Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-207"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.7.4-207"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will comment on the various issues that have been dealt with during the debate, starting with Iran. The concern expressed in Parliament’s motions for resolutions on human rights in Iran is entirely shared by the Commission. Like you, we are particularly worried about the fate of the thirteen Jewish and eight Moslem Iranians detained under this strange charge of espionage. A number of approaches were made last year by the Union and by various Member States.
The risk of condemning innocent people to death, mentioned by Mr Ryan, Governor of Illinois, is one of the essential principles underlying the Union’s position on the death penalty. And we are hoping – we have started – to encourage all the federal states in the United States which apply capital punishment to think about that risk and introduce a moratorium like the one in Illinois with a view to achieving abolition of the death penalty throughout the country.
With regard to the particular case of Juan Miguel Garza, the Commission is currently working to clarify the facts through our delegation to Washington. On the basis of that clarification, and in accordance with the 1998 guidelines, the Commission will decide whether a specific approach to the American authorities is needed. The American authorities should be expecting one. They are fully aware of the whole Union’s opposition to the death penalty and all executions.
Finally, Zimbabwe. I will rapidly pick up the four points that have been raised in the debate: the elections, the future of our cooperation, the intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo and finally the violence perpetrated in connection with agrarian reform.
Our main concern is the organisation of free and democratic elections. As regards the possibility of sending a team of electoral observers from the European Union, the Commission recognises the long experience of the European Parliament and the ACP-European Union Joint Assembly in this type of exercise, and particularly that of certain Members of Parliament who are present and who have spoken in this debate.
All the same, we doubt whether such an initiative would be effective in view of the uncertainty surrounding the election preparations. At this stage, one aid formula would be to intensify civic education, local training and observation of the elections. The Commission is involved in the last stage of a project designed to train over a thousand local supervisors of the electoral process and we have made contact with our partners from the Southern African Development Community, SADEC, to define their role, and find out whether sending in an observation team from SADEC could be envisaged.
As regards the question concerning the possible suspension of our cooperation, although there could be grounds for suspending financial cooperation with Zimbabwe under the Lomé Convention, we take the view, for the moment, as indeed does Mrs Maes, that such a measure would run counter to our goal prior to the elections.
Since the government’s macroeconomic results are mediocre to say the least, the Commission, the IMF, and the World Bank have already frozen their support for structural adjustment, and the backers participating in the agrarian reform have suspended their institutional cooperation plans. We have done that, but we continue to support the population re-establishment programmes aimed at combating poverty, and we think it is appropriate to maintain the anti-poverty aid approved in the 8th EDF framework for the social sectors.
On Zimbabwe’s intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we support the Lusaka peace agreement which calls for a status quo of the forces present and a ceasefire in line with the terms of that agreement.
Finally, as regards agrarian reform, since February the Union has been taking various steps in reaction to the recent deplorable events in the country, presumably at the instigation of the Zimbabwe government, such as the violent occupation of farms and non-respect for diplomatic immunity. In the last few weeks there has clearly been an intensification of illegal occupation and an increase in violence and intimidation, particularly directed against the opposition. Regrettably, we interpret these disturbances as forming part of the governing party’s election campaign. Like the European Parliament, we utterly deplore them.
Consultations at Union level are continuing, along the lines of the motions for resolutions, in order to establish the most likely ways of guaranteeing the fair and just trial we all hope to see. Further approaches and the possible presence of observers at the trial could, in our view, be part of that perspective. So we share the attitude expressed in the debate by those of you who said that, given the progress observed in Iran since the recent parliamentary election, we should, as far as humanly possible, avoid giving the impression of foreign interference which could be counterproductive and which might reverse the improvement we believe we are seeing in the internal and external political climate.
On the subject of Akin Birdal, again we fully share the concerns that have been expressed during the debate and in the resolution on the return to prison of Akin Birdal, ostensibly to complete his sentence. We entirely support the declaration of 30 March by the Union Presidency, inviting the Turkish Government to take steps to secure the release of this activist. As you mentioned during the debate, the Helsinki European Council confirmed Turkey’s status as a candidate country on the basis of the same criteria that apply to the other candidate countries. So it is important for Turkey to engage resolutely in the democratisation process and adopt the necessary reforms in terms of human rights. Revision, or even repeal, of Article 312 of the criminal code, which was referred to earlier and which is the basis on which Mr Birdal was found guilty of, and I quote, “incitement to hatred”, seems absolutely essential in this respect.
In the context of the regular report it has been producing since 1998 for Turkey, like the other candidate countries, the Commission is following the human rights situation very closely. In our last report, published in October 1999, we were already expressing our concern about the provisional nature of Mr Birdal’s release, with good reason, unfortunately. So we will continue to follow up the matter, in the context of the detailed examination we carry out every year.
As you know, we are currently working on a membership partenariat with Turkey, within the framework of the pre-accession strategy. This document, which establishes the list of priorities to be met by Turkey in preparation for membership, should be adopted by the Commission next November. By the end of the year, Turkey will need to adopt a national programme reflecting its own priorities for the partenariat and listing the resources put in place to achieve them. So we have some important deadlines coming up and, in the Commission’s view, questions relating to the democratisation process, in particular freedom of expression, will have an important place in the examination of this partenariat.
As regards human rights in Tibet, we also share your concern. Like you we are worried about the cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the autonomous region of Tibet, which the Chinese authorities clearly do not respect. As we have done, with you, many times before, we call on China to re-enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We regard the renewal of this dialogue as the only realistic method of achieving a peaceful and durable solution to the Tibetan question.
To respond to Mr Mann, the Union has raised these matters many times in the context of the specific bilateral dialogue it is holding with China on human rights. The situation in Tibet was also one of the main items on the agenda at the last summit between the Union and China, held in Beijing last December. We will doggedly continue to raise the case of Tibet with the Chinese authorities.
On the death penalty in the United States, like many of you, the Commission is concerned about the growing number of people condemned to death and executed in the United States since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976. In 1998, opposition to the death penalty became one of the most high profile factors in the whole of Union policy on human rights. We are engaged in permanent dialogue, not only with the United States Government, but also with the other American authorities concerned, in particular the governors of the states where the death penalty has not been abolished.
The Commission is delighted with the Governor of Illinois’ decision to establish a moratorium on all executions pending in that state, and we hope that decision will mark an important stage on the road to the abolition of the death penalty in Illinois."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples