Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.3.3-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the presidency for the work it has done to prepare for Geneva on subjects like racism, civil and political rights and the right to development. As the presidency said, much remains to be done, despite the understandable request by Parliament and many NGOs that the European Union should set out its position well in advance of the Geneva session. That is easier said than done – we are still discussing some of the toughest issues. For example, discussion is taking place about many of the matters raised in Parliament’s resolution and it is too early to predict the outcome in all cases.
The next dialogue in Lisbon on 25 February will be an important test. It will show whether the dialogue is producing results or not. What, finally, do we want to see as the first steps? Well, for example, we would like to see China move from signing the UN Conventions on Civil and Political Rights and on Social and Cultural Rights toward actually ratifying them. I wish we were closer to that.
Where does all that leave us this year? I repeat that Member States will have to make up their minds. What I hope is, first, that we in Europe will adopt a common position and stick to it, that we will not allow some to be picked off, that our position will not be based on self-delusion or pretence, that it will be a common position and a sensible position.
I know that some people say we must have a better way of pressing our concern about human rights than through tabling resolutions. But if that is true, then at the very least we need to be more imaginative and honest with ourselves in looking for that way forward. If we are to rest our position on the human rights dialogue, then we need to be able to convince you, the NGO community and the public at large that it is actually getting somewhere. That, in my judgement, is the challenge for the next few weeks. I am grateful to the House for its concern about human rights around the world, and particularly in China.
It is not surprising that the debate is long and difficult. That does not suggest any lack of commitment to the improvement of human rights but it does indicate the usual concern to get our approach right so that we really make a difference. However, let me reflect that concern by referring to three controversial issues: the death penalty, Cuba and China. I am going to be so unwise as to allow one or two personal reflections to creep into my remarks.
We are currently reviewing the options and possibilities for introducing a death penalty resolution in the Human Rights Commission. This has always been a subject about which I personally have felt extremely strongly, I have always voted against the death penalty. Spurred on by Amnesty International and others, one of the first decisions I took as Governor of Hong Kong was to abolish the death penalty. We know what happened recently at the UN General Assembly. We had to freeze our resolution on the death penalty or risk the passing of a resolution that would have incorporated wholly unacceptable arguments that asserted that human rights are not universally applicable and valid.
The New York stage is different from Geneva. Last year’s debate in New York on sovereignty and humanitarian intervention was such a sensitive topic that it influenced all other issues. It certainly influenced the debate on the moratorium on the death penalty. The debate in Geneva, however, is more focused on human rights issues. We may therefore stand a better chance of making progress there.
Secondly, Cuba. I want to address this issue directly because we in Europe are criticised unfairly for not taking human rights there sufficiently seriously. We are extremely concerned about moves by the Cuban Government over the last year that have further curtailed public freedom, moves like changes in the penal code and the scope of the death penalty. We are also worried by the recent increase in the number of political detentions. We are monitoring the human rights situation through the reports of NGOs and the work of our human rights working group based in the EU embassies in Havana. We have regularly put our criticisms to the Cuban authorities, and this Parliament has done the same. But I do not believe that the right approach is to try to isolate Cuba. We want a fair and open society in Cuba, a Cuba which respects the principles of the market, the sanctity of contract and the rule of law. We want to encourage a process of transition to democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
My views are exactly the same when it comes to the third subject with which I wish to deal, namely China. Quite simply, I want us to be engaged with China. It would be self-indulgent and self-defeating, as well as insulting to over a fifth of humanity, to want anything else. I also want to see a China transformed by peaceful change into a free pluralist society which does not lock up democracy activists or religious believers.
So what should we do? Naturally we should trade enthusiastically with China and hope that we can welcome China into the World Trade Organisation on sensible terms. It is a misnomer to talk about a World Trade Organisation which does not include China – or Russia, for that matter. But I do not believe today, nor have I ever believed, that our burgeoning economic relationship with China – manifested, for example, by China’s EUR 25 billion surplus with the European Union – should silence us when it comes to China’s human rights record. For me the question is not whether we should address the question of human rights in China – we have a duty to do so and a legitimate interest in doing so – but rather what is the most effective way of doing this?
So what should be our attitude towards a Geneva resolution this year? As the presidency has noted, the Union as a whole is considering its position. But I strongly suggest there are a number of factors of which the Member States ought to take proper account. First, while some people question whether tabling a Geneva resolution makes any difference, several of the most distinguished Chinese advocates of democracy strongly believe that it is a valuable move, not least because of the message it sends to people in China itself. That is a point that deserves serious consideration.
Secondly, we will all want to take proper account of what has actually been happening in China in recent months, for instance, the heavy sentences imposed on democracy campaigners, the detention and recent punishments meted out to members of Christian churches and the arrests and sentences of the members of Falun Gong. Chinese leaders are in no doubt about our position on all these issues and on developments in Tibet. We have made our views very clear to them. While we all know that for many people in China there has been a real long-term improvement in their economic prospects and their social and economic liberties, there is a dark side to the picture as well. Critics of tabling a resolution say that at least we now have a human rights dialogue with China. That is true and potentially valuable, although I have to say – and I have said to Chinese officials as has the presidency – that there has not been nearly as much content to our dialogue as we would have liked. Of course the dialogue has enabled us to identify and implement EU cooperation programmes in the human rights and legal spheres. That is very welcome and I also believe that our village governance programme should help to promote democracy at grassroots level. Naturally any dialogue as complex as the one on human rights is going to be a long-term process, but I wish I could point to more real gains."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples