Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-06-Speech-3-319"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060906.23.3-319"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the right time, only a few days before the EU-China Summit in Helsinki, this House is sending a clear and forceful signal to the Council and Commission with a view to establishing a strategic partnership that is truly worthy of the name. The present report offers Brussels and Beijing benchmarks for all facets of mutual relations: credibility, stability and responsibility.
I assume this adequately addresses the socialist amendments, which, moreover, curiously deviate from the officialise used in EU documents, raise the subject of two systems with regard to China and Taiwan. That is rather revealing.
This report represents Parliament’s commitment to a solid partnership between the European Union and China. That is why it is honest in listing the obstacles in this political pursuit, certainly now that these are being recognised just as much on the Chinese side – I invite you to read the report which contains statements by the Chinese, not least by Chinese academics – but which, politically, are not at all sufficiently recognised as obstacles and eliminated as a result.
The message we must send to the Council and Commission on the eve of the summit with the Chinese leaders is that China needs to be helped to establish the rule of law and to be encouraged to carry out political modernisation as the necessary social parallel of its astonishing economic development.
As a European rapporteur, I saw it as being of the utmost importance that I should listen very carefully to the Chinese discussions about the impressive peaceful development of the People’s Republic over the past three decades. These also spelled out the dark sides, with all the implications that these entail for the EU-China partnership. It is only logical that these should also be included in the draft resolution. A large majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs endorses this specific approach on account of its indispensable and valuable contribution, for which I extend warm thanks to the Members concerned.
The public responses from the Chinese Embassy in Brussels during the various stages of my report oblige me to give you my position, in summary, in three key areas: the Ankang system, freedom of religion in the People’s Republic and the issue of a peaceful annexation of Taiwan to China.
In a letter of 25 April, the Chinese Embassy flatly denied that political and social dissidents were subjected to compulsory psychiatric treatment. This abhorrent torture method is officially known as Ankang, which translates as: health through rest and peace.
As it happens, the 3 November 2005 issue of the German weekly
included eyewitness testimonies of three victims of this Ankang system under the revealing title ‘Electric shocks against the freedom virus’. On 14 December 2005, the
published an equally damning article on Ankang. Disregarding these, the Chinese Embassy advised this House to delete Paragraph 24 of the draft resolution on Ankang as being completely unfounded, and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, acting as if there were nothing wrong, tabled an amendment to that effect. I asked the Committee on Foreign Affairs to withdraw the amendment on two occasions, but to no avail.
The Ankang system is completely at odds with the basic human rights that surely all of us warmly support, as I heard Mrs De Keyser say only a moment ago. I am therefore completely perplexed by her attitude. I would urge you to remove this blot on Parliament’s escutcheon, and support the original text on Ankang which I am re-tabling as an amendment.
We already know enough about the many violations of the basic fundamental right of freedom of religion in China. This applies just as much to critical internal discussions about this government action, even down to the offices of the state bureau of religious affairs. I would have really enjoyed talking to those officials who were so approachable during my visit to this state institution last autumn.
According to the Chinese mission to the European Union in its 31 August news bulletin, the Chinese people enjoy extensive freedom of religion. I would hereby invite it publicly to translate and publish the recent interview with China’s ‘religious big boss’ to clarify just what control the party exercises, for what is positive and negative in religions is to be assessed by the Chinese Communist Party and nobody else.
The overwhelming majority of the Taiwanese people do not in any event wish to be subject to the same control. This is what I heard from European diplomats on the ground and from many Taiwanese citizens themselves. One of them explained why Beijing’s doctrine of peaceful reunification, certainly the ominous one-child policy, which is the PSE's key issue, does not have a chance in hell at the moment with those people: ‘It is not so much about ideology or nationalism as it is about the difference in political system and in respecting all human rights as a way of life. This does not stand a chance as long as China does not abandon its authoritarian regime, which is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Neuzüricher Zeitung"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples