GSP Plus: Anti-Lanka resolution defeated, but hurdles still ahead

If Sri Lankans are wondering how many times Sri Lanka has won approval for a renewed duty concession to the markets of the European Union (EU) under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Plus, they may be excused.

This week, there was another huge hurrah for having defeated the EU parliamentary vote on a resolution sponsored by a section of MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to prevent Sri Lanka obtaining GSP+ concessions. GSP Plus was revoked in 2011 during the Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration, ostensibly on negative human rights factors but, what many would concede, were on more political or diplomatic grounds.

A few months ago, both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe announced publicly that the EU had restored GSP+ to Sri Lanka and hailed it as a major victory for the new National Unity Government’s foreign policy. It was a premature announcement, as is this week’s defeat of a parliamentary putsch by a group of MEPs (heavily lobbied by the anti-Lankan Diaspora).

The outcome of the vote -- there was a substantial margin of 436 votes against the resolution, 119 for and 22 abstentions -- is not to be downplayed. It shows a major shift in approach to Sri Lanka by the EU Parliament, and that is clearly a change in attitude towards the nearly-new Government in Colombo. But there are still more steps along the way before Sri Lanka officially gets GSP+.

In an email shot off to the Sri Lankan mission in Brussels, moments prior to the vote on the resolution, the EU clearly sets out that the period of objections to Sri Lanka receiving GSP+ will expire only on May 11. So, the resolution that was voted down was only one of such instance. Also, Sri Lanka’s application is yet to be considered by the EU Council, representing the Member States' Governments. In this council, member nations’ ministers meet to adopt laws and coordinate policies.

The Council meetings’ agenda items are formulated by a senior preparatory body, i.e. COREPER (consisting of Ambassadors of the 28 EU Member States in Brussels). The letter states, inter-alia; that they are to take up Sri Lanka issue on May 3.

“I would like to confirm to you in writing that the INTA Committee (The European Union’s International Trade Committee) has decided to hold an additional exchange of views at its next INTA meeting on 3-4 May.

“On behalf of the Chairman of the INTA Committee, I would like to kindly invite your Ambassador to inform the INTA Committee on the latest state-of-play regarding progress in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and implementation of GSP+ relevant conventions ahead of a potential entry into force of GSP+ status for Sri Lanka. We will also invite the European Commission and the EEAS (as usual practice) to attend the public debate in INTA. As you know, the deadline for objection by the European Parliament or by the Council to the delegated act of Commission expires on 11 May”.

Sri Lanka's GSP+ Application is, therefore, expected to be considered at the 11th May meeting of the Council of the EU at ministerial level. So, all of Sri Lanka will have to wait a few more days to see if the EU will eventually vote in favour of Sri Lanka.

Even though Sri Lanka does not expect objections at the above meetings, it is premature and inappropriate to claim any victory as the 28 sovereign EU member states are yet to finalise their decision on Sri Lanka. Also, the European Parliament still has time to look at Sri Lanka, as can be seen from the email from the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. The hearing next Wednesday (May 3) is critical as only thereafter will an official communication be sent to the European Commission on the way forward.

Deputy Foreign Minister Harsha de Silva was quick to go before the media. From Brussels--where he was with nine other MPs, viz., Sunil Handunnetti, Nalinda Jayatissa, Nihal Galappaththi, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Harshana Rajakaruna, Kavinga Jayawardena, Hector Appuhamy, Ali Moulana and Sivagnanam Sritharan on a three-day study tour for parliamentary oversight committees, COPE and PAC members--de Silva tweeted how he argued and lobbied MEPs. He deserves a huge bouquet if it was his 24 hours of advocacy that won the day for Sri Lanka in the European Parliament vote.

On his return to Colombo, his ministry hurriedly called a news conference, where he was careful not to claim credit for the defeat of the anti-Sri Lanka resolution, but pointed out how he argued strenuously on Sri Lanka’s behalf. He said that Sri Lanka lost Euro 150million a year due to the absence of GSP+, a matter critics argue is a pittance in the grander scheme of things and considering the obligations Sri Lanka has undertaken to do on the EU’s diktats. He did concede the fact that GSP+ will only be decided in the middle of May, when another news conference will surely be held if Sri Lanka obtains the duty concessions.

Most of the behind-the-scenes work towards regaining GSP+ was handled by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, the Secretaries at the Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry with legal impetus from Yasantha Kodagoda from the Attorney General’s Department.

No doubt there is a quid-pro-quo for GSP+. Stringent monitoring mechanism will be in place to see that the “conditions”-- officially called “areas of interest”-- imposed by the EU are not mere strings attached to the granting of GSP+, but issues that will kick in if and when, but immediately after GSP+ is granted.

These “areas of interest” include reducing the number of derogations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); repealing those sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which are incompatible with the ICCPR or amending it so as to make it clearly compatible with the ICCPR; repealing the ouster and immunity clauses in the Public Security Ordinance or amending it to clearly make it compatible with ICCPR; adopting planned amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the right of a suspect to see a lawyer immediately following arrest; publishing or making available to family members of a list of former LTTE combatants currently held in detention as well as all other persons detained under Emergency Regulations; and granting of access to all places of detention for monitoring purposes to an independent humanitarian organisation, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Attendance at the European Parliament in Brussels is usually lower during a shorter plenary session (called a mini plenary, which happens every few months), as opposed to the regular plenary sessions in Strasbourg lasting four full days each month. Also, the level of interest was relatively low given that there was routine business on the agenda. At the peak of the voting session (i.e., at the very beginning), there were 666 MEPs (out of the total of 751) in attendance. However, as the resolution on Sri Lanka was the last item on the agenda for the day, only 577 were present. Furthermore, the resolution on Sri Lanka was presented only at the very last minute--literally the last minute, just seconds prior to the official Monday April 24, 1 pm deadline.

Canvassing of the751 MEPs of the largest elected assembly was a long drawn out process, given Sri Lanka’s track record with the EU in recent times. The PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) in Colombo received a message from Sri Lanka’s EU ambassador Rodney Perera, that according to his calculations, only between 100 and 125 are expected to vote against Sri Lanka and that the anti-Lanka resolution will fall well short of the 376 needed to block GSP+ to Sri Lanka. Kyrgyzstan, the last country to get GSP+ (in 2016), had a similar motion supported by 125 MEPs. That was with no Kyrgyz Diaspora or even NGOs lobbying against that country. In most circles, MEPs wanted to help that country out due to its issues with Russia.

For those interested in how the lobbying went on in Brussels, the ruling United National Party (UNP) being a member of the International Democratic Union (IDU), a right-wing Conservative grouping like the Republicans in the United States, helped. The European People’s Party (EPP), the largest group with 216 MEPs, is also a member of the IDU, and was expected to back the Sri Lankan Government. The Socialist Group is the second largest with 189 MEPs and usually votes independently. They were lobbied with MEPs from Eastern Europe as they tended to be more favourably disposed towards countries like Sri Lanka. The Conservatives (ECR with 73 MEPs) were solidly behind Sri Lanka--again, given Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s contacts with another IDU member, the British Conservative Party. The centre-right Liberals (ALDE-68 MEPs) were not a major problem, but it was the Greens (51 MEPs) that were going to be a problem in view of their avowed adherence to civil liberties and environment issues around the world.

The GUE-NGL (52 MEPs) were, however, the most difficult as they are the radical left, fighting on all issues having a 100% track record of opposing any trade deal with the outside world. This group mainly follows a strong trade union line and made critical comments on Sri Lanka after two of their members visited Sri Lanka. They want implementation of a commitment apparently made by Labour Minister John Seneviratne to pay 50% of GSP+ benefit to workers. Deputy Minister Harsha de Silva said in Colombo on Thursday that he had argued against this saying it would mean legislating against the private sector. UK’s Labour Party had conveyed that any objection to Sri Lanka receiving GSP+ facilities must be supported by their MEPs (in the S&D) after they tried to mount an objection on their own, which failed.

Buoyed by the defeat of the anti-Sri Lanka resolution in Brussels this week, Deputy Minister de Silva has already spoken of an FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with the EU. Some point out that it is putting the cart before the horse or, as it is said in a local idiom, wearing the loin cloth when the sea is a mile away.

First things first -- and that is to clear the last, but not least, hurdle in winning the support of the EU National Ministers in a fortnight’s time.

The key questions the EU has already started raising are these: Is Sri Lanka ready to make use the GSP+; how is it placed in respect of labour rights, for instance, higher minimum wage, women's working conditions, etc; and what is the state of play on PTA/CCP revisions? The Committee meeting in Brussels on May 3rd is crucial and will be part of the extremely stringent monitoring mechanism as per EU regulations on GSP+ even after Sri Lanka get GSP+.