India this week raised objections at a World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting against the European Union and Chinese Taipei “rushing” to the intergovernmental body against import tariff revisions effected in 2019, ThePrint has learnt.
According to a trade official based in Geneva, the Swiss city where the WTO is headquartered, India said the “parties in a dispute should work together”.
Last year, the EU and Chinese Taipei dragged India to the WTO when the Modi government imposed increased import tariffs — ranging from 7.5 per cent to 20 per cent — on a number of information and communications technology (ICT) products such as mobile phones and components, integrated circuits, headsets and cameras.
According to the complainants, India has applied duties on seven ICT products in excess of the 0 per cent binding rates laid out under WTO norms.
Under WTO dispute settlement norms, the first step is to seek consultations between the parties. If that fails, then the complainant can request for a dispute panel to be set up. India, the official said, had taken exception to the EU and Chinese Taipei’s “rush” to appoint the panel.
“India made a statement criticising complainants for rushing forward to ensure the appointment of panellists in their two disputes with India over its tariffs on certain high-tech products,” the official added.
“India is of the view that parties in a dispute should work together at every stage of a dispute and that agreement of the parties to the selection of a slate of panellists is an entrenched principle aimed at securing the legitimacy of panels,” the official said.
India believes the “undue hurry” to ensure the appointment of panellists seems to be linked to the fact that the current WTO director-general will leave his post on 31 August.
At the meeting between the disputing parties in Geneva, India also said the WTO secretariat should have proposed nominations for the panel to the parties for their consideration, but failed to do so, describing this as “unacceptable”, the official said.
Meanwhile, in June, Japan also joined the EU and Taiwan — India recognises Taiwan as Chinese Taipei in acknowledgment of Beijing’s ‘One China’ policy — in the dispute against India.
Like Taiwan, it has also sought a separate WTO dispute panel for the case.
Weighing in on the matter, a second Indian government official said New Delhi does not want the case to turn into a full-fledged dispute and is keen on settling the matter through consultations.
Both India and the EU held consultations in May 2019 but failed to settle the matter.
According to sources, the matter was discussed at the last India-EU Summit that was held this July, when both sides decided to launch a high-level trade and investment dialogue.
The Turkish vice president on Aug. 29 called on the EU for equity amid ongoing tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.
In an exclusive interview with state-run Anadolu Agency, Fuat Oktay said: “Turkey expects equity from the EU, no one should expect Ankara to take a step back based on this equity.”
Oktay further asked: “If the Greek attempts to expand its territorial waters isn’t a cause of war, then what is?” stressing that the country “will protect its rights on every cubic meter in the Eastern Mediterranean waters no matter what.”
“It is insincere for the EU to call for dialogue on the one hand and make other plans on the other, regarding the activities we carry out in our own continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Oktay also said on via his Twitter account.
<blockquote readability="0">
<a href="/ankara-says-eus-demand-to-stop-activities-in-e-med-out-of-line-157787" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
<h5>Ankara says EU’s demand to stop activities in E Med ‘out of line'</h5>
<img src="//s.hurriyet.com.tr/hdnstatic/dist/images/placeholder-img.jpg" data-src="//i.hurimg.com/i/hdn/75/650x350/5f492e4bc9de3d1068d448c0.jpg" alt="Ankara says EU’s demand to stop activities in E Med ‘out of line" class="lazy bImage"/><noscript><img src="//i.hurimg.com/i/hdn/75/650x350/5f492e4bc9de3d1068d448c0.jpg" alt="Ankara says EU’s demand to stop activities in E Med ‘out of line" class="bImage" itemprop=""/></noscript>
</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
He added: “We [Turkey] are well aware of peace and diplomatic language, but we will not hesitate to do what is necessary when it comes to protecting the rights and interests of Turkey. France and Greece are among those who know this best.”
Greece disputed Turkey’s current energy exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean, trying to box in Turkish maritime territory based on small islands near the Turkish coast.
Turkey – the country with the longest coastline in the Mediterranean – has sent out drill ships to explore for energy on its continental shelf, saying that Ankara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) have rights in the region.
Ankara has earlier said energy resources near the island of Cyprus must be shared fairly between the TRNC – which has issued Turkish state oil company Turkish Petroleum a license – and the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus.
‘Unthinkable for Turkey to give up Aegean, East Med’
Meanwhile, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli said on Aug. 29 that it is “unthinkable” for Turkey to give up its “historical interests” in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas.
Greece is playing with fire and is being spurred on by France, Bahçeli said in a written statement.
He said all the countries “sitting at the gambling table” are familiar with each other and are trying to bet on the winner.
“Do not come close to a fire that will burn you,” he added.
The United Nations refugee agency has urged European nations to let in hundreds of migrants rescued from the Mediterranean Sea by humanitarian boats — including one sponsored by street artist Banksy.
The Louise Michel has been picking up groups of migrants in the central Mediterranean
The ship’s crew appealed for help and a safe port
The Italian coast guard said it sent a vessel to take 49 of the most vulnerable people off the ship
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation of Migration said more than 200 rescued refugees and migrants on the non-profit search-and-rescue ship MV Louise Michel needed to disembark because it was “currently far beyond its safe carrying capacity”.
The bright pink ship was painted by street artist Banksy, who released a video on Instagram over the weekend confirming his involvement in the rescue operation.
“Like most people who make it in the art world, I bought a yacht to cruise the Med,” he wrote in captions accompanying the video.
“It’s a French Navy vessel we converted into a lifeboat because EU authorities deliberately ignore distress calls from non-Europeans.”
The MV Louise Michel crew was forced to call for help when their vessel became too full.(Supplied: Mvlouisemichel.org)
The subversive artist continued: “All Black Lives Matter.”
The Louise Michel has been picking up groups of migrants in the central Mediterranean in what appeared to be its maiden rescue voyage.
The ship’s crew appealed for help and a safe port earlier on Saturday, saying that it had rescued so many people that it could no longer safely navigate.
The Italian coast guard said it sent a vessel to take 49 of the most vulnerable people off the ship to bring them to safety.
The plea from UNHCR and IOM also mentioned hundreds of migrants on two other charity ships in urgent need of finding safe harbour.
The agencies said 27 migrants who left from Libya, including a pregnant woman and children, have been stranded on the commercial tanker Maersk Etienne “for an unacceptable three-week period” since their rescue on August 5.
A further 200 rescued people on the SeaWatch4, which has waited for days to be allowed to enter a port, also needed urgent help, the agencies added.
Loading…
“The humanitarian imperative of saving lives should not be penalised or stigmatised, especially in the absence of dedicated state-led efforts,” the agencies said.
They reiterated concerns about the lack of dedicated EU-led search and rescue operations in the central Mediterranean, and the lack of coordination among European nations to support countries like Italy and Malta, which are bearing the brunt of migrants arriving by sea.
Street artist Banksy has used his retired French navy vessel to pick up refugees in the Mediterranean Sea.(Supplied: Mvlouisemichel.org)
In a series of tweets over the past few days, the Louise Michel’s crew strongly criticised the European Union for its migration policy.
The tone of the tweets grew more and more urgent in the past 24 hours after the crew reported that the numbers of migrants on board were getting too high and included women, children and the body of one person.
“We need immediate assistance,” the crew tweeted via its @MVLouiseMichel handle.
“We are safeguarding 219 people with a crew of 10. Act #EU now!”
Another humanitarian aid ship, the Mare Jonio, was leaving the Sicilian port of Augusta on Saturday to come to the Louise Michel’s aid.
The Dallas Morning News is publishing a multipart series on important issues for voters to consider as they choose a president this year. This is the third installment of our What’s at Stake series, and it focuses on presidential leadership. Find the full series here.
There is a flawed and perhaps even misbegotten public perception about the presidency that too often distracts us from accurately assessing candidates for the office. Too often, it seems, we operate with the belief that every president enjoys the same amount of power simply because he occupies the same office as his predecessors.
If that were true we wouldn’t see some presidents extending their influence while others appear to shrink in office. In fact while the office of the presidency is infused with power, much of the president’s ability to lead exists outside of the official lines of authority. Much of a president’s power stems from what Theodore Roosevelt termed the bully pulpit.
Other political offices allow the men and women who hold them to command public attention. But no other office in the United States approaches the scale or the immediacy the American president has to command public attention and thereby potentially rally public support.
But here a president’s power is tempered by outside forces. Every president may get a megaphone, but simply shouting louder than everybody else doesn’t make a person powerful. Influence often stems from the moral authority a president can amass using that bully pulpit.
When a president calls us to a greater national purpose or makes decisions that are broadly seen as fair and driven by good impulses, he (and someday she) can drive extraordinary results. He’ll have the public on his side, even when many people disagree with his policies if what he is pursuing is fair, instills pride in national action, or serves laudable goals. And such public support can transcend poll numbers, as we saw with George W. Bush when in his second term he was able to win support for military spending from an anti-war Democratic Congress. Much of the country was turning against the war, but the country wasn’t going to turn against its soldiers.
So what’s at stake in our presidential elections is more than who will hold the office. What’s at stake is whether the person who wins in November can marshal the moral authority necessary to unite the country, prioritize national problems, and rally our political system to carry us through perilous moments ahead.
Presidential leadership is one of those topics that fills history books. It is much harder to spot in real time than with the lens of history. But there are compelling examples from recent history and from our toughest moments as a country that offer relevant lessons for the challenges the country faces today.
First, we’ll take on a misleading cliché. It’s often been said that in a moment of crisis, this country tends to rally behind its president and therefore has built-in strength. We think of Franklin D. Roosevelt following Pearl Harbor, when he led this country into World War II, joined a coalition against two of the dangerous tyrannical regimes and prevailed.
But assuming national unity is automatic in a crisis is a false reading of history. This nation has often been united in tough moments because of the sound leadership of our president. Consider, for example, the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Many people today will remember a united country, but a careful reading of events shows deliberate approach that led the country through the shock of the moment, away from raw anger, and toward a more productive strategy of combating terrorism systematically with the help of NATO and other allies.
The groundwork for that unity was laid with speeches made in the two weeks that followed the attacks. From the Oval Office, Bush calmed the country. From a mosque in Washington, D.C., he pushed against religious bigotry. From the national cathedral he helped the country mourn. And from Ground Zero he gave a speech of just a few dozen words: “I hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people … who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.” These impromptu remarks captured the raw emotions many Americans felt and channeled them into a productive outlook, thereby setting up his speech to a joint session of Congress that put forward a plan for responding to the attacks. The country rallied because of a broad perception that the civilian authorities had a handle on the sudden, understood what Americans felt, and were going to meet the new challenge facing us.
If that seems like a simple point, it has profound implications. In a moment of crisis a leader needs to instill confidence in his or her vision for facing the future. Had FDR waffled after Pearl Harbor, the country likely would have fractured with a debate about what to do. If Abraham Lincoln was unsure of what he wanted in 1861, it’s likely the North would have split amid competing factions, some of which wanted reconciliation with the South on any terms. And following 9/11, if the president failed to offer a response most people could believe in we’d remember that period as one of national division.
There are few permanent political victories, so partisan politics did reemerge after 9/11 and we’ve had serious debates about a series of national security decisions that followed. But, especially when our nation has been attacked and suffered great losses, there are enduring political legacies in our history, most of which stem from a president understanding the moral question of the moment and acting to meet it, even if doing so required overcoming opposition.
Lincoln sits at or near the top of presidential rankings because he understood the moral underpinnings of the Civil War and called the nation to a higher moral purpose of abolishing slavery. Lincoln’s legacy endures today because he translated the national sacrifice into a moral gain.
More recently, in George H.W. Bush, we saw a president who understood the moral power of uniting Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall even as West German officials appeared hesitant to unite their own country. Bush’s leadership ensured the arc of history would lead to expanding freedom in the eastern half of Germany and much of the rest of Eastern Europe.
There are other such historical examples. Dwight D. Eisenhower used the power of the United States to stand against communist aggression on the Korean Peninsula, which cemented the American position in the Cold War to counter the expansion of a tyrannical ideology. John F. Kennedy also showed his dedication to checking Soviet aggression during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And Ronald Reagan famously marshaled public opinion against the Soviet Union. In each case, we can see how the president offered moral clarity on fundamental issues involving human freedom and the ability of this country to defend itself against a would-be ascendant ideology.
On domestic policy, there usually isn’t a stark contrast between good and evil. Instead, what’s required of a president (or presidential candidate) is to amass moral authority by uniting Americans behind common solutions, offering an optimistic tone, and by having the courage to pay a political price to make hard decisions that might be unpopular with some in the short run but will lead the country to a better place in the long run.
Barack Obama’s speech in Dallas following the July 7 slayings of police officers helped bridge a political divide, for example. And Gerald Ford’s decision to offer a path to citizenship to people who fled Vietnam after the war put him in line with the values of most Americans whose heart broke for refugees of the conflict America had just withdrawn from.
Other presidents confront openly immoral positions. We think here of Lyndon B. Johnson pushing for civil rights legislation even while facing down bigots inside (and outside) of his party. His push to expand voting rights was difficult at the time but undeniably built a better future for the country.
Few appreciate that one aspect of Harry Truman’s successful campaign in 1948 was that he showed the limited political reach of segregationists by winning election while also facing down a third-party Dixiecrat candidate.
The success of a president
A thread running through successful presidential candidates and influential presidents is that in word and deed they demonstrated that they understood the larger moral struggle facing society and then led by inspiring other Americans to join with them. One aspect of that leadership is often successful presidents forge stable and lasting teams of advisers who serve with them for years, often in very demanding posts, and therefore can develop and implement needed reforms.
In real time, it can be difficult to see how such leadership will work out. For example, in the 1980s Reagan was castigated for offering seemingly simplistic views and millions of Americans thought he was risking nuclear war with a confrontational rather than a conciliatory tone toward the Soviets. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Roosevelt faced a large portion of the country that opposed entering World War II before Pearl Harbor even as he took steps that proved useful when we eventually did enter the war.
But in the end, the presidents who rise to the top, who prove to have enduring political legacies, are the ones who navigate past partisanship and instead focus on leading the country as a whole to serve a purpose greater than ourselves. Every president will claim to do so, of course, but not all of them actually do it. The anti-AIDS initiative, PEPFAR, endures because saving millions of people from the ravages of a brutal disease is something this country can be proud of. Lincoln and FDR will always rise to the top of presidential rankings because they were willing to rally others through prolonged and brutal wars against tyranny. We suspect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will rise in history’s assessment if democracies long endure in those countries as well. In any case, it will prove to matter that this country responded to terrorism by supporting the spread of democracy.
At the same time, Andrew Johnson will always belong at the bottom of presidential rankings. He set the stage for the rise of Jim Crow and decades of oppression. Similarly, we suspect Richard Nixon will never be vindicated by history. His was a presidency without a moral center.
An American century
What’s at stake this year is a decision about who can better rally the country to meet its crises and orient itself toward greater purpose. History will notice if we, as Lincoln called for, serve the better angels of our nature. And history will reward us if we act on the belief, as a more recent president noted during a different time of crisis, that “[w]e are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.”
Today we face a pandemic, a recession and a rise of authoritarian states. We are faced with a crucial test of American leadership in the world and at home, a leadership founded by the sacrifice, ingenuity and commitment of the American people and their elected officials. As in the past, we need a president who believes we can learn from history and who can act on the belief that we have the power and talent to once again create “a more perfect union.”
That, we believe, goes hand in hand with defending and spreading liberal democracy well into the 21st century. There is no reason why, with the right leadership, this young century cannot be another American century; and, moreover, that a more unified United States of America cannot stand as a beacon of progress, both social and economic, for another century and beyond.
Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay has slammed a recent threat by the European Union to slap Ankara with sanctions as “hypocritical” as his country yesterday launched a new military drill off the coast of Cyprus amid tensions in the eastern Mediterranean.
Oktay’s comments came a day after Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, said the bloc was preparing to impose sanctions on Turkey – including tough economic measures – unless progress is made in reducing soaring tensions with Greece and Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean.
“It is hypocritical for the European Union to call for dialogue and, simultaneously, make other plans regarding Turkey’s activities within our continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Oktay said on Twitter.
“We are proficient in the language of peace and diplomacy, but do not hesitate to do the necessary thing when it comes to defending Turkey‘s rights and interests. France and Greece know that better than anyone.”
The long-running dispute between Turkey and Greece, both Nato members, flared after both agreed to rival accords on their maritime boundaries with Libya and Egypt, and Turkey sent a survey vessel into contested waters this month.
The EU‘s measures, meant to limit Turkey’s ability to explore for natural gas in contested waters, could include individuals, ships or the use of European ports, Borrell said.
Greece and Turkey are at odds over the rights to potential hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean, based on conflicting claims about the extent of their continental shelves.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, also underlined the need for regional agreement on safe disembarkation amid the COVID-19 pandemic and reduced search and rescue capacity.
“The humanitarian imperative of saving lives should not be penalized or stigmatized, especially in the absence of dedicated state-led efforts,” they said in a joint statement.
IOM and UNHCR are calling for the immediate disembarkation of more than 400 rescued migrants and refugees in the Central Mediterranean.
The agencies reported that some 200 refugees and migrants were in urgent need of transfer and disembarkation from the Louise Michel, a search and rescue vessel operated by a German non-governmental organization (NGO) and funded by the reclusive British artist Banksy.
The boat had assisted in a rescue early on Saturday and was overcrowded. “Any delays could jeopardize the safety of all people onboard, including its crew members,” the agencies warned.
Following calls for assistance, 49 people were later evacuated by the Italian coastguard, according to media reports.
An ‘unacceptable’ situation
Meanwhile, some 27 people who had departed from Libya have been aboard a commercial vessel since being rescued more than three weeks ago. Those on the Maersk Etienne include a pregnant woman and children.
Describing the situation as “unacceptable”, the UN agencies stressed that a commercial tanker “cannot be considered a suitable place to keep people in need of humanitarian assistance or those who may need international protection”, adding that “appropriate COVID-19 prevention measures can be implemented once they reach dry land.”
A further 200 migrants and refugees are on board another NGO rescue vessel, the Sea Watch 4.
Lack of regional agreement
Both IOM and UNHCR have long called for regional agreement on a mechanism for disembarkation of people rescued at sea.
“The lack of agreement…is not an excuse to deny vulnerable people a port of safety and the assistance they need, as required under international law,” they said, calling for stalled talks to be resumed and for other European Union (EU) states to step up support to Mediterranean countries on the frontline of the issue.
The UN agencies also expressed concern about what they described as the continued absence of dedicated EU-led search and rescue capacity in the Central Mediterranean.
“With relatively fewer NGO vessels compared to previous years, the gap is being increasingly filled by commercial vessels,” they said.
“It is vital that they are permitted to disembark rescued passengers promptly, as without such timely processes, shipmasters of commercial vessels may be deterred from attending to distress calls for fear of being stranded at sea for weeks on end.”
Responsibility for the tension in the Eastern Mediterranean is increasingly seen to fall on Turkey following the informal EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Berlin and the latest statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel supporting Greece and Cyprus.
<p>As of Saturday, it was also clear that diplomatic efforts on the part of Berlin and Brussels for a de-escalation, combined with the threat of new sanctions, will continue ahead of the European Council on September 24.</p><aside><strong class="trendig-now-label">VIRAL ΕΙΔΗΣΕΙΣ</strong>
</aside><p>German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, who had previously tried to maintain equal distances in public, noted that Turkey's behaviour in the Eastern Mediterranean was harming its relations with the EU, while EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that dialogue will be conditional on Turkey abstaining from unilateral actions.
There was also clear willingness among EU partners to support Greece and Cyprus in the face of Turkish provocativeness and on the need to impose stricter sanctions if mediation should fail.
Merkel, in recent statements, said that all EU countries have an obligation to support Greece. She had previously had two rounds of talks on the telephone with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while abortive efforts by Germany’s foreign minister to mediate ahead of Gymnich only confirmed that Turkey is not interested in reaching an understanding.
Effectively, the EU has given Turkey a month to conform and to stop unilateral actions and violations of international law before Europe imposes sanctions. The EU summit on September 24-25 will focus on EU-Turkish relations and decide on a series of strong sanctions proposed by Brussels, if there is no de-escalation and the start of dialogue is still not possible.
As Borrell noted, efforts to “create space for negotiations” on all issues relating to relations with Turkey will continue but he also presented a long list of escalating sanctions, including in sectors where the Turkish economy is more closely linked with that of Europe, that will be imposed on Ankara if it insists on illegal activities in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay has attacked as “hypocritical” a threat by the EU to impose sanctions on Ankara over its soaring tensions in the eastern Mediterranean with neighbour Greece.
In a Tweet, Oktay issued a scathing rebuke of the EU’s position, saying that, “It is hypocritical for the European Union to call for dialogue and, simultaneously, make other plans regarding Turkey’s activities within our continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean.”
“We are proficient in the language of peace and diplomacy, but do not hesitate to do the necessary thing when it comes to defending Turkey’s rights and interests. France and Greece know that better than anyone,” he added.
Oktay’s comments come hot on the heels of a statement by EU Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, who said that the bloc was preparing to slap sanctions on Turkey – including harsh economic measures – unless it make speedy efforts toward reducing rapidly deteriorating relations with both Greece and Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean region.
The measures, if imposed, would seek to curtail Turkey’s ability to explore for natural gas in the famously contested waters of the region, and could, according to Mr Borrell, target individuals, Turkish ships and the use of European ports.
“We can go to measures related to sectoral activities… where the Turkish economy is related to the European economy,” Mr Borrell told a news conference recently in reference to the possible sanctions.
The EU would, Mr Borrell noted, focus on all “activities we consider illegal.”
The long-simmering dispute between Turkey and Greece – both NATO member states – started to boil over after both agreed to rival accords on maritime zones with Libya and Egypt.
Turkey and the UN-backed Government of National Accord in Libya – whom Ankara has been providing substantial military support to in that country’s ongoing civil war – struck an accord in late 2019 that allowed Turkey to access areas in the region where sizeable hydrocarbon resources have been found.
Then, at the beginning of August, Egypt and Greece signed a rival agreement – one that Turkey declared “null and void” – to jointly explore their exclusive economic zones for marine resources.
Both sides have continued to lock horns over who has legitimate rights over hydrocarbon resources in the region as a result of conflicting claims about the extent of their continental shelves.
Military Developments
Ominous signs of the potential for the militarisation of the dispute have started to emerge.
On Friday, August 28, Turkey declared that it would hold military drills off northwest Cyprus in the coming weeks.
Following that, the Turkish military issued a warning to mariners, known as a Navtex, which said it would be holding “gunnery exercise” from Saturday August 29 until September 11.
Before that, on August 12, Greek and Turkish frigates that were following one of Ankara’s oil and gas survey ships, the Oruc Reis, collided.
Turkish and Greek F-16 fighter jets engaged in what The Times described as a “dogfight” over the Mediterranean as Ankara dispatched its planes to intercept six Greek jets as they returned from war games in Cyprus.
Brussels [Belgium], Aug 28 (ANI): The European Parliament has asked Pakistan to protect the rights of women and girls after rising incidents of honour killings, acid attacks and social restrictions on movement and jobs reported from the country.
Recently, a question was raised that despite the fact that Pakistan benefits from the EU GSP, both the current and former Pakistani Governments have done little for Pakistan’s women and girls.
In the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, an official circular forcing school girls to wear the hijab or the abaya was issued a few months ago. After widespread outrage, the local Government had to revoke the decision.
Ishaq Khakwani, a former federal minister and one of the leaders of the current ruling party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, has admitted that the Government has not paid enough attention to addressing the issue of violence against women.
In a reply, the European Commission said, “The Report shows that Pakistan is making some progress on effective implementation, e.g. on the elimination of honour killings, the protection of transgender persons and the protection of women’s and children’s rights. The report also notes that more progress is needed, including with regard to discrimination and violence against women and girls”.
It further added, “Within the GSP monitoring process, the Commission sent a list of salient issues to Pakistan in June 2020 recalling the need to take effective measures to prevent child marriage across the country, make progress on the bill raising the legal age for marriage to 18 years and on the bill on prevention and protection from domestic violence against women”.
It is waiting for a response from the Pakistan government, which is expected by September 2020.
The reply also added, “Discrimination and violence against women and girls were also discussed during the 10th EU-Pakistan Sub-Group on Democracy, Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights in November 2019″.
The European Commission also raised concerns over growing child labour in Pakistan.
“The EU Special Representative for Human Rights Eamon Gilmore raised the tragic case of Zohra Shah, and the matter of child labour more broadly, with Federal Minister of Human Rights Shireen Mazari on 27 June 2020, highlighting the EU’s serious concerns. Minister Mazari informed of legislative efforts to ensure that domestic child labour below 14 years of age would stop”, said the Commission in a question raised over the issue.
It further added, “The topic of child labour features prominently on the agenda of the EU-Pakistan Joint Commission’s Sub-Group on Human Rights, and is also addressed in the context of the Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance (GSP), the 2018-2019 Report on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) and its assessment on the implementation by Pakistan of the conventions on labour and human rights covered by GSP”.
Extreme poverty in some provinces of Pakistan forced many children to work as laborious. The situation is grim in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (ANI)
The Turkish vice president on Aug. 29 called on the EU for equity amid ongoing tensions in the 
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/QQEXCXXQYBENTILS4NDIIYCNDM.jpg?w=696&resize=696,0&ssl=1 "Every president needs moral authority to lead")
