Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-06-Speech-3-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060906.23.3-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I welcome the work done by the Commission on China so far and the input of Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner tonight. If the report were as balanced as your contribution tonight, Commissioner, I would wholeheartedly support it. However, throughout our discussions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have argued that the report was weak in the EU-China cooperation and foreign policy sections. For no reason that I can understand, the report does not take a position on the One-China policy or China’s role in the Security Council, and it does not take a balanced view on the Taiwan issue, the six-party talks, EU-China cooperation and global security issues.
The report singles out only one of the major partners for cooperation in dealing with China. Why? I, like the vast majority of people in Europe, believe that we should work together in cooperation with all our major partners, rather than with only one.
There are also factual errors in Mr Belder’s report, which is supported by the PPE-DE Group and other groups. I shall refer to just one example: in paragraph 24, Parliament invites the Commission to initiate a structured dialogue with its Chinese counterpart in the fields of employment and social affairs. Well, Mr Belder and colleagues from the PPE-DE and ALDE groups, either your homework has not been done properly, or we must congratulate the magical powers of the Commission, because two years ago it must have eaten some Chinese fortune cookie which said that in September 2006 Parliament would make such a call to initiate a structured dialogue.
The truth is that the Commission has been having structured dialogue on these issues and many other issues for years now. Our group’s suggestion, which was rejected, was to get the Commission to give us regular updates on the different sectoral dialogues, which now cover a wide range of areas from space technology to enterprise regulation, from environmental issues to education and the information society. Commissioner, the PSE Group would warmly welcome it if you were to give us those regular updates as regards your work in building structured dialogues with China.
My idea was that this report should be Parliament’s contribution to EU-China relations based on pragmatism, facts and respect for each other’s sensitivities, and aiming for the progressive deepening of the relationship between the two sides, which is rapidly maturing into a comprehensive strategic partnership.
In fact, Europe is engaged with China in cultural, economic and strategic terms. Correct me if I am wrong, but the big question is whether China will respond wholeheartedly in trying to understand and accept European values. Is there any way to find answers to these questions other than through constructive dialogue? My idea was that this report could contribute to a process in which both sides could understand one another better. This would be for our mutual benefit. Unfortunately, the report as it stands makes no such contribution. It greatly weakens Parliament’s position and influence in achieving our common goals, especially now with a view to the forthcoming summit."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples