Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100921.4.2-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, thank you for making it clear that today I am, in fact, wearing two hats (by the way, I have at least two hats – one for the winter in dark brown velvet and one for the summer, a panama). You said, Madam President, that this was an agreement with Parliament. It is, in fact, the result of the Lisbon Treaty. It is important, in order to avoid misunderstandings when I take the floor in such a debate, if you would indicate ‘HR/VP’ instead of ‘the Commission’. That would make it clear to all Members what my specific capacity – or that of anybody else – is in this kind of debate. Having said that, this was, in fact, a very rich debate. I will try in the remaining minutes before you start voting to answer some of the questions.
The EU recognises that China has made progress on economic and social rights. We value the achievements of the Chinese leadership in improving the economic situation of millions of citizens, as illustrated by the way China dealt with the economic downturn. However, this is not matched by similar progress on civil and political rights. In the light of China’s global role and its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is a strong international expectation that China should live up to internationally recognised standards in all fields of human rights. We urge China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would be the most tangible sign of China’s commitment to respecting human rights.
Lastly, on Tibet, the EU respects the sovereignty and integrity of China, including Tibet, but human rights are universal and the situation in Tibet is a legitimate concern of the international community. We are concerned that a large number of Tibetan intellectuals and writers are currently facing criminal charges. We urge China to allow the Tibetan people fully to exercise their basic political, religious, economic, social and cultural rights, in line with the Chinese Constitution and the Chinese legal provisions on local autonomy.
Let me start with climate change, which Mr Bütikofer mentioned. In fact, it is very important that we come to a common understanding with China with respect to climate change. This is on the agenda of the summit due to take place on 6 October.
This leads me to a somewhat more general remark with respect to the strategic partnership. Many Members of Parliament have asked what this strategic partnership really means. For me, it means that China – being one of the most important economies in the world, the biggest country in the world, a superpower, a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, an economic powerhouse, and also an increasingly important military power – together with the European Union, the United States and others, has a shared responsibility for world affairs. That is what I think it should really mean. It is not only about politics, the economy, climate change or raw materials, but rather it is about the shared responsibility to conduct world affairs. We are open to doing that together with them.
References were also made to several existing problems in the economic sector. For example, Mr Belder drew attention to the European Chamber of Commerce which has produced – not for the first time, by the way: they do this annually – a report on trade irritants. There is also a shorter version than the full 627-page one, which gives an executive summary. We have many contacts with them. When I visited China recently, we had an in-depth discussion with them. We also attended a meeting with the Chinese leadership where European business people were in a position to put questions to the Chinese leadership. So we are keeping ourselves very well informed on what is happening in that respect. There are problems, notably compulsory certification, the problem of indigenous innovation and the very vast problem of raw materials, which concerns not only the extractive industry, but also cotton, paper and so on. This is a vast subject and we should continue to follow this very closely. It will be one of the main subjects at the High Level Economic Dialogue that we will be having with China in November.
Some specific questions were put with respect to reciprocity, amongst others, by Mrs De Sarnez. We are preparing a communication on trade for the end of October. There we will propose a new instrument, similar to the trade defence instruments, whereby it would be possible, on the basis of a report, to intervene in such a way that – and this is not specifically aimed at China, but at everybody – if a country closed its government procurement markets to our products and to our entrepreneurs, we could retaliate by doing exactly the same with our markets and close them to them. I am a great supporter of openness, but openness also means that there should be reciprocity. The European Commission will take action in that respect – I repeat, not specifically aimed at China, but China certainly comes into that orbit.
Dumping was also mentioned. We see no sharp rise in dumping activities and in anti-dumping procedures, but we are following this very closely. If need be, we take the necessary measures. For example, last week, we took a measure with respect to aluminium wheels, and we continue to monitor this very closely.
Mr Brok asked a question about market economy status. That is a very interesting topic indeed. One of the questions we should be asking ourselves is whether we should change our approach to the market economy status. Market economy status is, in fact, a technical assessment based on the fulfilment of five criteria. Market economy status has always been one of China’s key demands to us and there has been some idea of using market economy status as a bargaining chip to push for the EU’s offensive interests. However, China has never indicated what it would be willing to give us as a counterpayment for market economy status. It is clear that it would not be in our interest to give it for free. We have increasing problems emerging in China in areas of market access, investment opportunities for our companies, government procurement and access to raw materials. We would need to see improvement in these areas if we were ever to change our approach to market economy status. Let me add that, as a result of their entry into the WTO as from 2016, they will automatically have market economy status.
There was also a question on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, from Mr Rivellini, amongst others. The talks continue. On the trade front, we were in Beijing last week. On the political front, we have narrowed issues down to human rights, Taiwan and migration. This is, by the way, an ongoing process and, like the honourable Member, I would welcome a timely conclusion.
Let me finish by saying a word on human rights, an issue raised by many Members of this Parliament. Human rights issues are raised during our regular political contacts and, in particular, during our human rights dialogue with the Chinese authorities, the last session of which was held in Madrid on 29 June. In Nanjing at the 12th EU-China summit, for instance, they were raised both during the discussions and in the press conference. Of course, human rights and the rule of law will be debated at the Brussels Summit as well."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples