Category: Foreign Policy

Eritrea, Slavery and Europe

Two centuries after international efforts started to end slavery around the world, it is hard to name any state that still actively and purposefully violates article 4 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights on the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. Finding such a state that is at least partially supported by the international community is even harder. But it does exist. Namely Eritrea, sometimes referred to as the “North Korea of Africa”. Eritrea, is situated on the shore of the vital sea lane of the Red Sea in the Horn of Africa, and consequently is of geopolitical relevance. Multiple countries, including Israel and the UAE have military bases on its territory. Eritrea is also an ally of Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen, and is forging closer ties to Russia. More importantly however, the EU has promised to invest 20 million into the country to improve the local infrastructure.

Ordinarily, a development aid scheme of building roads in one of Africa’s poorest countries would not be regarded as problematic. Especially not coming from an entity such as the EU. It spends billions on development every year, and 20 million is a small drop in the ocean of international cooperation. Additionally, development aid has often been used to create a good climate for other political and economic objectives, such as improved trade. The stated aims of the project are also not radical. The money is meant to create better access to the sea and to harbours. The project aims to dissuade migration from the Eritrea by creating more economic opportunities.

The problem in this case is the use of forced labour in a project implemented by the EU with the Eritrean regime. The record of the Eritrean government – a direct partner in this project, is a matter of serious contention. Year after year, the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council and Special UN rapporteurs have described the dire state of systematic and severe Human rights violations in the country. Ranging from high ranking military officials being engaged in human trafficking, the near total control of the state of any economic and cultural activity or the fact that the state conscripts the majority of its citizens into an indefinite military service. It is a practice that the UN has described as forced labour and enslavement. The National Service, as this is called, is used for a multitude of tasks, and the conscripts do the brunt of all labour in the country. No infrastructure project in Eritrea is possible without it. The European Union admits it is going to use that workforce in its policy action fiche, published when it announced the investment. The European project plans, therefore, show serious flaws in European policy making. The result is a squandering of Europe’s greatest asset: the high standards it upholds.

        Policy-wise, the EU is indirectly funding and enabling forced labour in slave-like conditions. 20 million has been granted to a project which cannot be implemented without the use of forced labour. The project plan informs about the use of three forms of labour, all of which appear to fall under the National Service conditions. Although the EU has attached conditions on this funding such as the relaxation of the national service or the release of political prisoners, these conditions are not sufficient to end forced labour or prevent its use in this project. As for the conditionality, these conditions have been agreed to in the past in exchange for development funding or related to the loosening of sanctions posed upon the country. Results have yet to materialise, and there is no indication that the Eritrean government will comply this time round. Yet, even with some pre-conditions that have a chance of success, I find it highly problematic that the EU would fund a regime that according to the UN practices state-sponsored slavery. The EU is supposed to set standards, not weaken them. The EU is supposed to uphold those values. The EU should be a torch-bearer for Human Rights. Having even one single policy that undermines basic Human Rights sets a dangerous precedent, one that cannot be accepted. Protecting Human Rights, good governance and the rule of law are essential elements of European legitimacy. May it be at home in Europe or abroad, the EU must be an example. For if it does not, why have a value-based European Union at all? And if we do not have a value-based Europe, what do we then stand for?

There is an argument to be made for hardcore realism in international relations. That values, democracy and Human Rights matter little, and that instead one should be pragmatic in trying to achieve interests. In fact, an entire school in international relations is dedicated to this paradigm. Yet, the EU should avoid the temptation of this logic. It would go against the very essence of what the EU stands for and undermine its identity. Within the Lisbon treaty, it is clearly stated that the EU’s action shall be guided by the standards and values that have led to its own creation. These are Democracy, the Rule of Law and respect for Human Rights. It is important for the EU to continue to uphold and spread these values, because it is at the basis of the Union’s legitimacy. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, a United Europe was born. A Europe that solemnly promised to ensure that the horrors of war would never be experienced again. A Europe that declared it would break from its past.

Tank Graveyard near Asmara

Equally, there is an argument to be made for pragmatism. That the EU should not demand absolute compliance with Human Rights but progress towards their realisation. That it should be used as a way forward to enable cooperation, which remains crucially important in this interdependent world. Equally, the EU should consider its own interest and protect these. Whether towards a peaceful neighbourhood, or the unity of the Union. However, such considerations are not mutually exclusive. While compliance with Human Rights to European standards can be weighted, compliance with the most basic ones, such as forced labour and slavery can never be traded. In our modern world, the abomination of slavery should be a given, and it should never be used as a bargaining chip. We should also not forget that the association of the EU with its founding values of Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights is its key asset. It increases European power and influence abroad. While many African countries have accepted support from China in recent years, there has been much discontent with this new partner. Few results but increased corruption has started to create opposition to the Chinese development model. Their no-strings attached investment, has propped up dictatorial regimes and created anger and resentment in the local population. With a value-based approach, the EU can build stronger and more sustainable ties. Ties that allow it to protect its own national interests, while creating new alliances.

Currently the EU can still maintain that it is inextricably tied with the values that spearheaded its foundation. This is crucial. This approach has increased European soft power considerably. Soft power has given Europe influence beyond its borders. In the absence of a European army or a single European Foreign Policy, it is Europe’s most potent way of influencing international relations. Europe should be careful to not create its own Vietnam, tarnishing its image, and losing the good will of many. Following the Vietnam-war and later the Iraq-war, the United States became increasingly seen as self-serving. It is not isolated, but many now distrust it and seek alternatives.

The EU should not fall into the trap of undermining the very values on which it is based. There is no doubt that this project in Eritrea is detrimental to Europe’s image. It is a mistake. The EU should be pragmatic, but it should be so in a broader sense. It should be an example of good governance and human rights standards. The EU should also keep eye on the future. It should build relationships based on goodwill and cooperation, underpinned by the values it stands for.

By Misha Stocker – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.

The Love Hate Relationship: Future of EU-Turkey alliance

Through its rich history and geographical location, Turkey has always been an important partner to the European Union. The idea of Turkish membership to the European Union was first presented in 1963 with the establishment of the ‘Ankara’ agreements. Due to the Cypriot it took Turkey another 36 years before it became an official candidate.

As long as the Turkish government believed that accession to the EU remained plausible, it made colossal efforts to reform its system and comply with European Standards of democracy and Rule of Law. Even the Islamic and conservative party (AKP), who has been in power since 2002, implemented liberal and democratic reforms, improving human rights and civil liberties. Reforms such as the abolition of the death penalty, reduction of the use of torture by security forces, or the limitation of the Army political powers have been warmly supported by European leaders.

From 2006 onwards, negotiation slowed down as result of tensions in Cyprus. In subsequent years, doubts appeared about willingness and sincerity of European member states to allow Turkish membership. Despite promising eventual accession, European states did little effort realise these promises. This humiliated the Turkish population and its government, and far less effort were thus put into complying with European requirements. Prospective membership became an increasingly imaginary vision.

From then on, both Turkey and the European Union used the membership negotiation as a lever in their diplomatic relations when they needed something from each other, knowing that it will never come to a conclusion.


  • What does it mean to be European?

The wave of enlargement at the end of the 1990s and beginning of 2000s was led by an important enthusiasm for the European project. The European Union was perceived as a tool to spread democracy and rule of law in nearby countries.

Nevertheless, at the time of recognising Turkish candidacy, three principle questions were not asked at the European level. They are now one of the reasons why the negotiation process was jeopardized. In fact, it was only once the negotiation process started that European leaders began thinking about these 3 questions of borders, identities, and the impact of the integration of a large and diverse population member into its institutions. Questions about geography, religion and cultural differences became problematic. Where do European Borders start and end? Is the EU a Christian project? How would a Turkish demography affect the equilibrium in European politics? These questions divided the European leadership and established a precarious basis for accession negotiations.

These are important questions, but questions that Europe cannot answer right now. It goes to the soul of the European identity, and is central to the vision of the future of Europe. While important, there are so many other challenges that have to be solved before any further enlargement becomes conceivable. The toxic relationship, of mutual mistrust, that Turkey and the EU have should be brought to an end.

  • Towards a new relationship

Turkey is an important political and economic partner. As the main European ally in the Middle Eastern region, a strong bond is necessary. Even in times of mutual mistrust, common ground can still be found, as the 2016 EU-Turkey migrant agreement shows. It shows that despite all the tensions, mutual agreement is fruitful for both parties. It is on this basis that a new interaction with Turkey should be forged.

Striving for stability in the Middle Eastern region should be one of Europe’s most important Foreign Affair priorities. It is from there that many of the crises that Europe faces come, and ending the perpetual conflict will do much to help European domestic affairs. Turkey is a vital partner in this. Far from being a rival in the region, as it is sometimes presented, it should be recognised as an equal partner. It has far more potential to provide for a long term solution. Turkey itself is equally affected by the regional conflicts, and sees it in its own interest to bring an end this insecurity. Europe and Turkey can achieve far more by working together and coordinating their agendas.

Granted, many questions can be asked about Turkish actions and human right standards. It is one of the important criterion that had to be rectified to allow for Turkish accession. Europe cannot let this go uncriticized, the hundreds of journalist that have been and are still imprisoned is scandalous and should be resolved. Yet it does have to impede any increased collaboration. Much of the criticism brought down against Turkey is build on the idea that accession talks are still open. Any deterioration in Turkish human right standards cannot be accepted as it is still officially a candidate to join the EU. Officially terminating this candidature illusion will allow both parties to start a partnership based on an current interests. A privileged relationship, with Turkey as the focal point of European Middle Eastern diplomacy, would create a further ground for future collaboration. From there eventually even the current human right and Rule of Law standards can be improved. Visa liberalisation and economic harmonisation with Turkey can do much to create democratic change in Turkish institutions.

This more dynamic interaction will also give Europe the time to think about the fundamental questions about its identity and the goal of this integration process. The question of Bosnian and Albanian membership of the EU will have to be tackled in the near future. Both these Muslim majority countries will raise questions about what it constitutes to be European. Yet the potential accession of these countries will impact European politics much less than the accession of a state the size of Turkey. It will allow these questions to be solved in a more concrete way, and potentially close the debate.

With the current state of affairs, the current toxic relationship provides a difficult basis for a prosperous Europe-Turkey alliance. This while there is much more to gain from strong cooperation and mutual trust. With a European recognition of Turkish potential, European foreign policy challenges would be easier to tackle. Further economic cooperation would be beneficial to both parties, and can eventually lead to stronger democracy in Turkey. Eventually, in decades time, Europe might be faced with the question of Turkish membership of the EU again, but that is a question for then.

By Mélanie Véron-Fougas – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.