Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.11.4-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I shall answer briefly the three points which have been raised: capital punishment, the minorities in Kosovo and the Nikitin case.
Firstly, as regards the matter of capital punishment, I would like to devote a few words not to the substance of the question, which you deal with in your draft resolution and which, plainly, meets with the approval of the Commission as far as the position adopted on capital punishment is concerned. This does not, I feel, merit extensive comment, as we are in agreement on this point. What I wish to bring up is a specific point which was mentioned in the course of the discussion, i.e. the matter of the draft resolution on capital punishment which the Union proposed to the Third Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
This is, in fact, a matter of foreign policy. By means of this resolution, the European Union was proposing to the international community that it undertake to establish a moratorium on capital punishment. Indeed, as far as we are concerned, the abolition of capital punishment is an intrinsic part of our human rights policy, whereas for many countries this is exclusively a matter of criminal law, or so they claim, at least.
We did indeed withdraw this draft resolution, on mature reflection, and this decision is presented for your evaluation. We withdrew it because the debates in this Third Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations were, in our opinion, going badly. In fact, we felt that some of the many amendments submitted by the countries for whom our position is a problem are, in our view, unacceptable, particularly the amendment to introduce into the resolution a reference to article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter, in the terms of which, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” This amendment was indeed inconvenient, insofar as it shifted the debate into another sphere, that of the national jurisdiction of a state. As far as we were concerned, the inclusion in the resolution of a reference specific to the principle of sovereignty of states would have entailed a risk of challenging the body of legislation in the system of the United Nations, and, in particular, of the World Conference of 1993, which said that the promotion and protection of human rights was a “legitimate concern” of the international community.
Moreover, accepting an amendment of this kind could have had a very negative impact on the work of the United Nations in the human rights field. It was not therefore, as I have heard, in order to yield to some sort of pressure that we preferred to close the debate in this way, at least for the time being, but rather in order to maintain a position of principle. You must not, therefore, see this decision as indicative of a lack of a foreign policy, or that we caved under pressure, but of the Union’s assessment of the risk, considering the proposed amendments, of finding ourselves, for the sake of the legitimate campaign we share, some way behind the positions we have gained earlier. This is the explanation I wished to give you.
I shall now come to the second subject, Mr President, regarding the rights of the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo. I believe that the Commission and, with it, the entire European Union has made it clear, from the start, that we condemn any sort of ethnic violence, regardless of who is inflicting and who is suffering it. Such violence is just as unacceptable today against the Serbian and Gypsy minorities as it was when it was inflicted upon the Kosovars several months before. Thanks to programmes of assistance in democratisation and human rights, the Commission continues to provide support for measures intended to re-establish confidence and to promote dialogue between the different communities. We were already active in this way, without much success, unfortunately, even before the conflict, and I share, from this point of view, the suggestions that some of you made that we must all meticulously take stock of the situation. From now on, in the new circumstances, we are nonetheless trying pragmatically to continue to act according to these objectives, particular in selecting aid and assistance projects.
We support fully and absolutely the action undertaken by KFOR to maintain law and order in Kosovo and to protect all the citizens. In addition, we support fully and absolutely the action undertaken by MINUK in order to set up an operational civil administration, capable of taking on the police functions which are currently handled by KFOR, and to create a peaceful multi-ethnic society, capable of taking on both the reconstruction of Kosovo and the restoration of its society. MINUK approached the Commission with regard to the financing of the Kosovo protection force and the Member States shall take a decision, in the weeks to come, regarding the programme we suggested in response to this request. We are also offering our support, in the form of twinning, to the actions agreed by MINUK at local administration level. In this context, we are asking all people of goodwill in Kosovo and outside, to also work towards these objectives in order to help us to ensure that MINUK and KFOR achieve them themselves. I may remind you, if you need reminding, that we are opposed to Kosovo being partitioned. It must become a multi-ethnic society, without distinctions or discrimination for ethnic or other reasons."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples