WorldView: A new European Union agency dedicated to protecting human rights enjoyed its first public outing at the European Parliament this week. The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), which replaces the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), published its first report, which detailed a rise in racist attacks in several EU states.
Yet it was not the reported increase in extremism or continued discrimination against minority groups that most exercised MEPs on the civil liberties committee. It was the limited role accorded to the EU human rights agency by member states and a simmering turf war with another watchdog, the Council of Europe, that grabbed the spotlight.
EU leaders first suggested the need for a human rights agency in June 1999. The FRA finally got the green light from justice ministers in February and was handed a broader mandate than the EUMC to protect fundamental rights rather than simply investigate xenophobia.
But MEPs are concerned that national governments have deliberately undermined the agency by preventing it from investigating human rights abuses perpetrated by state bodies. For example, the EU regulation that established the agency enables it to collect data and report on human rights abuses only when it relates to the implementation by member states of EU law. EU institutions are also included within the FRA's mandate, but the crucial "third-pillar" matters, such as judicial, police and security, are all excluded from monitoring by the new agency. "They hobbled it from the start by excluding major areas from scrutiny," says Sarah Ludford, MEP and vice-president of the European Parliament's subcommittee on human rights. "The FRA must not become another ignored quango."
The Republic and the UK were two of the most vocal advocates within the EU of preventing the FRA from getting the power to investigate criminal justice or police matters. Both argued that they are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and so these rights are already guaranteed. They both employed a similar argument when torpedoing proposed EU legislation this year that would have guaranteed criminal suspects across Europe a minimum standard of procedural rights.
Human rights groups disagree. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch say there is a greater need than ever for scrutiny of these areas given the slew of anti-terrorism measures introduced by many EU states after the September 11th, 2001, attacks.
The controversial issue of rendition flights and secret detention centres operated by the CIA within the EU also lie outside the ambit of the agency. This means that the FRA will be barred from launching an investigation like the inquiry into the CIA that Swiss senator Dick Marty has recently undertaken for the Council of Europe.
Ironically, the Council of Europe, which was founded in 1949 as a body to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law throughout Europe, has welcomed the EU's decision to restrict the mandate of the FRA. Its executive officers are keen to guard its position as the premier human rights watchdog in Europe. "My concern is one of duplication," says Terry Davis, secretary general of the council.
"That it does not stray into our geographical area by looking at human rights outside of the EU . . . and I think it would be a waste of taxpayers' money if it dealt with issues already handled by the council, such as police brutality."
Yet critics of the Council of Europe point to its "lack of teeth" in forcing its 47 members to protect human rights. For example, Russia remains a full member despite persistent concerns related to its protection of human and civil rights. And while the council's investigation into rendition found that the CIA ran secret prisons in Poland and Romania with both states' knowledge, the EU simply ignored its findings.
Human rights activists had hoped the FRA, as an EU agency, would be able to force member states to respond to human rights concerns. MEPs had lobbied to grant the FRA the power to monitor fundamental rights in the EU for the purposes of employing article seven of the EU treaty - a provision that can be used to suspend the voting rights of any EU member guilty of breaching fundamental rights.
But EU states baulked at handing the agency such a powerful monitoring role even though the former EUMC had enjoyed a similar privilege.
The minimalist role accorded to the FRA by EU member states is likely to reduce the agency to being "an information tool rather than a referee", according to Dr Laurent Pech, Jean Monnet lecturer in EU law at NUI Galway, who concludes that it "remains to be seen how 'active' and 'independent' the FRA is going to be".
Anastasia Crickley, the Irish chairwoman of the FRA, acknowledges that the agency was founded as a compromise and faces challenges. But she insists it is a compromise that will enable the agency to create a more equal Europe that protects human rights.
The agency has already commissioned several research projects on homophobia, children's rights and hate speech in the media. It has also appointed a member of the Council of Europe to its board in an effort to assuage concerns of duplication.
"You need to give it time," says Crickley, who notes that member states will review the mandate and performance of the agency in 2011. The agency should also benefit from a bigger budget than the EUMC and will endeavour to undertake more of its own research, she says.
Human rights activists will be closely monitoring the agency's performance.