Advertisement

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

  • Siegfried O. Wolf
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary South Asian Studies book series (CSAS)

Abstract

This chapter is dedicated to one particular aspect of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) development—the impacts of the CPEC on the GSP+ (Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus) status granted to Pakistan by the European Union (EU). The chapter elaborates on the genesis of EU-Pakistan relations and gives an introduction to the GSP+ measure. It is then argued that the way the corridor is currently implemented influences the debate over the granting of the GSP+ status to Pakistan, as current CPEC-related developments threaten the country’s compliance with GSP+ requirements. Current CPEC-related implementation dynamics also potentially favour such developments as Pakistan’s involvement in state-sponsored terrorism, the maintenance of appeasement policies by state authorities towards Jihadists and religious fundamentalists, and a lack of state protection for minorities as well as violation of fundamental human rights. An increasingly repressive legal environment and the weakening of political-administrative institutions, governance, and quality of democracy constitute additional matters of concern regarding the country’s eligibility for the GSP+ status.

Bibliography

  1. Abbas, N., & Rasmussen, S. E. (2017, November 27). Pakistani law minister quits after weeks of anti-blasphemy protests. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  2. Abbasi, N. M. (2009). The EU and Democracy building in Pakistan. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Accessed February 7, 2019, from https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/chapters/the-role-of-the-european-union-in-democracy-building/eu-democracy-building-discussion-paper-29.pdf
  3. Abro, R. (2018, February 6). Ineffective legislation: Sindh’s children remain unprotected. The Express Tribune.Google Scholar
  4. AFP. (2010, June 18). Punjab Govt Funds institutes linked to Jamaat-ud-Dawa. The Express Tribune.Google Scholar
  5. Ahmad, I. (2017a, September 18). Questions to ask about workers’ rights under CPEC. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1358444
  6. Ahmad, I. (2017b, October 16). Addressing Pakistan’s modern slavery problem. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1364088
  7. Ahmad, N. (2017c, June 5). Can Pakistan’s brain drain be reversed? The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1427498/can-pakistans-brain-drain-reversed/
  8. AI. (2017). Amnesty International Report 2016/17. The State of the World’s Human Rights (pp. 283–287). London: Amnesty International (AI). Accessed February 7, 2019, from https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL1048002017ENGLISH.PDF
  9. Alavi, H. A. (1972). Kinship in West Punjab villages. Contribution to Indian Sociology, 6(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ali, A. (2016a). China Pakistan Economic Corridor: Prospects and challenges for regional integration. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(204), 1–5.Google Scholar
  11. Ali, M. H. (2016b, March 2). China’s proxy war in Syria: Revealing the role of Uighur fighters. Alarabiya. Accessed February 7, 2019, from https://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2016/03/02/China-s-proxy-war-in-Syria-Revealing-the-role-of-Uighur-fighters-.html
  12. Ali, S. (2016c, April 22). EU GSP plus scheme. Daily Times.Google Scholar
  13. Bales, K. (2016a). Blood and earth. Modern slavery, ecocide, and secret to saving the world. New York: Spiegel & Grau (Random House).Google Scholar
  14. Ballesteros-Peiró, A. (2015). The EU-Pakistan relationship: looking beyond the trading partnership. Strategic and International Studies. Madrid: Elcano Royal Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Baloch, S. M. (2018a, June 7). Water crisis: Why is Pakistan running dry? Deutsche Welle.Google Scholar
  16. Baloch, S. M. (2018b, April 18). CPEC’s environmental toll. The Diplomat.Google Scholar
  17. Curtis, L. (2016). Religious freedom in Pakistan: Glimmers of light on a darkening horizon. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 14(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawn. (2013, September 17). Pakistan likely to get EU’ GSP Plus status by end of year. Dawn.Google Scholar
  19. Dawn. (2014). SC orders formation of national council for minorities’ rights.Google Scholar
  20. DRI. (2016a). GSP+ in Pakistan. A brief introduction. Berlin: Democracy Reporting International (DRI).Google Scholar
  21. DRI. (2016b). GSP+ and Sri Lanka. Berlin: Democracy Reporting International (DRI).Google Scholar
  22. EC. (2004). Council decision of 29 April 2004 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2004/870/EC). European Commission/European Council (EC). Official Journal of the European Union (L 378/22). 23.12.2004.Google Scholar
  23. EC. (2013, December 12–13). European security strategy (ESS). Brussels: European Council (EC).Google Scholar
  24. EC. (2016a). The EU special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (‘GSP+’) covering the period 2014–2015 (Joint Staff Working Document. SWD (2016) 8 final). European Commission (EC).Google Scholar
  25. EC. (2016b). Evaluation of the European Union’s cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2007–2014) Volume II – Annexes June 2016. Evaluation carried out on behalf of the European Commission (EC).Google Scholar
  26. EC. (2017a, November 17). European Union, Trade in goods with Pakistan. Brussels: Directorate-General for Trade, European Commission.Google Scholar
  27. EC. (2018a, September 19). Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank. Connecting Europe and Asia – Building blocks for an EU Strategy. Brussels: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/European Commission (EC).Google Scholar
  28. EC. (2018b, April 16). European Union, Trade in goods with Pakistan. Directorate-General for Trade. Brussels: European Commission (EC).Google Scholar
  29. EC. (2018c, January 19). The EU special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (‘GSP+’) assessment of Pakistan covering the period 2016 – 2017 (Joint Staff Working Document. SWD (2018) 29 final). Brussels: European Commission (EC).Google Scholar
  30. EC. (2018d, January 19). Fact sheet. EU trade policy encourages sustainable development and respect for human rights in vulnerable economies. Brussels: European Commission (EC).Google Scholar
  31. EEAS. (2007). Country strategy paper for 2007–2013. Pakistan-European Community (PEC).Google Scholar
  32. EEAS. (2012). EU-Pakistan 5-year Engagement Plan. European Union External Action Service (EEAS).Google Scholar
  33. EEAS. (2013a, April 3). EU to observe elections in Pakistan. Press Release (A 183/13). Brussels: European Union External Action Service) 3. April.Google Scholar
  34. EEAS. (2013b, March 11). Council conclusions on Pakistan. Press Release. Council of the European Union, 3230th Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Brussels.Google Scholar
  35. EEAS. (2014). EU-Pakistan multi-annual indicative programme (MIP) 2014–2020. European External Action Service (EEAS) and European Commission.Google Scholar
  36. EEAS. (2016, November 24). Joint Press Release: Pakistan-EU Joint Commission. European Union External Action Service (EEAS).Google Scholar
  37. EU. (2012, October 31). 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. Official Journal of the European Union (EU), L 303/1. Accessed February 7, 2019, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R0978&from=EN
  38. EUROPOL. (2009). EU terrorism situation & trend report (Te-Sat). Report 2009. The Hague: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL).Google Scholar
  39. EUROPOL. (2011). EU terrorism situation & trend report (Te-Sat). Report 2011. The Hague: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL).Google Scholar
  40. Fatima, K. (2017, September 22). Bonded labour in Pakistan. Daily Times.Google Scholar
  41. FH. (2017a). Freedom in the world 2017. Pakistan report 2017. New York: Freedom House (FH).Google Scholar
  42. FH. (2017b). Freedom of the press 2017. Pakistan report. New York: Freedom House (FH).Google Scholar
  43. Grono, N. (2015, November 13). Perpetrators of modern slavery are devastating our environment too. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  44. Gul, I. (2017, December 14). Don’t let corruption taint CPEC. Daily Times.Google Scholar
  45. Haqqani, H. (2018, January 15). A non-ally relationship with Pakistan. The American Interest. Accessed February 12, 2019, from https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/01/12/non-ally-relationship-pakistan/
  46. Husain, I. (2017a, February 11). Financing burden of CPEC. Dawn.Google Scholar
  47. Husain, K. (2017b, June 21). Exclusive: CPEC master plan revealed. Details from original documents laying out the CPEC long term plan are publicly disclosed for the first time. Dawn.Google Scholar
  48. Hussain, Z. (2012, July 24). Dynastic politics. Dawn.Google Scholar
  49. ILO. (1930). CO29 – forced labour convention, 1930 (No. 29). Convention concerning forced or compulsory labour (Entry into force: 01 May 1932). Geneva: International Labour Organisation (ILO). Accessed February 12, 2019, from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C029
  50. Islam, S. (2008). Building democracy and fighting extremism in Pakistan: A role for the EU (Policy Brief). European Policy Centre. Accessed February 12, 2019, from http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/83885473_Building%20democracy%20and%20fighting%20extremism%20in%20Pakistan.pdf
  51. ITC. (2013). Enhancing Pakistan’s trading benefits from the proposed EU GSP plus scheme. Geneva: International Trade Center (ITC), European Union Trade Related Technical Assistance (TRTA II) Programme. Accessed February 12, 2019, from http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/intracen.org/Content/About_ITC/Press/Articles/GSP.pdf
  52. Jacob, P. (2016, May 25). The myth of the minorities’ commission. The Express Tribune.Google Scholar
  53. Jamal, N. (2017a, October 30). Local businesses lose big under CPEC. Dawn.Google Scholar
  54. Jamal, N. (2017b, May 22). What is the future of manufacturing? Dawn.Google Scholar
  55. Jamal, U. (2017c, August 8). What is behind the political ‘Mainstreaming’ of Jamaat-ud-Dawa in Pakistan? The Diplomat.Google Scholar
  56. Khalilzad, Z. (2018, January 3). It’s time to end Pakistan’s double game. The National Interest. Accessed February 12, 2019, from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/its-time-end-pakistans-double-game-23919?page=2
  57. Khilji, U., & Saleem, S. (2017). Forced disappearances will not silence us. Aljazeera.Google Scholar
  58. Lieven, A. (2002, January/February). The pressure on Pakistan. Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  59. Lieven, A. (2011). Pakistan. A hard country. Allen Lane: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  60. Malik, S. (2017, November 16). How can Pakistan fully exploit its GSP Plus status? (ISSI Issue Brief). Islamabad: Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. Accessed February 13, 2019, from http://issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IB_Shahroo_November_16_2017.pdf
  61. Mourdoukoutas, P. (2017a, October 9). Corruption, not India, is CPEC’s biggest threat. Forbes.Google Scholar
  62. Mourdoukoutas, P. (2017b, September 28). CPEC lifts Pakistan up. World competitiveness rankings. Forbes.Google Scholar
  63. Mukhopadhyay, A. R. (2009, June 12). The First EU-Pakistan Summit. IDSA Comment. New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses Strategic (IDSA). Accessed February 13, 2019, from https://idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/thefirstEUPakistanSummit_armukhopadhyay_120609
  64. Mustaq, A. Q., Ibrahim, M., Kaleem, M. (2013). Dynastic politics in Pakistan. International Journal of History and Research (IJHR), 3(4), 1–12. Accessed February 13, 2019, from http://www.tjprc.org/publishpapers/2-42-1375764356-1.Dynastic%20Politics.full.pdf
  65. Muzaffar, J. (2010, November 24). Pak, EU sign MoU for civilian capacity building. Dawn.Google Scholar
  66. PBC. (2018). Trade with the European Union (28). Blog. The Pakistan Business Council (PBC). Accessed February 13, 2019, from https://www.pbc.org.pk/research/trade-with-the-european-union-28/
  67. PT. (2017, March 30). Ministry of Religious Affairs establishes cell to monitor social media. Parliamentary Times (PT). Accessed February 13, 2019, from http://dailyparliamenttimes.com/ministry-religious-affairs-establishes-cell-monitor-social-media/
  68. PTI. (2015, December 8). U.S. aid to Pakistan will be used against India: Former diplomat. The Hindu. Press Trust of India (PTI).Google Scholar
  69. Rakisits, C. (2017). Pakistan: The rise of religious extremism (SADF Comment, No. 110). Brussels: South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF).Google Scholar
  70. Rana, I. (2018a, January 23). EU finalising new engagement plan with Pakistan. The Express Tribune. Google Scholar
  71. Rana, S. (2018b, June 5). Pakistan needs IMF support, Mulk warned. The Express Tribune.Google Scholar
  72. Rana, S. (2018c, February 28). CPEC’s transparency: NHA admits irregularities in award of $2.9b contract to Chinese firm. The Express Tribune.Google Scholar
  73. Rana, S. (2018d, February 3). Govt cuts financing for about 400 development projects. The Express Tribune. Google Scholar
  74. Raza, S. I. (2017, December 5). Three CPEC projects hit snags as China mulls new financing rules. Dawn.Google Scholar
  75. SADF. (2017a, November 6). GSP, the mid-term review and Pakistan: The need to recalibrate (SADF Policy Brief, No. 6). South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  76. SADF. (2017b, January 10). Education: South Asia’s foundation for the future (SADF Policy Brief, No. 4). South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  77. Sultana, T. (2013). An overview of EU-Pakistan relations; Focus on democratization of Pakistan. Journal of European Studies, 22–43. Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2252328
  78. Swett, K. L., & Glendon, M. A. (2015, June 3). Pakistan must protect religious freedom. National Interest. Accessed February 14, 2019, from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistan-must-protect-religious-freedom-13028
  79. UNCTAD. (2015). Generalized system of preferences. Handbook on the scheme of the European Union. New York and Geneva: United Nations, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Accessed February 14, 2019, from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/itcdtsbmisc25rev4_en.pdf
  80. USCIRF. (2011). Connecting the dots: Education and religious discrimination in Pakistan. Washington, DC: United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/resources/Pakistan-ConnectingTheDots-Email(3).pdf
  81. USCIRF. (2016). Teaching intolerance in Pakistan: Religious bias in Public School Textbooks. Washington, DC: United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Accessed February 14, 2019, from http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Teaching%20Intolerance%20in%20Pakistan.pdf
  82. USCIRF. (2017). 2017 Annual Report. Washington, DC: United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Accessed February 14, 2019, from http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2017.USCIRFAnnualReport.pdf
  83. USDOL. (2016). Child labor and forced labor reports. Pakistan. Washington, DC: Bureau of International Labor Affairs, United States Department of Labor (USDOL). Accessed February 16, 2019, from https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/images/ilab/child-labor/Pakistan2016.pdf
  84. USDS. (2016a). International religious freedom report for 2016. Pakistan. Washington, DC: United States Department of State (USDS), Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/269184.pdf
  85. USDS. (2016b). Pakistan 2016. Human Rights report. Washington, DC: United States Department of State, Human Rights and Labor (USDS). Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265758.pdf
  86. Wolf, S. O. (2014a, November 13). Pakistan: Ending the semblance of civil-military cordiality? Blog. International Security Observer. Accessed February 14, 2019, from http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/185778
  87. Wolf, S. O. (2014b, June 20). Just another carte blanche? EU GSP plus status and human rights in Pakistan (PRSU Briefing Paper No. 69). Durham: Durham University, Pakistan Security Research Unit (PSRU). Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2839387
  88. Wolf, S. O. (2014c). China’s role in Pakistan: International and domestic implications. FPRC Journal: Studies on Pakistan, 124–143. Accessed February 14, 2019, from http://crossasia-repository.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/3807
  89. Wolf, S. O. (2017f, January 6). Double standards? Understanding China’s diplomatic support for Pakistan’s Cross-Border Terrorists (SADF Comment, No. 68). Brussels: South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF).Google Scholar
  90. Wolf, S. O. (2018c, January 19). Going beyond the Tweet: The new US approach towards Pakistan in perspective (SADF Comment, No. 114). Brussels: South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF).Google Scholar
  91. WWF. (2014). The global slavery index 2014. Nedlands: Walk Free Foundation (WWF). Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://www.walkfreefoundation.org/news/resource/the-global-slavery-index-2014/
  92. WWF. (2016). The global slavery index 2016. Nedlands: Walk Free Foundation (WWF). Accessed February 14, 2019, from https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/index/
  93. Yusuf, Z. (2016, September 24). Broken promises: Why women and girls are denied rights. Dawn.Google Scholar
  94. Zajaczkowski, J., & Wolf, S. O. (2014). EU-Pakistan relations: European perspectives at the turn of the twenty-first century. In S. O. Wolf et al. (Eds.), The merits of regional cooperation. The case of South Asia (pp. 131–152). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siegfried O. Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations