Roep om hardere opstelling EU tegenover foute regimes ter verdediging van mensenrechten (en)
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - As Uzbek hardman Islam Karimov was landing in Brussels for a meeting with EU i and Nato leaders on Monday (24 January), the European Union was accused by NGOs of engaging in "soft-talking" with dictators around the world with little in the way of pressure to follow up the rhetoric.
Human Rights Watch released its annual report on the state of basic rights across the globe, a 649-page document that this year targeted the bloc for criticism for an "ideology" of dialogue replacing action.
"Instead of standing up firmly against abusive leaders, many governments, including European Union member states, adopt policies that do not generate pressure for change," said the report.
The group said that many countries are guilty of delivering stronger words than deeds, "but the EU in particular seems eager to adopt the ideology of dialogue and co-operation".
"Even when the EU issues a statement of concern on human rights, it is often not backed by a comprehensive strategy for change."
"Too many governments are accepting the rationalisations and subterfuges of repressive governments, replacing pressure to respect human rights with softer approaches such as private 'dialogue' and 'co-operation.'"
"The EU's 'constructive dialogues' are among the most egregious examples of this global trend," said the head of the group, Kenneth Roth.
The report was published the same day that Uzbek President Islam Karimov arrived in Brussels to discuss energy policy with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and the transit of supplies to Nato troops in Afghanistan with the military alliance's head, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Some 20 percent of supplies servicing the Nato action in the country must be delivered via Uzbekistan. Mr Rasmussen, told reporters that a "balance" had to be struck on human rights and the imperatives of the Afghan mission.
"Uzbekistan is a partner country and like other partners, we are prepared to meet and further discuss these issues ... [and] because we share an interest in seeing progress in Afghanistan.
"We have a transit facility agreement with Uzbekistan which plays an important role for our operations in Afghanistan. I keep in mind the interest of our soldiers in Afghanistan. We have to do our outmost to ensure we provide necessary equipment for them and I think I will be able, during our discussion, to strike the right balance between human rights and practical co-operation on the transit facility."
Describing the conversation with Mr Karimov as "extremely frank and open," Mr Barroso for his part backed the EU's strategy against the criticisms from Human Rights Watch.
"The European Union follows a policy of critical, conditional and comprehensive engagement with Uzbekistan," he said. "I have raised all key concerns of Europe, notably regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms, which stand at the heart of EU foreign policy."
The two presidents signed agreements on energy and the establishment of an EU delegation in the country.
Asked whether the meeting bore fruit in terms of human rights committments, spokesman Michael Karnitschnig told EUobserver: "He was not dismissive...On a macro level, he understands he needs to move."
Stability and democracy
The past fortnight has been something of a perfect storm for the EU, with the Karimov visit and the Human Rights Watch report following on from a democratic uprising in Tunisia that reminded citizens, particularly its Muslim immigrant youth, of Europe's long-standing support for autocratic regimes on the southern shores of the Mediterranean.
Videos of French President Nicolas Sarkozy holding hands with ousted Tunisian leader Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn have been popular clips on YouTube and social networks while the country's foreign minister was forced to retreat from an offer to send French riot police to help quell the demonstrations, explaining that her words were misunderstood and that she had had a long flight.
EU sources have privately admitted the role France has played in crafting the bloc's north African policies "have proven not to be working," but at the same time are at pains to defend their overall strategy of dialogue.
"Of course we are interested in stability, in countering uncontrolled immigration, trafficking, preventing jihadist salafism," said one senior official.
"However, one thing stability doesn't mean is propping up regimes," the official continued. "Co-operation with security services does not exist within the European perspective. It's something we don't do."
If the EU cut off its dialogues, then "we may find ourselves not dealing with more than half the governments of the earth."
Spectre of Yugoslavia
Another source gave a flavour of what diplomats have been discussing in the wake of the revolution in Tunisia. The emphasis remains on a preservation of stability.
"North Africa had been mostly stable and Tunisia was considered one of the most stable. This was totally unexpected," said the contact.
"Nobody believed Ben Ali was a democrat, but it was stable and we had means of addressing our concerns. We used all the mechanisms at our disposal to push for democratic reforms, and we think it has produced results."
Investors for their part also rate stability as the overriding concern, with the Moody's rating agency last week lowering Tunisia's credit rating due to the "regime change and political instability that may arise".
After Mr Ben Ali had fled the country, Brussels declared its "solidarity" with the uprising, but when pressed by reporters as to whether this solidarity extended to citizens in other north African states, spokespeople have been reluctant to comment.
The source explained why: "That simple line to take: 'We are in solidarity across north Africa', we don't know what it would set in motion."
"The EU cannot issue a call for chaos, for instability."
The contact said the spectre of the break-up of Yugoslavia is present in some officials' minds. "When Yugoslavia fell apart, also on our border, member states were jumping ahead, recognising independence prematurely. We've learnt from these lessons."
One diplomat said: "Even in 1989, it was great that freedom swept across the East, but I think if you check the history books, governments were very careful then too not to issue any pronouncements that could be destabilising."