Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.7.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to begin by paying tribute to Mr van den Bos for his excellent report. The engagement of the European Parliament on human rights issues serves as a critical stimulus to EU policy, and there is much food for thought in this latest publication. The Commission will, as usual, respond in writing to all the recommendations addressed to it in this report.
Finally, I would make two remarks. The first is about children in conflicts, an issue which has already been commented on. We are trying to do everything possible to change the situation, but it is extremely difficult in the northern part of Uganda to get into contact with the Lord's Resistance Army. It is almost impossible to do anything meaningful on the ground, because there is no society surrounding the conflict as a basis for action. There is nothing but the conflict. However, in post-conflict cases – for example, Sierra Leone – we have been quite successful in the resocialisation of children and other related work.
The other point I would make relates to torture. We can support rehabilitation centres. This is also an instrument that keeps the public aware of the issue of torture. The documentation coming from these centres is the most necessary element in our attempt to address the problem we are up against and deal with the terrible regimes that carry out torture. So there is more to it than the primary objective of helping the victims of torture. Establishing facts, which is the secondary output of these activities in rehabilitation centres, is also a powerful instrument which we are pleased to be funding, and we will continue to be an active donor in this area, which definitely strengthens efforts to which we have to give high priority.
I thank you again for this comprehensive report. We will do everything possible to respond in a very direct manner.
First, some remarks on the principal themes of the report – freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We tried to work on these issues in several different ways. First, through efforts in international fora. With EU support, Ireland tabled the resolution on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance at the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which urges states to guarantee freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, facilitate worship and combat intolerance. The EU’s statement on human rights in the world at the last CHR highlighted concerns relating to religious freedom or freedom of expression in 12 countries, including China and Iran.
Second, thorough dialogue with third countries. Dedicated human rights dialogues offer a particularly valuable opportunity to address the issue. In evaluating the dialogue with Iran, for example, the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 18 March 2003 underscored its concern at discrimination against religious minorities – particularly Baha’is – and the need for more progress as regards freedom of opinion and expression. Corporal punishment and the abhorrent condemnation to stoning, pronounced in the name of Sharia, have also been the cause of in-depth debates with representatives of the Iranian Government, judiciary and clergy. Thus far, the EU has noted with satisfaction that the de facto moratorium on stoning is still a reality. I hope further results will be achieved with our Iranian partners. Freedom of expression will form the main subject for discussion at the next round-table under the human rights dialogue on 15 and 16 September 2003.
Thirdly, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights offers concrete support to projects in this field. It has supported campaigns to promote freedom of expression – for example, a continuing project in the ASEAN countries, – and freedom of expression has been identified as a priority for 11 EIDHR focus countries in 2002 and 2003. The Commission is also making significant efforts to establish a solid basis for effective intercultural dialogue, not least in the Mediterranean – a focus for the new neighbourhood policy – with the imminent report of the High-level Advisory Group and the proposal for a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation.
I noted the rapporteur's reference to the Cotonou Agreement. This is a good, relevant reference. The Cotonou Agreement shows that a comprehensive system can be negotiated with as many as 77 countries, but it also illustrates that there are some challenges and real problems to be dealt with. However, the system is interesting. I agree with Mr van den Bos.
Turning now to the human rights clause, I am pleased that Parliament’s report emphasises the potential for the clause to induce positive change in the human rights situation in third countries. That is precisely the goal of recent innovations. Last May saw the launch of the first working group dedicated to governance and human rights in the context of the Cooperation Agreement with Bangladesh, with the inaugural meeting tackling a wide variety of issues, including the death penalty and the judicial system. The Commission communication on Reinvigorating EU actions on Human Rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners offers the potential for similar initiatives in the framework of the Mediterranean Association Agreements, with a range of initiatives – such as the systematic inclusion of human rights and democracy issues in the meetings of the Association Councils and National Action Plans on human rights – designed to effect change on the basis of the clause.
Turning to the UN Commission on Human Rights, the human rights clause not only constitutes a commitment to human rights in a domestic context, it also pledges the EU and third states to the promotion and protection of human rights in the international arena. This leads me to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Mr van den Bos’ report acknowledges the high degree of congruence between the priorities identified by the European Parliament for the 59th session of the CHR and the action undertaken there by the EU. That is heartening, as the EU’s voice is immeasurably strengthened when its institutions speak with one voice. However, I share the concern articulated in the report about the direction of the CHR and the need to make every effort to ensure that it addresses human rights violations effectively.
The EU has its work cut out: only 47 States have issued a standing invitation to the CHR’s thematic procedures – 28 of which are EU Member States, accession states or candidate countries. Moreover, 80 states have not ratified all 6 major international human rights instruments.
The EU has made a good start in efforts to improve the impact of its actions at the CHR; for example, this year’s session saw earlier finalisation of draft EU initiatives allowing more scope for effective lobbying of third countries. EIDHR funding has also played its part, with recent projects bolstering the work of the human rights treaty bodies and that of several UN rapporteurs. These efforts will continue in the knowledge that it is only by marshalling all the resources at the EU’s disposal – political, diplomatic and financial – that we will really be able to effect the necessary change."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples