Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-309"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.27.3-309"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, let me begin by thanking the honourable Members for their wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions to this important and timely debate. I also thank the Commissioner for her generous welcome in this Parliament today. I also look forward to our many debates over the weeks and months to come.
In his meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Li on 17 March, almost immediately after the passage of the law, the High Representative, Javier Solana, expressed the European Union’s concerns about some elements of the anti-secession law. He acknowledged positive elements in the law, strongly supporting the call for cross-strait dialogue and cooperation, but made clear that references to a potential resolution of the issue by non-peaceful means was very much at odds with European Union policy. He clarified once again the position of the EU: first, full support for a one-China policy and, secondly, resolution of the situation through dialogue and peaceful means.
Mrs Stenzel told us of her mission departing for the Korean peninsula tomorrow and this was also referred to by Mr Mavrommatis. I wish her and her colleagues well in this important work and I look forward to hearing a full report of her endeavours on her return.
Mr Rouček mentioned the criticism sometimes directed at the European Union that it is too inward looking. I would simply say that those who make that criticism would have done well to listen to the calibre and contributions of the debate we have had this afternoon. I therefore welcome his endorsement of our approach, which recognises that Europe must look outwards and actively engage with the challenges and also the opportunities that our modern globalising world provides.
Mr Kristovskis and Mr Claeys appropriately raised the issue of human rights in China. I can assure both Members that the European Union raises a lot of human rights concerns with the Chinese Government at the biannual European Union-China human rights dialogue, which is a regular high-level exchange. The last round was held in Luxembourg in February. The next round will take place in Beijing this autumn. The European Union also regularly engages Chinese interlocutors on human rights issues, including at the very highest levels outside these dialogues. The European Union also funds human rights projects within China.
Let me say a word or two in conclusion. The Chinese presently have a target to reach per capita income comparable to that of today’s developed countries by about 2050. The significant development of economic strength was really the opening framework with which I approached this debate. That was echoed by the words of the Commissioner immediately following my contribution. Whether it reaches that ambitious target or not, the development of its economic and trade ties is already all but irreversible. China is also accepting the responsibility that economic strength brings. It has more influence on the world stage in such fora as the WTO, the G8 and the United Nations. This is all to the good. Many of the problems we face today, such as climate change, which will clearly be one of the significant items being discussed in Gleneagles over the days to come, can only be solved through action by all.
The Council has a close interest in supporting China’s successful transition to a stable, prosperous and open country that fully embraces free market principles and the rule of law. For this reason, the European Union has a policy of strong engagement with China. This engagement is mutually beneficial and is not confined solely to matters of trade. The European Galileo programme will provide high precision global satellite navigation services, an area in which China is keen to develop links with the European Union. A cooperation agreement was concluded in October 2003, under which China has pledged to contribute EUR 200 million to this programme.
Of course, we do not imagine that there will not be disagreements or that there will not be differences of opinion. We trust that our relationship with China is strong enough for us to be able to meet to address these challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead.
Let me respond first to some of the main points raised during the last hour. Mr Jarzembowski spoke of the importance of the recent EU-Japan meeting. We clearly welcome and will work towards strong relations with Japan, and, of course, with China. He spoke wisely of the need for continued understanding and reconciliation within the region.
Mr Ford recognised the interdependence that is surely one of the hallmarks of our globalising world. He also raised the issue of the arms embargo, as did a number of speakers, including Mr Szent-Iványi, Mr Romeva i Rueda, Mr Belder and Mr Kristovskis. Let me, therefore, take a moment or two to address the queries that have been raised.
As Members are aware, a review of the European Union arms embargo was, of course, announced by the European Council in December 2003 and is presently ongoing. In June, the European Council also recalled its conclusions of 16 and 17 December 2004 and invited the Council to continue its work on that basis. No date was set for a decision. The Council also welcomed the launch of a strategic dialogue on Asia with the United States and Japan. We look forward in the course of our Presidency to taking this forward.
No decision has yet been taken on lifting the EU arms embargo in China. The review launched in December 2003 is, as I have said, ongoing. In its conclusions in December 2004, the Council recalled the importance of the criteria of the code of conduct, which have been referred to by a number of Members today, including the provisions regarding human rights, stability and security in the region and the national security of friendly and allied countries.
Mr Szent-Iványi also raised the issue of the European Union’s position on Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Organisation. There are difficulties over Taiwanese membership of the World Health Organisation. The WHO is a United Nations specialised agency where statehood is therefore a prerequisite of membership. The public health benefits to Taiwan from observer status appear limited, since the World Health Organisation and Taiwan already share information on an informal basis. The European Union made its position public on Taiwanese participation at the 2004 World Health Assembly. Ireland issued an EU Presidency statement that strongly supported the principle enshrined in the WHO Constitution that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. It also expressed hopes that all parties will show flexibility in finding mechanisms to allow Taiwanese medical and public health officials to participate in these activities. At this year’s World Health Assembly, the issue did not come up for vote in the General Committee, but we understand that the WHO secretariat and China recently signed a memorandum of understanding on WHO technical exchanges with Taiwan.
Mr Meijer offered his own distinctive views on Chiang Kai-Shek and on his successors in Taiwan. I would simply reiterate the point I made in my introductory remarks that today Taiwan is, of course, a full democracy.
Mr Szymański and Mrs Dobolyi spoke of the anti-secession law recently passed by China. So let me say a further word on China-Taiwan relations and cross-strait tension. The European Union and the Council attach great importance to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is important for the whole region and indeed beyond. The Taiwan question should be settled peacefully, as I said, through peaceful negotiations. We welcome any efforts by both sides to lower tensions, such as, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the cross-strait charter flights and visits by Taiwanese opposition parties. We hope that both sides can find a mutually acceptable basis for a resumption of peaceful dialogue and avoid unilateral measures, which might heighten tensions.
Luxembourg issued two Presidency statements this year on cross-strait relations. In February, a statement was issued welcoming the agreement to cross-strait direct charter transfer flights over the Lunar New Year. The second statement issued in March by the Luxembourg Presidency followed China’s adoption of its anti-secession law, which has caused so much commentary in the course of our debate this afternoon. That statement voiced concerns over the legislation’s reference to the use of non-peaceful means. It asked all parties to avoid any unilateral action that might rekindle tensions and also encouraged both sides to develop initiatives that contribute to dialogue and to mutual understanding."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples