Indeks 
 Poprzedni 
 Następny 
 Pełny tekst 
Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad
Wtorek, 13 grudnia 2005 r. - Strasburg Wersja poprawiona

56. Sprawozdanie roczne Rady w sprawie praw człowieka
MPphoto
 
 

  Die Präsidentin. Als nächster Punkt folgen die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zum Jahresbericht des Rates über die Menschenrechte.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Geoff Hoon, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, the Presidency warmly welcomes this debate. It emphasises the high priority which all EU institutions attach to the promotion and protection of human rights. It also recognises the immense importance of communicating the EU’s policies and actions in support of human rights clearly and confidently to the outside world.

The then General Affairs Council decided in December 1998, on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the European Union should enhance its actions on human rights, and that it should draw up an annual report on human rights. This year’s report – covering the period from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 – is the seventh such annual report. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the work of the European Union, through its institutions, in promoting human rights.

It is, obviously, only able to highlight those areas where EU action has been particularly significant during the reporting period. It does not seek to be fully comprehensive and it does not try to duplicate information which is already available from, for example, EU websites, or to provide an account of action taken by individual Member States. But it does provide European Union citizens, civil society partners and governments and human rights defenders in third countries with a regular, accessible overview of EU concerns, priorities and actions.

Much of the report focuses on the European Union’s promotion of human rights and democratisation as part of its common foreign and security policy. But, domestically, the European Union must also be consistent and coherent with the policies that it promotes abroad. We all recognise that, while much has been done to promote human rights within the European Union, there is still scope to improve. The report therefore sets out significant internal developments, including the continuing work to establish an EU Fundamental Rights Agency. And the chapters on thematic priorities, such as the human rights of women or human rights and business, include developments within the European Union, as well as those abroad and in multilateral organisations.

The report also provides information on EU instruments and initiatives in third countries, for example, the EU’s human rights dialogues with China and Iran, and the new human rights consultations established during 2005 with Russia. It includes information on the wide range of activities implemented by the European Commission through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

The report highlights that the EIDHR was created at Parliament’s initiative, and that Parliament has used its budgetary powers to increase substantially the resources earmarked for the protection of human rights and democracy. There is also information about policy development and specific action in relation to 17 thematic issues. These include areas where the EU has adopted human rights guidelines such as on the death penalty, torture, human rights defenders and the rights of children, including their involvement in armed conflict, as well as on other issues, ranging from human rights and terrorism to democracy and elections and the International Criminal Court.

The report provides an overview of EU action in the key international organisations: the United Nations Commission for Human Rights and the UN General Assembly Third Committee, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. It also provides a country-focused perspective, with an account of EU action in its immediate neighbourhood, in Africa, in the Americas, in Asia and in the Middle East.

The Council will continue to look for ways to improve its report. There were a number of innovations in 2005. The first – which, I am sure you will agree, was welcome, and perhaps overdue – was the inclusion of a substantive chapter outlining the extensive work that the European Parliament has done in support of human rights and democratisation.

Everyone recognises that Parliament adopts its own annual report and resolution on human rights in the world and on the European Union’s policy. However, I think it is both right and helpful that readers of this report get a sense of how the Council, Commission and Parliament all contribute together to the common EU goal of promoting and protecting human rights around the world.

I would like to repeat, at this point, the Council’s warm welcome for the re-establishment of Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights last year. I know how much the Council, and in particular its Working Group on Human Rights, values the contact and cooperation which is being established with that subcommittee.

This year’s report also sets out, for the first time, to provide readers with practical examples of the EU in action. For example, the chapter on racism, xenophobia and non-discrimination includes information on an EIDHR project to combat discrimination against Dalits in Nepal. The chapter on the rights of the child includes a project to promote the rights of children in the New Independent States. We believe that these specific examples will help readers make the connection between EU policy and our ability to deliver real changes to the lives of real people right around the world.

A further innovation this year was the introduction of some analysis of where EU action has worked well and, indeed, where there were gaps in our performance. A short analysis is provided at the end of each main chapter. It will always be the case that some internal reflection must remain internal, if the EU is to act effectively in, for example, UN negotiations or in its relations with certain third countries. But it is also important for NGOs and other key partners to have a sense of where we are content with our performance and where we ourselves want to do more. This analysis is a modest but useful step in that direction.

Like any annual report, this one has its limits. Agreed by the Council in early October, it provides information on EU action up to June 2005. Events have obviously moved on since then. Our Presidency has sought to use the six months since June to build on the broad range of existing EU commitments. We have taken forward efforts to mainstream human rights throughout the European Union’s work. We have, for example, sought to implement the EU’s human rights guidelines, with a particular focus on freedom of expression, by action in support of those who defend human rights where they have suffered for exercising their freedom of expression.

Within the United Nations, the EU is actively involved in negotiations in New York to establish a new UN Human Rights Council. There have also been many specific human rights issues and concerns which have been taken up over the past six months. We will look today, for example, at the situation in Tunisia. Many of these issues could be the subject for next year’s annual report.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the views of the European Parliament and those of the Commission on the report itself, and on the various issues that it covers. We want to work to ensure that this report is right. But, more importantly we need to continue to work together to get EU policies and actions right, to ensure that we have real gains in human rights protection around the world to report in years to come.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I very much welcome the latest edition of the EU Annual Report on Human Rights covering the Union’s human rights activities for the period of June 2004 to June 2005. The special thing about this report is that, for the first time, it has been drawn up jointly by the Council, Parliament and the Commission. The Council and the Commission have been doing so in recent years, but, for the first time, Parliament is also associated with it. That gives valuable credit to the report.

The EU Annual Report on Human Rights is a very important expression of the crucial importance of human rights policy in the overall policy setting of the European Union. It covers both the EU internal policy developments in the human rights dimension, in particular in the external and international dimensions. Its broad coverage of all major thematic and geographic human rights issues underscores the European Union’s strong attachment to the protection and promotion of human rights as defining principles of the Union across the board: as a community of shared values, founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Let me briefly touch upon some of these items. I have six points to make.

This year is a crucial year for the future of the UN human rights system, with the ongoing negotiations on the creation of a new institution, the Human Rights Council, as a successor to the existing, widely contested Human Rights Commission. In pursuit of the UN Summit conclusions in September, it is without exaggeration the rarest of opportunities for the international community to club together to improve on the ability of the UN to monitor, improve and act decisively on critical human rights situations throughout the world. Had it not been for the European Union, it would not have worked. I was there at the start of the Millennium Summit. I know how difficult it was to come to an agreement, but there, the EU made the difference. Our expectations remain high as to the expected result, and our capacity to influence the world community positively should have a favourable bearing upon the negotiating process. However, we should be under no illusions as to the resistance many countries are putting up to improving effectively the current UN human rights system. We will need to mobilise all our energies and outreach efforts if we are to bring the current, rather difficult negotiations to a successful conclusion.

The human rights dimension impacts increasingly on the European Union’s external relations with a range of countries around the world: the human rights dialogue with China; the dialogue with Iran – though, regrettably, we have not had a dialogue round for more than a year, but we hope to have one again; the human rights consultations with Russia; the local human rights dialogues at the level of the heads of missions of the European Union in numerous other countries; and, specifically, our developments under the European Neighbourhood Policy and its human rights related agenda under the various action plans, where a great deal is always concentrated and reserved for human rights. All this amply demonstrates that the European Union is not alone in actively pursuing its agenda of human rights promotion in its external policy: we are also seeing an increasing willingness by our partners to acknowledge that human rights protection is an essential feature of their own countries’ development. Still, much has to be done.

In this context, I am often asked what these dialogues or consultations really achieve. My answer to that is as follows: as each round is completed, so another opportunity has been taken not only to exchange ideas – so important to our dialogue partners who do not wish to be preached to – but above all, for us, also to explain from our own hard-won experience how we, in the European Union, have adapted legislation and administrative practices in order to respect fundamental rights and how we expect our partners to take a similar path. I am convinced that, little by little, the message gets through. The dialogues and consultations allow the EU to raise and discuss individual cases of political prisoners or other persons suffering human rights abuses.

On the basis of the European Community’s association agreements or partnership and cooperation agreements with third countries, the Commission regularly reviews the partner countries’ respect for international human rights standards. Indeed, the policy dialogues with many of our partners under these agreements include substantial discussions on relevant human rights and democracy related issues in partner countries. Our colleague has already mentioned some very concrete issues. The Commission has taken the initiative to establish – with some of those policy dialogues – working groups on human rights and good governance, within the framework of the regular Joint Committee consultations, for example, with Vietnam, Jordan or Morocco. I would like to draw your attention, in particular, to the five-year work programme on Barcelona, where important goals on human rights are indeed included.

Moreover, as you are aware, all Community agreements now contain a specific human rights clause as an essential element. In this respect, the Commission is keen to ensure that the clauses are used as a positive tool to improve the human rights situation in partner countries. It is my belief that these structured exchanges on human rights offer a very promising way of realising the goals for which the human rights clauses have been included. Indeed, there will be times, in cases of widespread, egregious human rights violations, when sanctions need to be imposed or even an agreement suspended, such as in the case of Zimbabwe or Togo. However, generally speaking, we should avoid putting too much emphasis on a ‘mechanical’ approach to sanctions or suspension. Rather, it seems to me, the crucial point is to scrutinise systematically the human rights records of our partners and to induce them through political and assistance means to live up to their obligations under the human rights clause of the agreement. In that context, I am very grateful for the draft report on the human rights clauses prepared so assiduously by the honourable Member, Mr Agnoletto. His report will oblige all human rights actors within the European Union, and particularly within its institutions, to reflect further on their value and on the most appropriate way of using them.

The EU Annual Human Rights Report also reflects the re-casting of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights for the 2005-06 period. The modifications to the programming under that initiative have been based on the result of a careful assessment and designed to respond in the first place to the demands of the potential beneficiaries of the initiative. As a consequence, four campaigns have been designed with a more flexible geographic coverage and integrating actions at global, regional and country level. Two elements are particularly dear to me: the stronger commitment to mainstreaming the rights of women and children, as well as the enhanced incentive for the effective participation of civil society organisations from partner countries in the developing world.

At the moment, while the last contracts under the 2004 budget of this initiative are being awarded, the publication of the important calls for proposals for the 2005-06 budgets is imminent; indeed, they should be published any day now. At the same time, country-specific calls for proposals are going ahead, and the next annual report will give details of this exercise. The key point here is that the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, in its present and future forms, is an essential and integral part of the European Union’s overall human rights policy.

The European Union derives great strength in its relations with third countries from unified positions on many human rights issues of strategic importance. I need think only of the guidelines we have agreed on the death penalty, torture, children in armed conflict and human rights defenders. These, used well, are excellent tools of great influence. I would therefore like to salute the efforts undertaken under the Luxembourg and UK Presidencies this year in orchestrating very effective campaigns under these guidelines. I would also like to salute the work of the many Commission delegations which contributed so effectively to the respective Troika demarches in the target countries. The same teamwork is true for the outreach campaign on the subject of the envisaged Human Rights Council – which I mentioned at the beginning – which was conducted in 77 countries. The more that the Union, its Member States and its institutions speak with one voice on human rights matters, the greater the political impact is. Therefore, we should not cease in our efforts, in the Council, in Parliament and in the Commission, to work together as closely and efficiently as possible. In that sense, we present this annual report and hopefully this is a stark reminder of the enormous challenges still lying ahead and the good work that has been done in the past.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Simon Coveney, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I am glad to make a brief contribution to this debate. The Council’s 2005 report on human rights is a good summary of human rights activity and aspirations within the EU and the impact that such activity is having outside the Union.

As the author of Parliament’s most recent human rights report, I was pleased to see almost all of the thematic issues raised in Parliament’s report dealt with in this document too, reflecting consistency of thought and priority. The death penalty, children’s rights – and, in particular, children in armed conflict – women’s rights and gender equality, the role of international business in human rights, human rights in the fight against terrorism and the role of the ICC in the fight against impunity are all issues that need to be given continued priority by consecutive Council presidencies and the Commission.

I believe, if possible, we should be moving towards the creation of one substantial human rights annual report for the EU in future, representing the views of the Council, the Commission and Parliament. It makes no sense for Parliament to duplicate the work of the Council. Our separate role should be to analyse critically the performance of the Council and the Commission in relation to meeting targets set out in key areas outlined in an EU annual human rights report. Parliament needs to be actively involved in drafting this report in future years and not merely presented with the finished article before it is published.

Finally, while we are debating human rights in the EU for 2005, I cannot let the occasion pass without registering my concern regarding the need for clarity on the so-called CIA rendition flights issue. I am one of many Members in this House from EU countries that have facilitated the landing and refuelling of US aircraft – military and CIA – in recent years. As a spokesman on human rights, I would be a hypocrite not to demand clarity as to whether or not detainees have been transferred through EU countries to third countries where they may be at risk of torture.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Howitt, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the UK Presidency for agreeing to present the annual human rights report to Parliament today, the first time this has been done since the Finnish Presidency in 1999. As this year’s parliamentary rapporteur on the annual human rights report, the President-in-Office is aware that it is my intention, rather than duplicating the Council’s work in this area – as Mr Coveney has already indicated – to strengthen collaboration between the Council and Parliament so that the European Union can send a stronger and more coherent message in favour of human rights to the wider world. I thank the President-in-Office for his support for Parliament’s subcommittee in his speech this afternoon. However, I invite him to indicate the Council’s willingness to enter into a debate with Parliament on our closer collaboration in relation to the annual report itself when he replies to this debate.

The annual human rights report this year should be welcomed for its scope and honesty. In a year when the Council has evaluated the human rights dialogues with specific countries, the finding that the dialogue with China has had little, if any, impact is indeed a very important one. The report overall is stronger at stating actions rather than evaluating their effectiveness and I hope we will see greater use of human rights impact assessments in future years.

At a time when the European Union has to stand firm in New York in seeking to strengthen support for a strong Human Rights Council in the United Nations, all of us could reflect on whether the European Union itself gives sufficient priority to human rights vis-à-vis the importance we give to trade and development in our own external relations.

I remind the Commissioner that, despite her comments this afternoon, Parliament is still looking for her support to retain a separate legal base on the European initiative for democracy and human rights. I hope we will hear from her too.

Finally, let us take one of the bloodiest events of 2005: the massacre of hundreds of people in Andijan on 13 May and the subsequent arrest and torture by the Uzbek authorities of seemingly anyone who might be a witness. The EU suspension of parts of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the arms embargo and visa restrictions represent and categorically show to the world that this European Union can and will uphold human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cecilia Malmström, för ALDE-gruppen. – Fru talman! EU:s utrikespolitik bygger på försvaret av fred, demokrati, rättsstaten och de mänskliga rättigheterna och därför lägger vi så stor tyngd vid den politiska delen av Köpenhamnskriterierna när vi förhandlar med de nya medlemsstaterna. Här har ju också EU varit väldigt framgångsrik med att sprida dessa värderingar.

Svårare är det naturligtvis med andra länder. Även om mänskliga rättigheter alltid finns med på papperet är det svårt att nå fram i dialogen. Vi har klausuler men parlamentet har som ni vet förespråkat att de ska vara obligatoriska, att de ska aktiveras. Vi kan inte nöja oss med att bara vagt protestera när händelser som t.ex. de i Tunisien inträffar, när man grovt kränker de grundläggande mänskliga rättigheterna. Tunisien är ett land nära associerat med EU.

Människorättsdialogen med Kina och Iran går dåligt, det vet vi. I Ryssland går det inte heller något vidare. Idag har vi sett hur våra Sacharovpristagare, damerna från Kuba, inte får lov att komma hit. Jag hoppas att rådet och kommissionen kan förstärka protesterna mot diktatorn i Havanna, som fortsätter att gäcka hela världen. Det finns mycket mer att göra när det gäller Zimbabwe, Vitryssland, Burma, Saudiarabien osv.

Vi vet ju att EU som "soft power" är fantastiskt mäktigt. Vi är den enda internationella aktören som verkligen kan åstadkomma storverk, om vi är eniga när det gäller försvaret av mänskliga rättigheter och värderingar. Medborgarna runt omkring förväntar sig att vi ska ha en gemensam utrikespolitik, att vi ska spela en roll på den internationella scenen och tala med en röst. Denna utrikespolitik, som gestaltar sig som handel, bistånd, politiskt och ekonomisk samarbete, måste hela tiden vara vägledd av respekten för mänskliga rättigheter.

Vi som är demokratier har ett ansvar att se till att bekämpa ofrihet och sprida demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter ända ut i byarna i Colombia, Zimbabwe och Nordkorea. Därför är detta betänkande ett viktig och bra verktyg. Jag hoppas bara att det i framtiden kan bli något mer strategiskt, så att vi får en ännu mer sammanhållen politik för mänskliga rättigheter.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hélène Flautre, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, comme mes collègues, je me réjouis que nous tenions aujourd'hui ce débat sur le rapport annuel sur les droits de l'homme. Je me réjouis particulièrement d'un nouveau chapitre qui porte sur l'analyse de l'efficacité des instruments et des initiatives de l'Union européenne. C'est précisément l'angle qu'a choisi le Parlement européen pour élaborer, en toute complicité des groupes politiques, son rapport de cette année, ce qui montre qu'à terme, les années prochaines, nous pourrons enfin élaborer ensemble un vrai rapport conjoint entre la Commission, le Conseil et le Parlement européen.

Pour y parvenir, il est important que l'information circule en flux continu entre nos institutions. Je voudrais insister, par exemple, sur les conclusions du Conseil du 12 décembre, qui nous apprennent que le Conseil - nous n'en doutions pas - avait lancé des campagnes actives de lobbying sous la houlette des chefs de mission dans les pays tiers, au nom des défenseurs des droits de l'homme. Or, il est très utile pour les parlementaires de savoir à qui, quand ou comment le Conseil et les ambassadeurs dans les pays tiers apportent leur soutien au titre des lignes directrices pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l'homme.

Autre exemple, le Conseil élabore des fact sheets (des fiches types) qui évaluent la situation des droits de l'homme dans les différents pays. Là aussi, il serait nécessaire que le Conseil les communique au Parlement afin que les différentes délégations et commissions puissent s'y référer dans le cadre de leurs travaux quotidiens.

Autre exemple, j'ai lu dans ce rapport que, pour la première fois, des députés chinois avaient participé au dialogue structuré sur les droits de l'homme entre l'Union et la Chine. Dans ces conditions, je ne comprends pas que les membres du Parlement eux-mêmes ne soient pas associés à ce dialogue, et les parlementaires demandent du reste que l'ensemble des députés soient associés à l'ensemble des dialogues, quelles que soient leurs structures.

Enfin, concernant la Commission, on connaît les défauts de l'initiative européenne pour la démocratie et les droits de l'homme, mais je dois vous dire, Madame la Commissaire, que j'émets les plus vives réserves et inquiétudes face au document qui est actuellement à l'examen par la Commission européenne pour la mise en œuvre du programme horizontal pour les droits de l'homme. Ce document ne répond en rien aux attentes du Parlement européen, pas plus qu'à celles des ONG, comme vous allez le voir...

(La Présidente retire la parole à l'orateur)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie i Panowie! Już od 7 lat publikowany jest coroczny raport dotyczący przestrzegania praw człowieka. To dobrze. Uchwalono Kartę Praw Podstawowych. To dobrze. Przestrzegamy jednak przed takim myśleniem, dosyć często obecnym w czasach komunizmu, że jak jest jakiś problem, to się powołuje biuro albo agencję.

Jest pytanie, czy rzeczywiście potrzebna jest Agencja Praw Podstawowych, o czym mówił przedstawiciel Rady przed chwilą. Na razie nikt tego tak przekonywająco nie udowodnił.

Dobrze, że Unia w zakresie praw człowieka współpracuje z Organizacją Bezpieczeństwa Pracy w Europie i z Komisarzem ds. Praw Człowieka ONZ. Źle, gdy Unia akceptuje de facto istnienie tzw. podwójnych standardów, gdy upominamy się konsekwentnie o prawa człowieka w krajach małych i słabych, ale już nie w dużych i silnych, z którymi wolimy robić interesy. Walczymy o prawa człowieka u naszych wrogów, w państwach neutralnych, ale wstydliwie milczymy, gdy łamane są prawa człowieka u naszych sojuszników.

Pani komisarz Ferrero-Waldner również czasami nabiera wody w usta, zwłaszcza gdy dotyczy to obszarów i krajów, które uważane są za strategicznych partnerów Unii. Apeluję o konsekwencję, a nie selektywne traktowanie fundamentalnych wartości Unii, jakimi są prawa człowieka.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die EU wird weltweit als Stimme der Menschenrechte akzeptiert, weil sie mehr als andere Institutionen den Worten Taten folgen lässt. Ich denke an die Klausel, die die Frau Kommissarin zu Recht als keypoint bezeichnet hat und durch welche die Menschenrechte zu einem wesentlichen Bestandteil in den Handels- und Kooperationsabkommen mit den Drittländern werden. Bis heute gibt es 120 derartige Abkommen. Im Menschenrechtsbericht 2005 werden wichtige Erfolge bilanziert, etwa verschärfte Ausfuhrkontrollen für Material, das für Folterzwecke missbraucht werden kann, oder das Vorgehen gegen Kinderschänder, die das Internet für ihre Zwecke instrumentalisieren, oder das Engagement für die Anerkennung des internationalen Strafgerichtshofes. Es werden aber auch Rückschläge in diesem Bericht verzeichnet, etwa in afrikanischen Ländern, wie Sudan, Simbabwe, Kongo oder Ruanda, oder in asiatischen Ländern wie Indonesien, Sri Lanka, Iran, Birma. Besonderen Anlass zur Kritik gibt es nach wie vor in Sachen China. Der Umgang mit Meinungs-, Religions- und Versammlungsfreiheit ist nicht hinnehmbar. Kritische Journalisten und Anwälte werden schikaniert, Menschenrechtler werden verfolgt, Angeklagte erhalten keine fairen Gerichtsverfahren und werden gefoltert. Tausendfach wird jedes Jahr die Todesstrafe verhängt. Die Lage in Tibet ist unverändert dramatisch schlecht. Übermorgen werden wir in der Dringlichkeitsdebatte auf militärische Interventionen der Chinesen in einem tibetischen Kloster reagieren. Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten müssen endlich aktiv werden und sich nicht wie bisher immer in Genf der Stimme enthalten. Die Verletzung der Menschenrechte durch China gehört auf die dortige Tagesordnung der Human Rights Convention.

2005 hatte neben den Bürgerrechten der Kampf gegen den Terrorismus Priorität. Völlig zu Recht. Dennoch muss Rechtsstaatlichkeit zwingend eingehalten werden. Das gilt auch für die Gefangenentransporte der CIA quer durch Europa, über die morgen Nachmittag debattiert wird. Unter keinen Umständen darf es zu einem Verstoß gegen die Menschenrechtskonvention kommen. Auch das ist eine Botschaft des Berichts über die Menschenrechte.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  María Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE). – Señora Presidenta, agradecemos que, por primera vez, el informe del Consejo mencione la acción del Parlamento en el ámbito de los derechos humanos, porque este Parlamento hace mucho.

También agradecemos que vengan a presentarlo en esta Cámara. El Grupo Socialista así lo había solicitado en múltiples ocasiones. Así, nuestro propio informe se podrá ajustar mejor al seguimiento y la evaluación de sus compromisos.

Ya basta de grandes palabras y grandes declaraciones, porque hay hechos concretos que reclaman la acción y el cumplimiento de los compromisos que hemos adquirido, como, por ejemplo, la ya mencionada Iniciativa Europea de Derechos Humanos y Democracia.

¿Qué hace el Consejo con las resoluciones que en este Parlamento se aprueban? Tres hemos aprobado, con la que aprobaremos esta semana sobre Etiopía. No hemos obtenido ninguna respuesta. ¿Qué ha sucedido con Guantánamo? ¿Cuál ha sido su acción? Se están derivando muchos problemas de la inacción, a pesar de las graves violaciones de los derechos humanos que se producen. Y así, podría citar otros casos.

Es mejor decir menos y hacer más, porque, de tanto decir, van a dejar de creernos. Este Parlamento trabaja denodadamente para que su voz sea escuchada, pero, para que su voz sea atendida, les necesitamos a ustedes, y necesitamos que ustedes renueven su compromiso con la política europea de derechos humanos, que se supone que es un pilar fundamental de nuestra acción exterior.

Todavía estamos esperando muchas respuestas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Madam President, today we again debate human rights across the world and point out the deficiencies of others.

However, I want to focus this debate on a flagrant breach of human rights perpetuated within this European Union specifically within the United Kingdom. Council Directive 2000/78/EC rightly prohibits religious discrimination in employment. Yet pursuant to a derogation under Article 15 of that directive, the United Kingdom Government is permitted to practise discrimination against Protestants in Northern Ireland who apply to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland, solely because they are Protestants. In consequence, hundreds of exceptionally qualified young Protestant applicants have been refused admission to the police, not on merit, but because there is not a matching quantity of applicants from the Catholic community.

So before this House and the EU parade their human rights credentials, I say: let it set about righting that wrong, implementing the directive on employment in its entirety and ending the outrageous discrimination against the majority community in my country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – Madam President, I am responsible in the Committee on International Trade for the proposed revision of the human rights clauses in partnership and trade agreements. Words are not enough; we need action. Far too often, the Council and Commission are not prepared to trigger the use of these clauses to pressurise third countries to address legitimate concerns. Can the Council and Commission look at the step-by-step ratcheting-up of pressure that can be built into a new, revised human rights clause?

The second point is that sometimes process failures interfere with product outcomes. We welcome the human rights dialogue with China and Iran. For two years the EU was the only place in the world that had a human rights dialogue with a deeply unloved regime in North Korea. Then the Council sponsored a resolution condemning North Korean human rights in Geneva without informing either the North Koreans or the Commission. As a result the dialogue was suspended. This year, we sponsored a new resolution on the ground that we have to have a resolution: we have no dialogue; we fail to recognise that we have no dialogue because we had a resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Am 10. Dezember wurde der Internationale Tag der Menschenrechte begangen, und gerade die Ereignisse der jüngsten Zeit führen uns deutlich vor Augen, dass noch viel zu tun bleibt. So sollten sich auch die USA an Mindestregeln für Menschenrechte gebunden fühlen, ohne diese mit Geheimgefängnissen im Ausland zu umgehen.

Aber auch innerhalb der Europäischen Union finden nach wie vor Menschenrechtsverletzungen statt, vor allem in Form von häuslicher Gewalt, Ehrenmorden, Polygamie und massiver Diskriminierung der Frauen, die wir indirekt zulassen, wenn wir dies im Rahmen des Islams in Europa akzeptieren. In der Türkei selbst sind fast 80% aller in Dörfern lebenden Frauen zwangsverheiratet. Nach wie vor werden Minderheiten und Angehörige anderer Religionen diskriminiert.

Angesichts dessen, dass 2004 EU-weit mehr Asylanträge von Türken als von Irakern gestellt wurden und die Türkei auch 2005 etwa in Deutschland zweitstärkstes Herkunftsland für Asylbewerber bleibt, kann die tatsächliche Umsetzung der Menschenrechte in der türkischen Gesellschaft wohl keinesfalls als Realität angenommen werden. Und das in einem Land, das um den EU-Beitritt verhandelt!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Παναγιώτης Μπεγλίτης (PSE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το μέλλον της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ως δημοκρατικής κοινότητας αρχών και αξιών, συνδέεται με τη συνεπή στάση των θεσμικών οργάνων και των κρατών μελών στην υπεράσπιση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, των δικαιωμάτων των μειονοτήτων, των δημοκρατικών ελευθεριών.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει, πρώτον, να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλίες για τη διαμόρφωση ενός νέου αποτελεσματικού θεσμικού πλαισίου για την υπεράσπιση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στο πλαίσιο του ΟΗΕ.

Δεύτερον, να θέσει σε υψηλή προτεραιότητα, στις σχέσεις της με τις τρίτες χώρες, το ζήτημα της επικύρωσης και υλοποίησης όλων των διεθνών συνθηκών για την προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και ενάντια στην απαγόρευση των βασανιστηρίων.

Τρίτον, να συμβάλει στη διαμόρφωση ενός ανοικτού και δημοκρατικού παγκόσμιου συστήματος διακυβέρνησης της κοινωνίας πληροφορίας και στην αντιμετώπιση του ψηφιακού χάσματος, το οποίο δημιουργεί νέες σχέσεις εξάρτησης και ηγεμονίας μεταξύ των αναπτυγμένων και των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών.

Τέταρτον, να εφαρμόζει, χωρίς επιλεκτικές διακρίσεις και σκοπιμότητες των κρατών μελών, όλες τις συμφωνίες συνεργασίας και σύνδεσης και να υλοποιεί τους μηχανισμούς που προβλέπονται.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Geoff Hoon, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I would also like to thank the Commission and all the honourable Members who contributed to an impressive debate. I am always impressed by the range of human rights issues on which Members of the European Parliament are active. I am certainly encouraged by the commitment, not only that shown today but throughout, on these issues.

I would like to deal with one or two of the specific points that have been raised. First of all, I welcome Richard Howitt’s suggestion, and Simon Coveney’s as well, that we should act on today’s useful exchange and hold further discussions on our two reports. A number of honourable Members have expressed a wish for a more active role for the European Parliament in the EU’s annual report on human rights. As reflected in the conclusions reached at its meeting yesterday, the General Affairs and External Relations Council welcomes the cooperation with the Parliament in developing and delivering its human rights policy during 2005 and looks forward to building on that relationship further.

I will ensure that we give very serious reflection to the specific ideas that have been put forward and I am sure that we can find ways to deepen our dialogue. I want to emphasise that one of the EU’s great strengths lies in its variety of different institutions: they have different and complementary roles. The Troika often works to promote human rights in an intergovernmental framework. Parliament can bring its weight and views to bear in different ways and often with much greater flexibility. We greatly welcome such opportunities to share views and ideas. We particularly value our regular and open exchanges with the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

We need to make sure our work is well coordinated and coherent, but we must also capitalise on our respective strengths. It is important to keep some distinction between the roles the different institutions can play in promoting human rights and democratisation.

Glyn Ford raised an important issue about the way in which we use human rights clauses. The Council will look seriously at any issues put forward by the European Parliament. It is worth noting that their primary purpose is to provide a constructive platform for engagement with third countries on human rights. Suspension of any agreement is a last resort and is therefore very rarely used.

Human rights clauses have been invoked in at least 12 cases since 1995 as a basis for consultation, suspension of aid or other measures involving 10 ACP countries. So obviously that is a weapon we are prepared to use. It has to be used discreetly and effectively if it is to bring results.

I conclude by welcoming once again the strong commitment the EU institutions have shown to promoting human rights and to providing an effective report on EU policy and actions in this area. It is extremely valuable to have these opportunities to review collectively how we are doing and how we can do better. We look forward to continued close cooperation with the European Parliament as we take our human rights work forward in the months ahead.

I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to what has been an extremely good debate.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, let me try to round up this important debate, to which I personally attach great importance. Of course, there are still many challenges, otherwise we need not have this debate. However, the Commission uses specific instruments and I would like to give you a few concrete examples, because it sometimes seems that we are only using words. This is not true, we have many possibilities and we try to use them, but still much has to be done and we have not reached the end.

For instance, we have an instrument through which EUR 180 million is used for promotion of justice and the rule of law, fostering a culture of human rights, promoting the democratic process, advancing equality, tolerance and peace. Secondly, we have country-specific cooperation programmes, to which a total of EUR 35 million has been allocated. Thirdly, grants of EUR 14 million have been awarded to international organisations, and we use these for campaigns.

We also have a very important instrument for the EU election observation missions. Many Members know of it and its importance because they have been chief observers in different countries, although the chief observer does have a certain amount of independence. This instrument is allocated EUR 13 million. The Commission has been involved in presidential and parliamentary election missions. It has completed EU election observation missions to Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, the West Bank and Gaza, also to Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia. Other missions are currently under way, such as those in Venezuela, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and again for the parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Neighbourhood Policy is my specific responsibility. There is now an instrument that provides a positive incentive. I can give 10% to 15% more if a country in the region, for instance Morocco or Jordan, is introducing more reforms in the human rights sector. I think this is important.

With regard to the CIA, in general we are clearly of the conviction that terrorism can be fought only with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. Human rights are valid in every situation. We know that this is a difficult challenge. It is a challenge to maintain the right balance between improving the right to privacy and combating terrorism. We have to protect our people but we also have to protect the principles on which our society is based.

Finally, with regard to the democracy and human rights instrument, I have often stated that for us the EIDHR is a flagship policy. Although it will no longer have a separate legal base, we have proposed a thematic programme for democracy and human rights, with global coverage and with visibility and unified programming, including a separate budget line. The proposed thematic programme would be identified within each of the proposed external action instruments. There will be a specific communication on this thematic programme, setting out the scope, objectives and political priorities, which will be presented at the end of January. I hope there is a chance of agreeing a complete overall package, which will enable the Council, Commission and Parliament to look forward.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Die Präsidentin. Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

 
Informacja prawna - Polityka ochrony prywatności