Why EU should reject new Israeli trade pact
On April 24 to 26, the Committees on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and International Trade (INTA) at the European Parliament will decide on the fate of the proposed agreement between Europe and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA).
Those in favor of this agreement argue correctly that it will bring economic benefits to Europe as it would lift barriers to trade and lower the prices of specific industrial products entering the European market.
Dear EUobserver reader
Subscribe now for unrestricted access to EUobserver.
Sign up for 30 days' free trial, no obligation. Full subscription only 15 € / month or 150 € / year.
- Unlimited access on desktop and mobile
- All premium articles, analysis, commentary and investigations
- EUobserver archives
EUobserver is the only independent news media covering EU affairs in Brussels and all 28 member states.
♡ We value your support.
If you already have an account click here to login.
The problem, however, lies not with the need to foster trade with our neighbours, particularly in these times of dire economic straits, but rather in the inaccurate assessment of potential gains and losses for the EU relative to the Israeli ACAA. In fact, the EU has much more to gain from rejecting it.
Rejecting the ACAA means holding Israel accountable for rectifying its incipient democratic deficit towards its Palestinian citizens, while also placing much-needed conditionality on Israel to end, once and for all, its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and its siege of Gaza before further economic preferences and privileges are granted without any apparent results.
Engaging in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only a moral imperative for Europe.
Currently, hundreds of millions of European tax-payer money is being spent by the EU to buttress the Palestinian Authority, for improving the disastrous humanitarian situation in Gaza and for sustaining Palestinian refugees in UN camps. Not to mention that dozens of EU-sponsored projects were in recent years destroyed by Israeli military without Israel being held accountable.
Beyond the fact that this has created chronic dependence rather than development and that these expenses are legally meant to be paid by Israel, if the Israeli occupation was brought to an end and allowed for the emergence of a self-sustaining Palestinian State, the EU would save much more than the Israeli ACAA could ever generate.
Moreover, adopting this ACAA would demonstrate the EU's disregard for the provisions contained in its own legal framework, such as the obligation to ensure consistency between trade policies, human rights and foreign policy positions. It would reinforce perceived EU leniency toward repeated violations of human rights articles in its bilateral agreements.
How can the EU expect other partners to comply with basic principles and values it encourages if the EU itself does not stand by them? Coherence is paramount to Europe's regional response to democratic changes underway across west Asia and north Africa.
At the regional level, in times of tremendous change across the Arab world, rejecting the Israeli ACAA would contribute to the restoration of the eroded credibility and standing of the EU, which has too often chosen short-term political and economical interests over human rights.
Now, refusing to endorse this ACAA incorporates these dimensions of EU foreign policy by advancing basic rights and encouraging long-term trade ties.
This change, and the way the EU positions itself, will benefit the European Union and its member states much more than enhancing trade in industrial products with Israel alone.
To support and encourage the positive political and social changes underway in the southern Mediterranean region today, upgrading bilateral instruments with Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine to the level of that which currently exists with Israel would bring much greater economic returns to Europe as well as to these neighbouring Arab countries.
At the institutional level, rejecting the Israeli ACAA would provide MEPs with the ability to play a decisive and mature role in helping to advance a more balanced EU foreign policy in the Mediterranean, which remains pivotal to external relations within the broader European Neighborhood Policy.
Crisis management and conflict resolution is also a long-term economic interest for the EU as stability is beneficial for regional trade with secure access to energy resources.
This is an opportunity for MEPs to uphold EU Community law and EU's international obligations as the EU does not agree with the Israeli definition of its "territory" which for Israel includes the occupied Palestinian territories.
Since the European Commission has failed to provide sufficient legal guarantees regarding the territorial application of the Israeli ACAA, it should be rejected.
Hard love from Europe now can provide the necessary leverage to compel Israel to change its policy towards the Palestinians and to finally normalise its relations with the Arab world.
Rejecting the ACAA with Israel may seem symbolic at this point, but it would be highly meaningful as it can help move the Union in a more constructive direction.
Katarzyna Lemanska works at the Brussels-based European Co-ordination of Committees for Palestine. Stuart Reigeluth works at the London-based Council for European Palestinian Relations