By Caterina Zamparini
The EU, as it often claims, is based on a “strong commitment to promoting and protecting human rights…” not only amongst its member states but also in international politics. Art. 21 of the Lisbon Treaty, in fact, claims that “the Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the values that have inspired its own foundation”. Thus, not only are human rights important in defining the EU globally, but they represent essential blocks upon which the Union itself is founded. Nonetheless, recent trends have shown that the block’s cohesion behind human right issues might be frailer than imagined. Before one can assess the EU as an international actor who upholds human rights, attention must be turned to the situation within.
Human rights matter for the EU. One just has to browse through the websites of the European Commission or other institutions to read that Union action is based on a “strong commitment to promoting and protecting human rights” not only for its EU citizens but also worldwide. For instance, the FAC configuration of the Council of Ministers of the EU (in which Foriegn Ministers meet) has recently adopted the new EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy to guide EU external action priorities and ambitions. This Action Plan stresses the EU’s renewed commitment to protecting and promoting human rights and empowering people.
It is clear that the EU places a great emphasis and importance on its role as a normative actor in international politics. The power and influence of the Union depends also on its attractiveness as an example of a good promoter of human rights and norms. Nonetheless, there is often a strong mismatch between the EU’s commitment to promoting human rights globally and the MS willingness to adhere to the same human rights standards within. The Union has increasingly come under scrutiny for its double standards in protecting and promoting human rights.
The Union has increasingly come under scrutiny for its double standards in protecting and promoting human rights.
Just to name a couple of examples: In the past years, several EU MS such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and Hungary have been accused of violating fundamental rights at their borders, especially through the abusive treatment of asylum seekers and migrants. Reports have highlighted forced pushbacks, violence and denial of access to asylum countries. Even the EU agency responsible for following up on these allegations, Frontex, has come under scrutiny for concealing and even supporting these violations of human rights. We are currently seeing similar developments at Poland’s border with Belarus.
In 2020, Poland instituted LGBT-free zones, effectively violating fundamental human rights enshrined in Art.2 TEU. In July, Hungary linked a clause banning “sex change or homosexuality from featuring in school education material and shows for those under-18” to a law to combating child abuse, undermining LGBTQ fundamental rights.
And the problem goes much deeper, because it appears that MS are not simply refraining from adhering to human rights standards. There are disagreements on what these standards are and how best to uphold them: One only has to think about Hungary and Poland defending their actions in an attempt to safeguard “Christian values from Western liberalism”, effectively curbing fundamental human rights of its citizens.
While there are clear divergences in terms of Member States’ adherence to human rights, can this directly affect the EU’s ability to act on the international stage as a promoter of human rights?
The question remains. While there are clear divergences in terms of MS adherence to human rights, can this directly affect the EU’s ability to act on the international stage as a promoter of human rights? Some have claimed that the lack of unity within, has not affected EU external action as a normative power. As a point in their favour, they have named the strong stance that the EU took of severe human rights violations in Belarus after August 2020, or its imposition of sanctions against Russia; and finally its recent condemnation of human rights abuses in China and the imposition of sanctions on the country.
Nonetheless, I argue that the failures of the EU to protect its own citizens, or for that matter, to ensure that its own Member States do not commit human rights abuses at the Union’s borders, do raise doubts about the EU’s legitimacy to promote human rights abroad. The EU’s internal divisions on human rights and the Union’s inability to ensure that human rights as a basic principle are protected at home harm its “morality high ground” and undermine the place that the EU has as an attractive example for other countries. Sure, the EU is severely condemning the actions of straying MS but the fact that MS would disagree on fundamental human rights at all is problematic. And all too often, when it comes to migration, condemnation does not even occur. Thus, the problem remains: The EU might have the tools and ambitions to defend human rights globally, but if the EU portrays itself as an actor that promotes human values, it must show consistency in its internal actions.
The EU’s internal divisions on human rights and the Union’s inability to always ensure that human rights are protected at home clearly harm its “morality high ground”…
While I was writing this reflection for a panel on the EU and Human Rights in October, I was thinking about both events within the EU and at its borders. I would like to spend a couple of words now on the latter point, that is, the EU’s upholding of human rights at its external borders. The EU already has a poor record of addressing human rights abuses, especially when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers. What is happening now on the Polish border with Belarus, only adds to previous failures of the EU to monitor its member states.
In November, the EU claimed that it “strongly condemns the Lukashenko regime for deliberately putting people’s lives and wellbeing in danger” and that it “stands in full solidarity with the Member States affected [...]. Fundamental values will continue to guide our actions, especially as regards the protection of migrants’ human rights.”. Yet, the EU has turned a blind eye to the human right abuses that have occurred at the Polish border and has failed to condemn the country. While Belarus was condemned for severely undermining the human rights of those who are ‘sent’ to the Polish border and criticism was voiced about the repressions occurring in the country, was similar disapproval voiced officially about Polish abuses? Barely, if at all. What does this say about the EU’s commitment to human rights? How does it affect the constant claims that the Union makes to “protect our borders, and to protect people …without compromising on human rights”?
Caterina Zamparini Caterina Zamparini is the Chief Development Officer of BridgeEurope. For the past year she has been responsible for the overall development strategy of the organization, recruiting and outreach campaigns. She is currently also coordinating the Blog. Caterina is a MSc student in International Relations and Diplomacy. In her studies she has focused on the EU internal and foreign affairs, diplomacy and negotiations and conflict resolution. She is passionate about the role of the EU in the global order, and questions of human rights, justice and democratic transitions.
BridgeEurope Blog serves as a platform for reflection and discussion on current topics. The opinions expressed in the blog represent the view of the authors solely and not the view of BridgeEurope.