The role of NGOs in the evolution of EU trade regulations and political

linkage: From the EU-Israel Technical Arrangement to Guidelines

and CSR

Gilad Segal

The Political Linkage: Time Axis

1995AA

2005“Technical

Arrangement”

2013The

“Guidelines”

2012ACAA

2009Freeze of

Upgrading

1975: first FTA

Future:Labeling of products“Business warnings”

+ CSR?

Initiatives calling to suspend the AA under article 2

The development of the Political Linkage

• May 2004: “Made in Israel?” ICCO and DanChurchAid launch a campaign “aimed to highlight the

• September 2015 Gymnich: FAC decides on Labelling.

• February 2005: the Technical Arrangement on Protocol 4 to the AA:

AA does not apply to post 1967 areas.

unlawful import of products from Israeli settlements”.

The development of the Political Linkage

ACAA: Singed: May 2010; ratified: October 2012.

“…A vote in favor of the protocol, on the other hand, would stand in stark contradiction to the 2009 EU decision to freeze the upgrade…”

“Differentiation”: ECFR, July 2015.Upgrade freeze is not enough?

The development of the Political Linkage

Trading Away Peace November 201222 NGOs call for sanctions against Israel, including:• “prevent financial transactions to settlements and

related activities.”• “discourage businesses from purchasing settlement

goods and from all other commercial and investment links with settlements.”

• “Guidelines for European tour operators to prevent support for settlement businesses.”

July 2013 “Guidelines”, point 12(b): “In the case of financial instruments, Israeli entities will be considered eligible as final recipients if they do not operate in the territories…”

July 2014:

January 2013 HoMs Jerusalem 2012 report: “Develop and promote voluntary guidelines for EU tour operators to prevent support for settlement businesses in East Jerusalem”.

The EU Pays to be lobbiedOrganization Country Political advocacy EU funding

ICCO Netherlands Funds NGOs that are active in BDS, “right of return” / one state.

€5,310,874 in 2012

DanChurchAid Denmark Member of ACT Alliance, that promotes BDS. Funds NGOs that promote BDS, lawfare and antisemitism

€950,000 in 2011

CWP Israel BDS (with Who Profits), advocates European companies to divest, “Apartheid” rhetoric

₪379,627 (2012)

ECFR EU based BDS ₤21,701 (2013)

Cordaid Netherlands BDS Unclear. EU Listed as partner.

Trocaire Ireland Partners promote BDS, “right of return” / one state and antisemitism

€2.8 Million (2012)

Christian Aid UK BDS. Funds “right of return” / one state €7.6 Million (2012/13)

FIDH France BDS, Links to the PFLP. Supports groups that promote one state

Not transparent “top public donor”

Medico International Germany & Switzerland

Demonization. Grantees promote one state.

Receives EU funding via ECHO, unclear amounts.

The EU as a Normative Power“ … the Cold War … ended with the internal collapse of norms rather than power of force. Thus a better understanding of the EU’s role in world politics might be gained by reflecting on what those revolutions tell us about the power of ideas and norms rather that the power of empirical force – in other words the role of normative power.” (Manners 2002)

• Article 21 TEU“The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by principles which have inspired its own creation … and which it seeks to advance in the wider world” – e.g. democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

• Article 2 to EU Association AgreementsThe agreement is based on respect for human rights and democratic principles

Comparative overview: EU policy in territorial disputes

Western Sahara: the EU does not distinguish between Morocco and Western Sahara; Fisheries Protocol signed in December 2013 and ratified by the EP, allowing European vessels to fish off the coasts of Morocco; No mentioning of Western Sahara. EU see Morocco as the de facto administrator of the territory.

Northern Cyprus: The EU invests in infrastructure, social and economic development tourism and more. Since 2011 €30 Million are allocated annually;There are special programs helping the private sector, and establishing links between Turkish-Cypriot SMEs and the EU market;According to EU legislation: “… trade with the Areas [Northern Cyprus] follows the rules applicable to third countries.“

Kashmir: EU and India engages in talks over a free trade agreement, no mentioning of the regime to be applied to Kashmir products, despite rising reports of violations of human rights;No sanctions are in place and the EU does not condition its trade with India on the status of the Kashmir conflict.

Comparative overview: EU policy in territorial disputes

Nagorno-Karabakh: although the EU does not recognize the independence of NK and persistently calls for respect of Azerbaijani territorial integrity, no evidence found for EU pressure through trade talks or other areas of relations with Armenia.

Tibet: no sanctions, restrictions or special regulations on Chinese products or trade pertaining to the occupation of Tibet.

Crimea: the EU adopted sanctions against Russia, including:• Prohibition on imports originating from Crimea unless accompanied by a

certificate of origin from the Ukrainian authorities.• Investment in Crimea is outlawed.• Further sanctions target Russian banks, individuals, and embargo the import and

export of arms and related material.

Future “Linkage”?

• “Differentiation”?• Business warnings?• Suspension of the AA? Sanctions against

individuals? CSR?• ENP Review 2015 – EU consults a wider variety

of sources, condition its support, fights anti-normalization in the region?