Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.19.3-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to follow Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner in saying, at the end of this debate, what a joy it is that we are all agreed on the need for the three institutions of the European Union to speak to the outside world with one voice if they are to be effective.
Mrs Lynne talked about trafficking in human beings. I fully agree that this issue is very important. I should just like to mention that the European Union cooperates closely in this respect with the OSCE, which is very active in this field. We should continue this cooperation and, again, there should be no duplication but rather a synergy effect.
Mrs Lynne and others talked about the question of human rights in the European Union. Of course there are human rights violations in all European Union countries, including my own. However, what makes the European Union different from other regions in the world is that we have effective instruments to deal with human rights violations. All European Union Member States are also members of the Council of Europe and signatories to the Convention on Human Rights. There is the unique instrument of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, and within the European Union we also have the necessary mechanisms and instruments to take care of any violations. We should not confuse the situation within the European Union with that in other states where such instruments do not exist.
I fully agree with Mrs Esteves and others that there should be no double standards and that the credibility of the European Union is the most important thing. That is why I reject all allegations that we distinguish between small and large countries. I do not think we treat one country differently from another, which is important.
So, assuming I have understood the report correctly, I thank you all very much for the support the Council’s policy has received. Let us continue to defend human rights everywhere in the world and let us do so together.
A very large number of issues have been addressed in this debate, but, whether our concern is with human rights or with development cooperation, the fundamental question every time is whether we are doing enough, and the answer to that question is always ‘no’; there is always more that we could be doing. All of us – Parliament, Commission and Council – must be at all times capable of that sort of self-criticism, for whenever human rights are at stake, when people are tortured, when their rights are trodden underfoot – as they are in many countries – then what that means is that we, who are tasked with the defence of human rights, are not doing enough. That is why we need to give constant thought to how we could improve our performance, and what this debate has done is to help us to do just that.
A range of issues have been addressed, and I would just like to touch very briefly on one or two of them. It was said, and quite rightly too, how important civil society is in terms of human rights. Institutions of state and governments are particularly dependent on the cooperation of civil society and non-governmental organisations. Thinking back, for example, to our recent experience with the EU/Latin America/Caribbean summit, there was much evidence at it of civil society involvement in human rights matters, and both governments and parliaments had to take this very seriously.
Human rights and good governance have an increasing role to play in development cooperation. I am sure we are all agreed – and this has become evident to me from my conversations with the Committee on Development Cooperation – that the deliberate promotion of good governance and human rights is a vitally important part of development cooperation. Mr Romeva i Rueda was quite right to mention, in this debate, the issue of violence against women, but I would like to point out that my colleague Mrs Plassnik will be devoting particular attention to this issue.
Mr Coveney said that the Council and Parliament should not duplicate each other’s work. I fully agree with that. Of course we must respect each institution’s individual role. That is what the three institutions must do. However, at the same time, we must cooperate where necessary in order to be more efficient.
Mr Agnoletto and others discussed the human rights clauses and raised the issue of whether the European Union, the Council and the Commission, should actually apply these clauses – which are to be found in a range of treaties – or whether we should do no more than apply ourselves to a sort of
To that, I would like to say that I regard the human rights clauses as very important, in that they do not only provide for sanctions or for the suspension of treaties. Above all – and this is what strikes me as of the essence – they constitute a reason for engaging in dialogue with states, and this right to engage in dialogue, which we enjoy by virtue of the human rights clauses in the various treaties, is one of which we make use, and we do so irrespective of whether the states in question are large or small.
I can do no other than concur with Mr Vaidere, and say that we all hope that the Human Rights Council will be more efficient than the Human Rights Commission, for that was, after all, the reason why the European Union was so committed to it being set up. I would ask, though, that you should not, at this early juncture, even before the Human Rights Council has met for the first time, throw in the towel in the belief that the people elected to it make further improvement impossible. This is where a certain realism is called for, without losing a firm hold on the relevant principles. I do believe that the chances of the Human Rights Council becoming an effective instrument will turn out to be unaffected.
Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra and others stressed the European Union’s role in the World at large, not least in connection with the accession negotiations and the relationship with the Balkan states. I would like to point out that the Copenhagen criteria continue to be the most important factor in determining whether or not states can begin negotiations towards accession, that respect for human rights is a quite essential criterion even before such negotiations commence, and that it must – self-evidently – also be one while they are in progress."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples