Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-116"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Next session of UN Human Rights Commission (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000216.8.3-116"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-16-Speech-3-1172
lpv:speaker	lp:Olivier Dupuis2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-01-17--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Lista Emma Bonino (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; TGI (1999-07-20--2001-10-02)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in my view, the question which needs to be raised in Geneva this year is certainly not the death penalty. We have already had three resolutions on the death penalty approved in Geneva. We failed at the General Assembly last year on a fallacious pretext, I refer to article 2.7, which we are otherwise happy to adopt for all other texts. The question of the death penalty should therefore be raised at this year’s General Assembly, certainly not at the Geneva session. As Mr Patten said, and I would like to thank him for the positions which he defended, the crucial point is China. Unfortunately, the positions taken by the Commission and the Council, or at least the presidency, are more than just a hair’s breadth apart; this is serious, especially in the light of the Council’s macho position on Austria. In my view, as far as China is concerned, and knowing that the European Union’s policy towards China has been a total failure, allegedly constructive dialogue has got us nowhere or, worse, it has given the Chinese new pretexts for increasing repression and for strengthening religious repression and the repression of freedoms (as Mrs Wallström has said with regard to the Internet) in all sectors, in Tibet, in inland Mongolia, in eastern Turkistan. There is regression in every sector of Chinese civil society. It is a fact: China is the major threat, the major threat to us, the threat which we must confront, the threat to peace. It is the antithesis of democracy and you know as well as I that the Chinese, the Chinese leadership, is Communist first and Chinese second. China likes doublespeak. Until we have a firm position, we will achieve nothing with the Chinese authorities. I think we need to seize the opportunity. We need to associate ourselves with the American initiative. We need to table a strong text and that text needs to be adopted. We need to work. The Fifteen need to start work right now, with all the members of the United Nations; we need, at long last, to issue a firm condemnation and then use that as a basis to gain a negotiating position."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph