The EU’s Human Rights Promotion in China and Myanmar: Trading Rights for Might? EU Diplomacy Paper No. 5, October 2014
This paper aims to answer two questions: generally, to what extent the human rights promotion of the European Union (EU) in third countries is consistent, and more specifically, why the EU’s approach towards human rights promotion in China and Myanmar differs despite similar breaches of human rights. It compares the EU’s approach to the two countries over two time periods in the late 1980s and 1990s in the context of the EU’s evolving human rights promotion. Based on the two case studies, this paper finds that the EU’s human rights promotion in third countries varies significantly. Whereas one would expect the EU’s approach to become increasingly assertive throughout the 1990s, this has only been the case with Myanmar. China’s economic and political importance to the EU appears to have counterweighed the general rise in European attention to third countries’ human rights records. In other words, this paper finds that commercial interests take precedence over human rights concerns in case of important trading partners.
The European Union as Promoter of Equality in Asia: Beyond Economic Tools of Influence
The European Union’s (EU’s) foreign policy objectives include promoting equality rights around the world. Commentary on such efforts in Asia has focused on the EU’s application of economic pressure to influence Asian states. This chapter seeks to shift the focus to a range of non-economic tools that the EU uses to promote equality rights in Asia. These “soft power” options include, but are not limited to, conducting official “human rights dialogues” with Asian leaders, providing technical assistance to government and civil society actors, developing social media campaigns, and setting positive examples through progressive law reforms in the EU. This chapter first explains why it is important for the EU to support equality rights through the exercise of soft power. It then specifically considers the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), as a source of soft power. Some Asian courts cite the ECJ as persuasive authority. The ECJ thus indirectly promotes equality rights in Asia by setting examples. It is problematic, however, that Asian courts learn from the ECJ while the ECJ and other EU institutions fail to reciprocate by learning from rights-protective Asian courts. This unidirectional flow of information reflects and reinforces neocolonial dynamics. The EU could allay concerns about neocolonialism, and perhaps increase its influence in Asia, by engaging Asian courts in a two-way dialogue on equality rights.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.