Danièle Smadja is the European Union's Ambassador to India. She was appointed to the position on 20 September 2007.
Since she joined the European Commission in 1978, Smadja has held several positions in EU external affairs.
She was speaking to EurActiv Managing Editor Daniela Vincenti-Mitchener in New Delhi.
To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.
You have been EU ambassador to India for over three years. Do you think the perception of the European Union has changed in India, especially since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which gives the Union a greater role in global affairs?
I don't think the perception of the India regarding the European Union has changed, but I would say the perception concerning the European Union is slowly evolving. In this context, strangely enough and in a very interesting way, the Lisbon Treaty has made a big difference.
Even when they don't know at all any of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, they have acknowledged the change in the European Union set up and this is very nice for us ambassadors of the member states or myself, who have put a lot of effort into explaining the change.
They have acknowledged that the European Union is a work in progress and the Lisbon Treaty is an important milestone.
But India-EU relations have been primarily a matter for bilateral relations with its member states. Is there an understanding that the EU is gaining clout and needs to be more of a partner than in the past?
We have to distinguish here. As far as trade is concerned there has never been any doubt in the mind of the Indians that this is a matter for the European Union, whether bilaterally or multilaterally.
From a trade point of view the EU as such has always been considered as a very strong and important partner.
In the field of foreign policy, we need to prove to the Indians that the EU is bringing an added value. Otherwise they will continue to be more comfortable in addressing individual member states.
There is another issue we need to keep in mind. India is still a young country. It is still in the process of nation building, very much concentrated on the notion of the nation state.
India is also concerned with its immediate neighbours. With some of them it has also some border issues, whereas in the European Union the notion of borders has disappeared.
Indians also have a long tradition of political and diplomatic relations with our member states, so they will come to us if we are really bringing something. If they come to us and we don't have a common position and send them to talk to the Germans for this, go to the Spaniards for that, why would they come to us?
If I were to take some sort of formula, as far as the political union and foreign policy are concerned, the EU is still out for the Indians. They still want to see what we can offer to them. Otherwise they prefer to maintain bilateral relationships.
Do you think that closer cooperation on trade, with the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) currently being negotiated, could also pave the way for more political relations?
I don't think the two are linked. We are already the largest trading partner of India, even without the FTA. We also know that the trade figures are much below the potential and it's clear that the FTA is going to boost the volume and the value of trading goods and services.
Now, if you were going to establish a link between this and the political sphere, I would say that the FTA could be the tool which is going to give substance to the strategic partnership launched in 2005.
Because let's be honest, we have a partnership but it is still very much in the making. There are many issues of the strategic partnership when it comes to the hard core of foreign policy or defence policy, where we still have to provide substance.
You are strategic partners when you plan and do things together. Of course, we are working together on energy, higher education, development, but it gives more substance when it is on a number of other issues.
The FTA could even bring the partnership to a level where it really has substance.
Before moving further in the strategic partnership, I would like to stay for a moment on the FTA. Some critics say the FTA is not really taking into account some of India's failing points regarding labour rights—such as child labour, collective bargaining, etc. Do you think these could be stumbling blocks for the FTA when it faces a vote in the European Parliament?
When you are negotiating a trade agreement, you have a mandate. The Parliament and the Council will have to look at what the negotiators have negotiated and they will have to decide on whether the project that the negotiators are bringing back to the table is fulfilling the mandate.
It is clear that sustainable development is an important issue. The Indians know that and we know the position of India.
I think we need to give to the negotiators their mandate and we will see what they bring back to us. But I think when we're in the end game, the less we talk about, the better.
Sure, but at the last EU-India summit we were told that the FTA will be ready in the spring. Are we close to it?
I would like to say that there is a different definition of spring in India and in Europe. So which spring is it going to be and will it be early or late spring?
What is clear is that there is a will on both sides to finish the negotiations this year. My impression is that they are on track.
Then, there is the issue that at some stage, for the negotiations to be concluded, the Indian ministers and the EU trade commissioner have to meet. In December, it is true they said sometime in the spring, in order to see where their negotiators stand and whether they need to give some further push or bless what the negotiators would have done as far as what we call the contours of the deal—so that the text and the nitty-gritty can be finalised.
Today, I cannot tell you anything different than that. Negotiators are meeting this week, we might know more next week.
Does that mean I cannot ask you which chapters still need a lot of bargaining?
I used to be a negotiator many years ago. When you are in the end game it is not a question about chapters, but how you shape the final deal. The final deal has to be shaped with many different elements. It has to be a package in which you have all the elements that are important for both partners. Striking the right balance between what you want and can realistically get is a difficult exercise.
To get to this end game you need not only goodwill but also concrete offers on the table.
What are these concrete offers on the table?
As far as we are concerned, these have been reported in the field of goods and services.
Let's switch to the strategic partnership. There has been some progress in the past but it seems the partnership is slowing down, especially in the field of energy cooperation. Is that your perception?
What happened is that in the context of the joint action plan in Marseille in 2008, we were supposed to review the Joint Action Plan after four years. In this context, a programme of action was put together: that concerned energy, climate and environment.
I don't think there was a slowdown. There were some changes in the administration in India and there have been changes in Brussels with the new Commission. There was in both sides a lot of emphasis on domestic issues, so the technical groups had a hard time to get together. But I would not call this a slowdown.
Even though the bureaucrats did not meet for a long time, a lot of other issues have progressed both in business and research.
Two other things are worth mentioning here. Whether you are at EU level or at the level of member states much is going on in the field of energy cooperation—solar, wind, other clean technologies, including with the very strong push of the European Business and Technology Centre.
The centre is trying to bring here SMEs specialised in clean technologies and helping and supporting them to get into the Indian market, because we are convinced that European business has a lot to offer to the Indians, provided there is an adaptation to the local market.
For example, if you look at all these villages in India, you cannot bring them all this high technology. They need basic help to cook with solar energy. They really have to find solutions for day-to-day needs.
But it is not very easy for our SMEs to get into a market like India. You have the impression that because we have the same language, English, everything is going to be fine. It takes a lot of time, not only to grasp the educational context, but also the cultural aspects, and the whole array of legislation and norms.
It is important to provide EU SMEs the right point of entry into India. I think that we will see more and more of that. Since 2005, the number of projects that have been drawn together is incredible.
The other area where the Europeans are coming very strong in India, mostly thanks to political will, is research. In the context of the latest framework programme FP7 it has been agreed that India and the EU would coordinate calls for proposals. We don't have many countries with which this is happening.
Most of these projects average 10 million euros and the money is provided half by India and half by the EU. We coordinate and decide together in which area we want to work together. Recently we have decided to do quite a number in the field of climate change, especially solar energy.
It is only targeted to Indian and European researchers. So there are two niches in which we are working: research excellence and very sophisticated high technologies. Then we are working with SMEs on clean technologies that are easy to adapt in the Indian context.
So yes, in the last few years officials have not met, but much has happened, including so many meetings in the context of international climate negotiations, whether in the run up to Copenhagen or Cancún.
It seems business can go on without officials ….
Of course. But business also needs a clear framework. Policymakers can stir the direction of debate and give clear signal to business of where the policymakers are heading.
Do you think development aid plays a role and should the EU increase, decrease or reform aid to India, considering India's booming economy?
There are a number of things that have changed in India. First of all, India has become a donor country itself. Secondly, it is true that India is developing impressive economic growth. But at the same time, as India likes to repeat itself, it has a problem of inclusiveness.
That means that even with impressive growth rate, pockets of poverty are huge. I am not even sure we can call them pockets of poverty. It is more pockets of wealth amidst huge poverty.
This said, India has kicked out in recent years all donors if their donations were below the EUR 25 million threshold. We are much above that with roughly EUR 80-100 million.
The EU is still governed by the multi-annual budget until 2013. So for the moment, the issue is not of immediate relevance. But soon, we will have to discuss what we want to do in the future.
I don't have an answer today, also because I cannot answer for the Council, the Commission and the Parliament together.
I can just tell you a couple of things out of my experience. The needs in this country are still quite large, secondly the money we are providing for India helps—it provides the leverage to stir some policies in some direction. It is clear the money the EU is providing to Delhi is not really making a difference in a country the size of India.
But it is very valuable insofar as it brings things into prospective. Let me give you an example: we have a state partnership programme with the government of Rajasthan, which was signed in 2006 and whereby we were providing EUR 80 million over five years to support their reform policies in the field of water.
Now, if it were not for these 80 million they might not have changed and reformed their water policies. So even if the bill of their water policy is much higher than 80 million and they are footing the bill almost all by themselves, our money has allowed them to have access to a good deal of expertise, best practice, technical assistance, etc and therefore pushed them in the right direction.
Recently Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh implicitly said they did not need money, but that they would welcome it. At some stage, we would need to discuss with them, they might not need the money at the central level, but they might need it at the state level.
But at one point we would need to start to think of other ways to work with them and provide for them.
For example, a recent development has been that the European Investment Bank has come to India and is providing some funds. We may need to see whether stepping up and putting it on a different scale could be also another way to cooperate with India, without using only the traditional means of grants.
India is faced with a number of security threats—surrounded by a bullish China, Pakistan which some here call a failing state, and Afghanistan with its problems. How do you see the EU-India partnership on this aspect?
It is true that India has a very challenging environment. In this context, we have good discussions concerning the region's issues and they cover very often the situation with Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan.
In our bilateral talks we have a very good level of exchanges. There has been as regard to Afghanistan a move a little bit further from exchange—I would not call it a consultation but more than just a formal exchange of views.
We started to think on how we can cooperate together. India is extremely involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, so are we, and therefore in February, the EU special representative in Afghanistan came to Delhi to discuss with his counterpart here.
We are still at the exploration stage. But it is quite clear, and the Indians understand this quite well, that we are interested in supporting the stability of the region, but also the economic growth of the region.
We do believe that more stability will also come with economic and trade links.
Do you think the EU-India can work together on the reform of the UN Security Council and global governance?
First of all, we have to remember that the EU is a very strong partisan of multilateralism, even though we don't have the same approach to multilateralism and we are not looking at the same objectives.
But that is another discussion. I don't think that we will go very far as there is no EU common position on the composition of the UN Security Council. I think that putting the relations and the cooperation between the EU and India in the context of the UN, to put it in the narrow angle of the reform of the Security Council, I don't think it makes much sense.
Until there is a common position of the EU on the reform of the Security Council, we cannot do much.
But this brings us back to the first question, talking about the added value. If India is running for a seat in the Security Council and India cannot come to the EU to secure its position there, because we will say to them: 'Sorry we don't have a common position, we are observers so we cannot vote,' it is normal that India will turn to each and every one of the 27 member states.
This is a good illustration of cases where India is better placed to talk to different EU countries. But when it comes to working together to strengthen the multilateral system, within the human rights council or within the other committees of the General Assembly, there is proof that we cooperate quite well.
So you are quite bullish about the EU-India relationship …
I don't think it is a question of being bullish. The question is whether there is scope for good relations. The answer is 'yes'. There is ample scope to develop the relations between EU and India and there are ample possibilities to strengthen the strategic partnership.
Now, it needs people like us that work constantly on it, because in India things do not come easily. Any relationship needs nurturing. You have to work hard on it, especially one with India.
