|
|
SRI LANKA: Gov’t, EU in Back-channel Talks Over Fate of Trade Pact
By Feizal Samath
COLOMBO, Nov 8 (IPS) - Sri Lanka has reacted strongly to a European Commission (EC) probe on its
human rights record, saying it is politically motivated.
But beyond the public sparring and rhetoric, informal diplomatic contacts
between the two sides are underway to save a crucial trade pact and
hundreds of jobs in the garment industry.
Sri Lanka stands to lose its trade concessions from the European Union under
the Generalised System of Preferences Plus (GSP+), which has allowed tax-
free Sri Lankan exports to Europe since 2005. This, following the release last
month of EC’s probe of the island state’s compliance with international
treaties on human rights.
On Friday, Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama presented a 48-page
government response to the EC mission in Colombo and EU diplomats on the
damning report by the EC over Sri Lanka’s alleged breach of international
conventions on core human rights, labour rights and conventions on
environment and good governance principles.
Highly placed garment industry trade unionists privy to the informal
engagement between the government and the EC are eagerly awaiting the
outcome of such talks.
"We reliably understand (from our contacts in Brussels) that an EC diplomat
arrived last week for consultations on the GSP+ with the government and that
the government is seeking technical assistance to help it fulfill these
conventions," said one trade union official, who declined to be named.
"We were informed by an international NGO [non-governmental organisation]
to be ready for a meeting with the official, but that didn’t happen as he was
authorised only to meet government officials."
The EC office in Colombo confirmed an EC deputy director was visiting
Colombo but that it had nothing to do with the GSP+ trade benefits scheme.
Sri Lanka has applied for a second round of concessions for the new scheme,
which began in 2009, but must await the outcome of an EC probe on whether
Colombo has implemented 27 international conventions, a pre-requisite to
approval.
Bernard Savage, EC Head of the delegation to Sri Lanka and the Maldives,
declined to comment on the government response. "I cannot comment. All I
can say is that we received the government’s observations," he told IPS from
the Maldives where he is on official visit.
Thousands of jobs in the garment industry, the country’s biggest export and
the main sector that would be affected if the concessions were called off, are
at stake if the concessions are not granted. Savage told IPS in an interview
last week that the EC decision on Sri Lanka’s application would be announced
by December and effective six months later. Until then, Sri Lankan exporters
would continue to enjoy the trade benefits.
The government response, submitted to the probe committee report on the
deadline set by the EC, said the probe was "politically motivated and
accompanied by a high degree of prejudice."
Substantiating this claim, the report quotes an incident last year where EC
officials had threatened to withdraw GSP+ if the war was not called off.
At a meeting with Sri Lanka’s Minister of Export Development and
International Trade on March 13 last year in Brussels, an EC Commissioner
said, "this war is never, never, never going to be solved militarily. The only
possible solution is a political one. We have been telling you this for a long
time. You have ignored us. We now have a powerful weapon in the GSP+,
which we will not hesitate to use".
The EC report was critical of alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka,
particularly during heavy fighting in the last stages of the war between
government forces and Tamil rebels. The near 30-year-long revolt was
crushed by government troops in May.
Garment manufacturers said the concessions are vital to the industry, which
is Sri Lanka’s biggest foreign exchange earner along with remittances from
migrant workers.
However, one industrialist who was part of a team of officials from the
garment industry, other sections of government and lawyers that prepared
the government brief, said the EC probe smacked of a strong bias.
"For example, 15 member associations of the Joint Association of Apparel
Exporters, which goes by the acronym JAAF and represents the industry, sent
submissions to the EC probe team but none of our submissions was cited in
the report," he said.
"The investigations relied a lot on the anti-government submissions,"
lamented the businessman, who declined to be named. Submissions from the
industry largely supported the government contention that there has been
progress in the implementation of the conventions on labour and human
rights.
"We now have to contact our friends in Brussels and keep the dialogue going
to ensure the concessions continue," he said.
Separately, Anton Marcus, general secretary of a trade union representing
workers in the country’s free trade zones where many garment factories are
located, said the union-styled Apparel Industry Labour Rights Movement or
ALaRM was going to meet on Nov. 8 to discuss a course of action on the
government response.
"We are meeting to discuss a course of action which we will explain to the
media on Thursday at a press conference," he told IPS.
Marcus said trade unions had pleaded with the government to start a
dialogue with the EC, which the former had refused, saying it would not take
part in any investigation, as it was an insult to a sovereign nation. "Now they
want to start a dialogue, which they should have done in the first place," he
said, referring to the report.
The government, while rejecting the EC report, said the government and the
EC should continue to have a constructive engagement on the "issues at
hand."
The garment industry has suffered over the years, initially following the end
of textile quotas some years back before it was hit by the rising costs of
production, which has seen a sharp rise in job losses.
Currently, there are 270,000 workers in the industry, according to
government estimates although the industry says it is much less because a
number of smaller units have collapsed. From around 400 factories and
500,000 workers in the 1980s, the industry has slumped to less than 250
factories while many are struggling to survive.
"There are many orders, but the problem is costs. Interest rates are high at 22
percent and our return is only 3 percent. We just can’t survive. Many small
industrialists have wound up or sold their factories to the bigger players,"
noted Cassian Fernando, a garment industry veteran who sold his factories
two years ago. He believes the industry will consolidate to just 15 big
companies in the years to come.
Some garment industry workers hit by closures are seeking jobs as domestic
aides overseas. "There are quite a few who are undergoing training before
going abroad," said W.P. Aponsu, president of the Association of Licensed
Foreign Employment Agents.
(END/2009)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
