Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.4.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, in May 1995 the Council decided that, to promote fundamental rights and the EU’s democratic ideals, a clause insisting upon human rights observation should be included as an essential element of all bilateral agreements.
In the ten years since the clause was introduced it has stood up to rigorous examination by the European Court of Justice and has been introduced into more than 50 of the EU’s agreements. However, in those ten years the EU has been criticised for failing to put its human rights tools in the field of external relations into practice and it has become increasingly apparent that when dealing with key countries, strategic partnerships and double standards of
still eclipse the fundamental human rights which this clause seeks to protect.
By way of illustration, I make reference to the fact that, despite what we demand on paper, the debate sparked by the election of the new Palestinian Authority clearly spelled out that implementation depends primarily on the political will of the EU to assign priority to human rights issues over economic and political interests. Before the democratically elected Authority had the chance to organise itself, the EU-Palestine Agreement was up for review on the basis of human rights in a way that has been dismissed by both the Council and the Commission as unhelpful because it would remove leverage. However, when probed about the EU-Israel Association Agreement, despite Israel’s catalogue of defiance of Security Council resolutions and blatant disregard of the International Court of Justice, as she continues to annex East Jerusalem and deny the Palestinian people the right to self-determination, what is the EU’s response?
I have been a harsh critic of the handling of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, scrutinising the precise application of the human rights clause on numerous occasions on the floor of this House. Yet I hear nothing other than euphemisms, such as that we must maintain our influence and continue our dialogue. If the Council and the Commission cannot spell out to this House how it uses the human rights clause coherently, effectively and transparently, then how can it expect this House to be prepared to give its assent to new international agreements?
The vague criterion and inadequate procedures contained in this instrument have not helped me to penetrate the logic behind some EU decisions, nor does it help the EU to defend itself against accusations of ambivalence and discrimination in the face of serious human rights violations. A revised text must provide a concrete, step-by-step implemented mechanism, from dialogue to warning signals, and a spectrum of tools from smart sanctions to suspension, to add influence and authority to our interventions with persistent violators. Moreover, the instrument should be based on the principle of reciprocity with regard to abuses that take place on EU soil as well as those abroad. If anything has become clear from the controversy over unlawful CIA operations in Europe, it is that when it comes to human rights, the EU has failed to keep its own house in order.
The significance of this latest twist in the war on terror cannot be exaggerated, effectively shattering EU complacency about its own human rights record, with enquiries launched by the Council of Europe and this House with warnings that the sanctioning mechanism of Article 7 may be used. It is time for the EU to engage in a thorough and comprehensive review and to connect and balance the external and internal dimensions of its policy on human rights.
Whilst the EU has struggled to consistently and systematically promote a coherent view of human rights, this Parliament has been praised by NGOs for the positive impact of the revival of the Subcommittee on Human Rights. Under the chairmanship of Mrs Flautre the subcommittee has gone from strength to strength and, coupled with the appointment of Mr Michael Matheson, we have made inroads into the implementation of human rights guidelines.
I finish by saying that as human rights feature more prominently in a range of foreign and security policy domains, and as cross-cutting issues demand more consistent participation, our knowledge and proficiency must be drawn on as joint decision-maker when it comes to initiating consultations and suspending agreements on the basis of human rights."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples