning Art. 96 of the Agreement in a clear and unambiguous language.

The step that follows from such a Resolution, according to the EU Law and the Cottonou Agreement, is for the executive bodies of the Union, the Council and the Commission to set off the necessary procedures to implement the Resolution. This procedure begins with the opening of formal consultation with the Government and proceeds all the way through the final decision of suspending the regime from the Agreement.

Implementation of such resolutions by the Council and the Commission is, of course, neither immediate and automatic nor entirely dependent on the good will of the latter institutions. In the first place, the Parliament itself does not remain indifferent to the resolutions it passed as higher expressions of the Union’s concern to human rights abuses of such scale. The Parliament at its full sessions and through the regular meetings of its relevant main committees does follow up implementation of its resolutions. This follow up takes various forms. Council and Commission representatives are required to attend meetings of the sessions and main committees. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), either individually or on behalf of their Political Group, raise written or verbal questions on the status of implementation of that Resolution. Committees sometimes pass decisions on the specific follow up measures required to be taken by Council or Commission. The Parliament could also pass follow up Resolution with a stronger language, specifying measures to be taken, and if necessary indicating time frames with in which it requires the Resolution to be implemented to avoid further crisis which may have implications on the Union itself. Individual MEPs and / or political Groups of the Parliament, mainly those who sponsored the Resolution, conduct close follow up of implementation by writing letters or appearing in person to the specific Commissioner in charge of the affairs related to the issue.

However, the Commission and the Council as well follow their own procedures and conduct their own day-to-day assessment of developments in the country. These organs give priority to dialogue, no matter how difficult, and consultation rather than rushing to the punitive phase of suspension. Suspention is considered to be a measure of last resort after exhausting all possible avenues of ameliorating the situation. Success within this phase, and even after suspension, of course, depends on many factors, including the flexible character of the regime involved and how much the regime is dependent on EU funds. We all know that “flexibility” is always considered as a sign of weakness by the regime in Ethiopia. Regarding dependency on EU funds, it is obvious that both the country and the regime are dependent on EU funds in many ways. Not only the so-called public sector but also the private sector draws some benefits from a limited financial facilities and trade preference privileges. However, regardless of the degree of our dependency on EU funds, it is obvious that it takes a government that cares for the people to displays flexibility to avoid the impact of suspensions or sanctions on the public at large.

As far as the EU law and the terms of the Cottonou Agreement is concerned, the Council and the Commission doesn’t enjoy a free ride on the decisions of the Parliament. However, the Council is made up of representatives of the Member states, all of which need to come on board with regard to timing and other specific modalities of interpreting the Parliament’s Resolution into the desired goal. The Commission as well is a collegiate body composed of Commissioners (currently 20) with different portfolio. The Commission adopts a decision based on the rule of unanimity. The specific Commissioner in charge of the subject of the Resolution, in this case human rights violations or development assistance, need to make some degree of effort to bring his colleagues (other Commissioners), who may not necessarily have equal level of awareness or similar perspective on the specific dossier, on board.

Amidst the legal, procedural and institutional factors that influence the immediacy of implementation of the Resolution, the role to be played by Ethiopians is not negligible. It may be difficult for many Ethiopians to lobby Council and Parliament to suspend the country from the Cotonou Agreement and thereby from the financial and trade benefits that accrue from it. In my view, it is important to have a clear and specific data related to the impact on the people and public projects of such suspension before actively lobbing for it. We know that there is a wide spread and chronic level of corruption with in the regime. I am also convinced that corruption, nepotism, total absence of institutional modus operandi in most government institutions and above all preponderance of myopic party benefits over long-term public interests is widespread with in the regime. Nevertheless, most of us share a commonsense view that financial aids of an EU type which is highly structured, regulated and institutionalized could have some trickle down effect to the public and the private sector. Under such situations, one must posses a credible statistics to argue that suspension does result in no negative impact on the people of the country.

This writer believes that it may be partly due to realization of such unintended effects of suspending development assistance that the Resolution made a specific reference to such specific measures as targeted or “smart sanctions”. The Resolution provides for the possibility of such sanctions to be implemented even prior to any formal measure being taken in accordance with Article 96. Targeted sanctions infact heart dictators not only materially but also morally, as most of them suffer from excessive arrogance. All Ethiopians must appreciate the importance of such a measure against selected members of the regime. These members of the regime are not only criminals killing innocent people every day; they are also cynically seeking to distort the global understanding of the situation in Ethiopia by accusing others of genocide and treason, the very crimes committed by themselves while the accused in fact have been doing all effort to spare the country from such a scourge. The EU has the experience of applying such measures with ACP countries before any formal measure is taken in accordance with the Cottonou Agreement. This was the case with Zimbabwe, where the EU adopted a Common Position against the regime applying arms embargo and targeted sanction before the regime was suspended from the Agreement. In fact, it has to be mentioned here that the nature of the two regimes and specific cases of human rights abuses display quite surprising parallels and stark similarities.

The Commission and the Council, however, like much other institutions, are open to the public and often need information to enable them reach informed decision. All Ethiopians, especially those living in Europe, could play a critical role in the implementation of the recent Resolution of the Parliament, particularly with regard to the decision to apply targeted sanction on selected members of the regime.

In terms of strength and coverage of issues related to the problem in our country, the Resolution could not have been any stronger or more comprehensive. The Parliament adopts resolutions on global concerns of various nature such as human rights, humanitarian crisis, environment, conflict and other issues of regional or global dimension. Resolutions related to situations of a limited scale or of isolated nature are different from resolutions adopted on a problem of greater magnitude, like gross human rights violations by a dictatorial government. The latter type of resolutions have been adopted, for example, in relation to the situation in Nigeria when that country was ruled by military junta in the 80s and much of 90s, Burma, and related to many other instances of coup and civil war in many West African countries including Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Niger, Central African Republic and others. A similar Resolution is still in force against Mugabe. The Resolution adopted on the human rights situation in Ethiopia , for all legal and practical purposes, is similar to the one adopted against the regime in Zimbabwe.

Accordingly, the EU Parliament, in a clear and unambiguous language, made it clear to the world that Ethiopia is now under authoritarian regime that kills and maims innocent civilians on a daily basis. The maximum impact to be gained from the Resolution, to a great extent, depends on further efforts to be made by all Ethiopians.


The writer can be reached for comments at [email protected].


ETHIOMEDIA.COM – ETHIOPIA’S PREMIER NEWS AND VIEWS WEBSITE
© COPYRIGHT 20001-2003 ETHIOMEDIA.COM.
EMAIL: [email protected]