7. The GSP+ Conundrum and the CPEC’s Impact on EU-Pakistan Economic and Trade Relations

See also website of the Delegation of the European Union to Pakistan, Pakistan and the EU: https://​eeas.​europa.​eu/​delegations/​pakistan_​en/​1327/​Pakistan%20​and%20​the%20​EU

For the 2002–2006 period, the Commission’s support focused largely human development, especially through provincial-level basic education programmes. The Sindh Province received 39 million Euros in financial support to implement its basic education policy while projects implemented by the Aga Khan Foundation to improve education delivery in Pakistan’s isolated Northern Areas received a total of 30 million Euros. Pakistan also received budgetary support of 50 million Euros to develop microfinance for small and medium-sized enterprises. See for more details: http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​europeaid/​where/​asia/​documents/​pakistan_​recent_​assistance_​en.​pdf

According to the EU Ambassador to Pakistan, Jean-Francois Cautain, the EU is now in the process of finalising the new engagement plan (Strategic Engagement Plan/SEP) (Rana 2018a, January 23).

The EU-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue was held for the first time on 5 June 2012 in Islamabad.

See for more information: https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​echo/​where/​asia-and-pacific/​pakistan_​en

See for more information: https://​eeas.​europa.​eu/​delegations/​pakistan_​gl/​1326/​About%20​the%20​EU%20​Delegation%20​to%20​Pakistan

The EU-Pakistan Joint Commission is a group which meets at an annual basis to review the progress of the EU-Pakistan Five-year Engagement Plan.

This was also pointed out by Alok Rashmi Mukhopadhyay (2009, June 12). In his analysis Mukhopadhyay refers to similar statements by the foreign minister of the Czech Republic (which held the EU Presidency for the first half of 2009) and by Gilles de Kerchove, the then EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator. Statements to the same effect had also already been made in December 2008 by the foreign ministers of EU Member States. Reports by special services of EU Member States in recent years also took note of increased terrorist ventures in Pakistan and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. It was pointed out in the 2009 ‘EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report’ that ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to have replaced Iraq as the preferred destinations for volunteers wishing to engage in armed conflict’ (EUROPOL, 2009; Mukhopadhyay, 2009, June 12).

Most assistance by the European Commission, which was between 1971 and 2008 around 500 million, was spent on infrastructure and social programmes in Pakistan. Additional support was provided by individual aid schemes provided by Germany, France, and the UK (Islam, 2008, p. 3).

The evaluation of the success of these missions lies outside the scope of this book but the usefulness regarding the achievement of the goal (strengthening the process of democratic transition) and explanatory power of the results of this mission should be viewed through a sceptical prism.

See for more details, European Commission (EC): http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​trade/​policy/​countries-and-regions/​development/​generalised-scheme-of-preferences/​index_​en.​htm

A potential beneficiary country must be ‘vulnerable’, meaning that the World Bank has not classified it as a high-income or upper-middle income country for three consecutive years (in other words, it is a beneficiary of the standard GSP) (DRI, 2016b, p. 1; UNCTAD, 2015, p. 6). Furthermore, a country is ‘vulnerable’ when its economy is not diversified—as measured by the fact that its seven largest sections of GSP-covered imports represent on average more than 75% in value of its total GSP-covered imports to the EU during the last three consecutive years. The ‘Vulnerability’ criteria is met when the country’s GSP-covered imports to the EU represent less than 2% in value of total GSP imports as an average during the past three consecutive years (UNCTAD, 2015, p. 15).

Listed in annex II to Regulation (EC/European Commission) No. 732/2008.

(a) Fifteen conventions relating to core human and labour rights listed in annex VIII, part A: (i) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948); (ii) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); (iii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); (iv) International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1966); (v) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979); (vi) Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984); (vii) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); (viii) Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, No. 29 (1930); (ix) Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, No. 87 (1948); (x) Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organize and to Bargain Collectively, No. 98 (1949); (xi) Convention concerning Equal Remuneration of Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, No. 100 (1951); (xii) Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour, No. 105 (1957); (xiii) Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, No. 111 (1958); (xiv) Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, No. 138 (1973); (xv) Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, No. 182 (1999); (b) Twelve conventions relating to the environment, good governance and the fight against drug production and trafficking, as listed in part B of annex VIII: (i) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973); (ii) Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987); (iii) Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (1989); (iv) Convention on Biological Diversity (1992); (v) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992).

For a complete list of the conventions with respective links to the text of the treaties, see: http://​www.​commerce.​gov.​pk/​Downloads/​UN_​conventions.​pdf

It is reported that the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), the political arm and charitable wing of the domestic and internationally banned terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), received nearly one million USD from the government of the Punjab province (AFP, 2010, June 18). The financial support was granted despite the fact that the links between JuD and LeT were obvious.

Pakistan is a multi-ethnic and religiously diverse state with an estimated number of around 207 million people (based on the 2017 census). According to the last official census (conducted in 1998), 95% of the people identify themselves as Muslims. Among this Muslim community, 75% identify as Sunni and 25% as Shi’a. The remaining 5% of the country’s population are non-Muslim, including Hindus, Christians, and Parsis (Zoroastrians, Baha’is, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others). However, in contrast to these official statistics, Christians and other minorities believe that their real numbers are significantly higher. Furthermore, an estimated two to four million Ahmadi consider themselves Muslim, yet Pakistani law does not recognise them as such (USCIRFF, 2017, p. 61).

In a report published in April 2016 (Teaching Intolerance in Pakistan: Religious Bias in Public Textbooks), the USCIRF states that while 16 problematic passages outlined in an earlier survey in 2011 were removed from textbooks, 70 new intolerant or biased passages were added. Fifty-eight of these passages came from textbooks used in the Balochistan and Sindh provinces, while 12 came from the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces.

For example, the report asserted that ‘in public school classrooms, Hindu children are forced to read lessons about the conspiracies of Hindus toward Muslims’ and Christian children are taught that ‘Christians learned tolerance and kind-heartedness from Muslims.’ Additionally, a review of the curriculum demonstrated that public school students were being taught that ‘religious minorities, especially Christians and Hindus, are nefarious, violent, and tyrannical by nature.’ (USCIRF, 2016, p. 9)

For example, the 16-point National Action Plan on Human Rights (announced in February 2016)—that includes a policy framework for legislative reforms; increased protection of women’s, minorities’, and children’s rights; human rights education; international treaty implementation; and financial support to victims of abuses. Yet besides its announcement in February 2016, it is unclear how far any of this plan’s envisaged actions were implemented (USCIRF, 2017, p. 65; EC, 2018a, January 19). The National Parliament also passed a Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act 2016, which provides for punishments for inciting religious, sectarian, or ethnic hate speeches, proliferation of hate material, forced marriages of women belonging to minority groups (leading to forced conversions) (USCIRF, 2017, p. 65). However, Pakistan lacks any realistic measure of accountability for people accused of blasphemy. Impunity for violent attacks against religious minorities remains prevalent (AI, 2017, pp. 283, 284, 286).

Pakistan’s judicial apex body initiated suo moto proceedings under Article 184(3) of the country’s Constitution regarding suicide bomb attack of 22.9.2013 on the Church in Peshawar (killing 81 people) and regarding threats being given to Kalash tribe and Ismailies in Chitral. See for the detailed judgement, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, SMC No. 1/2014: http://​www.​supremecourt.​gov.​pk/​web/​user_​files/​File/​smc_​1_​2014.​pdf

According to some reports Pakistani state officials claim that an NCM does exist since 1995. One such statement can be found in Pakistan’s compliance reports to the he UN treaty monitoring bodies, including that regarding the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2009. For more details on the contradictory statements by Pakistani officials regarding this issue see Jacob (2016, May 25).

To further address the international conventions, Pakistan’s government established also several other National Commissions on: (1) Human Rights, (2) the Status of Woman, and (3) Rights of the Child. Islamabad also conducted some legislative action like the enacting of new laws to improve the rights of children and women (and to reduce the tremendous gender inequality), for example anti-rape and anti-honour killing legislations in general, or more concretely the Sindh Early Marriage Restraint Act, 2013 and the Punjab Protection of Women Against Violence Act, 2016). Taken the increasing cases of sexual harassments and other types of violence as well as a high level of social and political discrimination (EC, 2018b, January 19; 2018a; Yusuf, 2016, September 24).

For a detailed elaboration of the impacts of CPEC see Chap. 9: Development versus Democracy? The CPEC and Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan.

Like in many other countries, child labour and bonded labour are much interlinked in Pakistan. Furthermore, Pakistan is engaged in the worst forms of child labor, including forced domestic work and bonded labor in brick kilns (Ahmad, 2017b, October 16; USDOL, 2016).

‘Bonded labour’ is a special type of forced labour. It exists especially in Asian and agricultural societies. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), forced or compulsory labour is all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty [or other oppressive measure] and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily (ILO, 1930). It can occur where work is forced upon people by State authorities, by private enterprises or by individuals. This type of labour mostly appears in cases where monetary deals occur such as loans. If the debtor is unable to repay his loan he is forced to serve the creditor for some specified term. The concept of forced labour covers a wide range of coercive labour practices, which occur in all types of economic activities and in all parts of the world’, but especially in Pakistan (Fatima, 2017, September 22).

According to the Bureau of International Labor Affairs of the United States Department of Labor/USDOL (2016, p. 1), Pakistan ratified the UN CRC Optional Protocol on Armed Conflict, and the Punjab Provincial Government passed legislation establishing 15 as the minimum age for employment and 18 as the minimum age for employment in hazardous work. Baluchistan passed the Child Protection Act, which mandates the creation of child protection units/authorities so as to provide a referral mechanism through which rescued children can be placed in protective custody and obtain rehabilitation services. In addition, the Punjab Province launched the Elimination of Child Labor and Bonded Labor Project. Sindh passed a bill for the formation of a Child Protection Authority in May 2011, responsible for monitoring and controlling all child-related issues across the province, including sexual and physical abuse and human trafficking (Abro, 2018, February 6).

The increase in EU imports from Pakistan during the last four years have been concentrated on textiles. Textiles and leather in 2016 made up nearly 86% of EU imports from Pakistan (PBC, 2018).

Besides labour standards, another area of great dissonance concerns certain quality and manufacturing requirements.

Here it is interesting to note that the EU’s GSP scheme also provides for the application of safeguard measures when the ‘[…] imports increase by at least 13.5% in quantity (by volume) as compared to the previous calendar year; …]’. For example, the massive increases of textile (more than 20.6% in 2016 compared to 2015 [EC, 2018], which means that some products passed the 13.5% bench mark for the ‘security clauses’ during the last years would be subject to proper investigation if the European Commission or a member state would so request (UNCTAD, 2015, p. 62).

See Chapter VI Safeguard and Surveillance Provisions Section, I General Safeguards, Article 22 (1) of ‘GSP+ Regulation’: EU (2012), I (Legislative acts) Regulations, Regulation (EU), No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (EU, 2012, October 31; UNCTAD, 2015, pp. 62–63).

See for the complete text of this ‘GSP+ Regulation’: EU (2012), I (Legislative acts) Regulations, Regulation (EU), No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.

See also Sect. 6.​17.

Kaiser Bengali cited in Ahmed (2017c, September 3).