Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-24-Speech-4-339-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120524.23.4-339-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, we would first like to raise a question of principle. The fact we are here today to discuss this subject is in itself inadmissible and unbelievable. It is unbelievable that the European Parliament as an institution has agreed to schedule a debate that has no purpose other than to interfere in, manipulate and influence the election process that will take place this year in Venezuela, the Presidential elections of October 2012.
This debate could be of some use for understanding that there are paths other than those advocated by the majority in Parliament and the governments of the European Union, where social, economic and labour rights – that is, human rights – are increasingly being attacked and undermined and where poverty is increasing at an alarming rate.
The scheduling of this meeting by the European Parliament is an act of interference in the election process to come and signifies that this institution is being used for all-too-evident political purposes: to influence public opinion with regard to the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela during the pre-election campaign.
The European Parliament has demeaned itself as an institution by putting this on the agenda and has even brought itself into disrepute. It is important to clarify some things about the issue behind this debate, which we could describe as an act of right-wing election propaganda. Today Venezuela is a member of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The decision on whether to leave these organisations or not is the sole responsibility of the sovereign and democratic institutions and powers of Venezuela, and this Parliament has no right to interfere in this matter.
As has already been mentioned, of the 34 countries that make up the Organisation of American States only 24 have ratified the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and this has never worried this Parliament. The United States of America and Canada do not form part of the Commission and have never had any intention of joining. Again, the right-wing in this Parliament has never been perturbed by this.
The decision as to whether Venezuela should stop participating in this body is the sole responsibility of its government and its people. In any case, it would be strange if Venezuela was not raising this question. When the criminal and anti-democratic coup of 11 April 2002 took place, perpetrated by the most reactionary forces against the will of the Venezuelan people, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recognised the illegitimate Carmona government and the entire undemocratic situation created, in an attempt to legitimise a coup that had tried to depose an elected president.
Democracy was restored with the widespread support of the Venezuelan people, to the great regret of various American and European governments. This situation continues to stick in the throat of the right, as proved by this debate. That is why it has promoted allegedly urgent debates on Venezuela in this Parliament. Coincidentally, every one of them has been held in years in which elections have taken place in Venezuela.
If anyone who supports this inadmissible interference is truly concerned about human rights, they should know that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela actively participates in the United Nations Human Rights Council and that it is actively involved in setting up human rights organisations under the framework of the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.
If those supporting this inadmissible interference are truly concerned with human rights, why do they not propose a debate on the social advances that have taken place in Venezuela, particularly at the level of social rights? Why do they not discuss the reduction in poverty and extreme poverty, which has fallen from 17.1% to 7.9% in just 10 years?
Why do they not listen to the praise from the relevant officials of the FAO and UN regarding the enormous progress achieved in the right to food and the Millennium Development Goals?"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples