The European Parliament has never avoided a debate about human rights or kept quiet for fear of hurting people's feelings. The defence of human rights lies at the heart of the EU, the creation of which was a response to World War II to ensure that the peoples of Europe resolved their political differences in parliamentary chambers and committee rooms rather than slaughtered each other on the battlefields. Sixty years on, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty means that all European law must be consistent with the political, democratic and social freedoms contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Moreover, the fact is that, when the European Parliament makes a statement about the political or human rights situation in a third country, that country sits up and listens. Despite not being a legislative committee, the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee is still widely regarded by political groups as the most coveted parliamentary committee and, while a European Parliament debate is not legislatively binding, it is a strong statement of political intent.
Another means for the European Parliament to deal with human rights issues is through its parliamentary delegations. There are over 30 delegations linking the Parliament with countries across the world - ranging from joint parliamentary assemblies such as the ACP, EuroMed and EuroLat assemblies, to joint parliamentary committees established as part of association agreements to foster cooperation, to election observation missions.
These delegations closely monitor the status of human rights. In 1991, an EP delegation was the first ever to be permitted to visit Tibet, where it raised questions of human rights violations. Similarly, in the mid-1990s, the Parliament's delegation for relations with Central Asian Republics vociferously campaigned for the Parliament to delay its approval for the partnership and cooperation agreements with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, successfully winning concessions before the Parliament finally gave its assent in 1999. Meanwhile, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a member, cancelled its fifth session in 2002 when the ACP delegation decided to include in the Zimbabwean delegation two ministers who were on the EU travel ban list.
But how does the EU ensure effectively that, outside its borders, human rights are respected? Obviously, the main "carrot" is the prospect of a bilateral free trade agreement with the largest single market in the world. But, at the same time, the "carrot" of the EU market also acts as the "stick" to stimulate reform. This combination of dialogue and the economic "carrot and stick" approach is the way which the European Parliament has so far taken to get results.
The most high-profile "carrot and stick" case relates to the ongoing debate about the association agreement between the EU and Israel. Like Malta, the EU is Israel's biggest importer of goods and its second biggest exporter. In 2006, the total traded between the EU and Israel amounted to €23.5 billion. For the last few years, the EU has resisted Israeli demands to upgrade relations, demanding progress from the Israelis relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Last week, the European Parliament held a debate on relations between the EU and Tunisia, a debate that has profound, but also risky, potential consequences for the EU-Tunisia relationship. As I pointed out in the plenary session, the debate was distinctly untimely - coinciding with a visit to the Parliament of Tunisian parliamentarians, doubtless causing them much embarrassment - with some speakers focusing their remarks on condemning the Tunisian government on contentious issues between the government and civil society.
The EU is Tunisia's main trading partner, accounting for about 70 per cent of Tunisian imports (€9.5 billion) and 75 per cent of Tunisia's exports (€9.9 billion), figures which have both increased significantly in recent years. As a demonstration of Tunisia's status as an established trading partner with the EU, when it removed tariffs for industrial products in 2008, it became the first Mediterranean country to enter a free trade agreement with the EU.
Parallel to this there have been several recent signs of improving dialogue between Tunisia and the EU at both Commission and Parliament level. Dialogue with the Commission has included the programming of several subcommittees' meetings within the framework of the Tunisia-EU association agreement (including the Human Rights and Democracy Subcommittee) while dialogue at the level of the European Parliament took the form of the recent visit in Brussels of an important Tunisian parliamentary delegation representing four political parties represented in the Tunisian Chamber of Deputies and with the Tunisia-EP inter-parliamentary meeting scheduled for March in Brussels.
There is no value in criticising and isolating Tunisia when it is evident that progress in many spheres has taken place. Causing political embarrassment for no tangible gain might give certain parliamentarians a sense of moral superiority but would do little to improve the status of the Tunisian people.
Let us ensure that Tunisia and other non-EU states conform to EU standards in the economic, social, political and human rights sphere. And let us use the "carrot and stick" approach to ensure that its transition to a functioning multi-party democracy is genuine. But let us do that in a well-planned and structured dialogue.
The wheels of reform are in motion. Let us let them turn smoothly without unnecessary jolts.
Prof. Scicluna is a Labour member of the European Parliament.