Do Chinese leaders take Hans-Gert Pöttering seriously? The unexpected answer to this question is probably yes, since the outgoing president of the European Parliament is no longer welcome in Beijing. Following his decision to receive the Dalai Lama during a plenary session in the Parliament, last November, and the award of the Sakharov Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Hu Jia, Pöttering is persona non grata in China. This ban highlights the paradox of the European assembly’s influence beyond the EU’s borders. Despite limited political powers granted by the treaties in foreign affairs and trade, the Parliament is punching above its weight and becoming increasingly influential when it comes to shaping the EU’s external policies. It is a growing trend that is now recognised by civil society and numerous interest groups operating inside and outside Europe and which are aggressively lobbying MEPs.

MORAL STANCE

Sidelined by the Council, and to a lesser extent the European Commission, which both keep a tight control of Common Foreign and Security Policy, MEPs’ only option has been to take a moral stance. Over the years, the Parliament has effectively positioned itself across the world as the staunchest EU defender of values, such as human rights, the environment or poverty alleviation. European public opinion is generally unaware of this peculiar influence, while diplomats and Commission representatives tend to look down on passionate pleas made by parliamentarians on the crisis in the Middle East or human rights violations in some remote parts of the world. However, many governments, especially from undemocratic states that wish to come closer to the EU, do take seriously statements the Parliament adopts.

Hence the Chinese fury following the Parliament’s decision to boycott the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, in the aftermath of the crackdown in Tibet. Or Egypt’s decision, last year, to cancel a human rights dialogue meeting with the EU, following adoption of a critical report in Strasbourg. Non-EU governments regularly apply pressure on the assembly to prevent a sensitive debate or a leading opposition figure from taking the floor. During the 2004-2009 Parliament, Vietnam attempted to derail the hearing of a leading Buddhist dissident, who had been released following a resolution voted by the assembly. Last year, Beijing plotted against a speech delivered through a videoconference by the then Taiwanese president. Such examples are numerous, although they are rarely made public for obvious diplomatic reasons. They show that, paradoxically, many dictatorships around the world do follow closely the assembly’s work in Strasbourg and Brussels. This actually demonstrates that the Parliament’s moral stance does have an impact, although it is often limited.

TRADE

Trade policy, an exclusive competence of the Commission, is another area where the Parliament is gaining influence. MEPs closely monitor negotiations with major EU trade partners and push hard for high environmental, social and human rights standards. Commission negotiators report regularly to the International Trade Committee on talks with third countries and often see their room for manoeuvre reduced because of parliamentary pressure.

In the free trade talks launched with ASEAN, in 2007, MEPs, led by Glynn Ford (PES, UK), made clear they would not accept a deal with the military junta in Burma (Myanmar). The issue remains a key obstacle to progress with the South East Asian bloc and one of the main factors behind the decision to put the talks on ice last May. Alain Lipietz (Greens, France) expressed his concerns on the labour and social provisions of the free trade agreement being negotiated by the Commission with South Korea. This set up a collision course with the approach proposed by former EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, who wanted to place business interests first with the aim of increasing Europe’s market share in Asia. MEPs also often relay the opinion of powerful sectors of European industry concerned by the consequences of a trade deal with an efficient competitor. Some parliamentarians, influenced by car makers, are keen to outline the negative consequences on the European automotive industry of a deal with Seoul.

Developing countries are well aware of the Parliament’s growing influence and look for support among MEPs. Sri Lanka has been lobbying the Development and INTA Committee in order to keep its preferential trade treatment (General System of Preferences Plus) despite the deterioration of its human rights record.

LISBON

While the Commission will keep the upper hand on trade, the Parliament could become an instrumental actor if the Lisbon Treaty is adopted. The new treaty will formally oblige the Commission to consult MEPs during trade negotiations. More importantly, the assembly will have the right to veto a trade deal on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. Although rejection of a trade agreement at the end of several years of painful negotiations is unlikely to happen often, MEPs will gain increased leverage over Commission negotiators. Under Lisbon, the Parliament could play a role more similar to the US Congress, whose influence over international trade talks, including the Doha round, is crucial. This is a factor that is likely to further raise the interest of many lobbyists, business groups or NGOs in the near future.

“The Parliament could become an instrumental actor in the field of trade if the Lisbon Treaty is adopted”