Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.9.2-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – First of all may I thank the House for the attention that honourable Members are paying, not only to relations between the European Union and Asia, but also to the ASEM process in particular. The significant interest that this report has triggered also demonstrates how important Asia is for our Union, a point very well made by a number of speakers. As I am sure the House will understand, this is a subject on which I have certain views myself.
Our recent visit to the Korean peninsula demonstrated that the European Union has considerable interests well beyond the arc of instability which surrounds the Union from Kaliningrad in the north to the southern Caucasus in the south. My own recent visit to China demonstrated the importance of the European Union there too. It is worth recalling that today China has a 45 billion euro trade surplus with the European Union. When I was in China I was delighted that I was able to meet members of the Chinese Parliament who, like me, expressed wonder at some of the continuing evidence of Chinese economic development.
But, as Mr Cushnahan said, we have to talk about other issues as well as trade and commercial relations. We cannot have a frank political dialogue with China without having an equally frank exchange about human rights. That is not meant to sound superior and we are not asserting that Europe somehow has a monopoly of wisdom on human rights. But it is our unshakeable view that human rights have universal validity and that a dialogue about human rights is appropriate in all our relationships.
I noted what the honourable Member said about the development of our external services in Asia. I hope that is a point we will be able to be more open about in a few weeks' time in the communication we are about to discuss.
I could have talked about Japan. I could have talked about South-East Asia. There are a number of subjects which we need to discuss in more detail. There are many reasons for arguing, as the honourable Member did a few moments ago, that the relationship we have with Asia is an exceptionally important part of our external relations overall. I very much hope that in the coming weeks and months we will have many further opportunities of discussing it in this House.
The Commission shares to a very large extent the evaluation and concerns expressed in the report, in particular those regarding the importance of further strengthening our dialogue with Asian-ASEM partners on political, as well as on economic and social issues. We also think that ASEM should be concentrating upon issues of global concern.
One issue that we keep coming back to is the importance that we attach to the three pillars, political, economic and cultural-social, developing at the same pace. Some of our Asian partners are more interested in having a predominantly economic dialogue, letting the political dialogue lag behind. The Asian partners fear interference in their internal affairs and see the different levels of development as an obstacle to the advocated partnership of equals. The Commission does not share this view and nor do other European partners. Development cooperation itself is, of course, dealt with in other fora, but ASEM is and should remain a forum for dialogue among equal partners.
A few weeks ago I attended the third ASEM foreign ministers meeting in Beijing. We addressed a multitude of issues. We did not agree on all of them, but there would be no point in having a dialogue if we saw everything identically. At the same time, the need to improve the management of the ASEM process is extremely clear. These very broad agendas – there were 19 items on our agenda for the foreign ministers' meeting – lead to a lack of focus. That is why we have proposed to cluster activities. That is why we have suggested informal, retreat-style meetings for the highest level of participants to allow them to concentrate upon a few key issues. These issues should have some ASEM added value; in other words it must make sense to deal with them on a bi-regional level.
There seems to be a high degree of consensus on the need for reform. We agreed on the need to cut down on pre-prepared speeches and pre-cooked and usually over-boiled chairmen's statements, which no one ever reads. I become profoundly suspicious of the added value of meetings where most of the real dialogue takes place beforehand in discussions on the joint statement to be issued, and at which as many people are present as at a less important football match in my own country.
We need more focus, more dialogue, and more concentration on the principal participants and on fewer subjects. There should be more scope for free discussion and bilateral meetings. For example, I had a very useful first exchange with the new Thai foreign minister and we also held European Union troika meetings with Indonesia and with China.
Another positive step forward is that our Asian partners seem more inclined to increase the involvement of civil society. We have also discussed the importance of involving parliamentarians in the process. Young parliamentarians have met under the auspices of ASEF, the Asia-Europe foundation. Perhaps it is time to go further and revive exchanges between parliamentarians from the ASEM countries, so I warmly welcome the intention to call a second Asia-Europe parliamentary meeting before the Copenhagen Summit in 2002.
I was delighted by the calls for greater involvement of Parliament in the ASEM process. This is the third time that I have had the opportunity to discuss ASEM in Parliament. The first occasion was a very intimate one, there were two other Members of the House present that evening with me. We shared a sort of post-candlelight supper together. The second occasion we discussed ASEM, there were three other Members of Parliament in the Chamber with me. Today we have seen what can only be seen as an exponential growth in the interest in ASEM and I hope that before my five years are up on 22 January 2005 the Chamber will be packed when we discuss the relationship with ASEM and with Asia as a whole.
I note the request for a new working document in advance of the Copenhagen ASEM meeting and I hope we will be able to have something further to say on EU-Asia relations generally. I expect to return to Parliament shortly to discuss a new communication intended to update the 1994 Asia strategy. This is scheduled for adoption by the Commission in July and it will provide us with an occasion for a wider debate on EU-Asia relations. It will need to cover the sort of points raised by a number of Members in this debate, including the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Mr Marset Campos."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples