Text integral 
Procedură : 2007/2678(RSP)
Stadiile documentului în şedinţă
Stadii ale documentelor :

Texte depuse :


Dezbateri :

PV 12/12/2007 - 11
CRE 12/12/2007 - 11

Voturi :

PV 13/12/2007 - 6.8
CRE 13/12/2007 - 6.8

Texte adoptate :


Miercuri, 12 decembrie 2007 - Strasbourg Ediţie revizuită

11. Summitul UE/China - Dialog privind drepturile omului UE/China (dezbatere)

  Die Präsidentin. Als nächster Punkt folgt die Erklärung der Kommission über den EU-China-Gipfel.


  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I welcome today’s debate about the EU-China human rights dialogue. As you know, the human rights issue was raised and discussed at the very recent summit meeting in Beijing and the joint statement also explicitly refers to it.

I think it is fair to recognise that, although serious concerns remain and need to be addressed, China has also made remarkable progress in the human rights field over the last year. This is particularly true in the field of social and economic rights but also in some other areas.

There are moves afoot to reform the ‘re-education through labour’ system. In this respect we welcome the new legislative initiative that is under consideration and we also hope that concrete reforms will be put in place soon. It is a fundamental principle of human rights not to deprive an individual of his or her liberty without due justice and a fair trial.

China is also working to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. For example, the Ministry of Justice has recently directed courts not to rely on confessions on their own as sufficient evidence of guilt, as such confessions can sometimes be made as a result of torture by police or detention personnel. Similarly, China is initiating specific training measures targeted at these groups of public order personnel.

We are also pleased to note the progress made with respect to the Supreme People’s Court now exercising full review power over death penalty sentences issued by lower courts. And we understand that the result is a reduction in the number of effective death sentences and executions. This is gratifying for the European Union. As you know, it has long been a priority area of intervention.

Nevertheless – and now of course I also have to say a few negative things – the Commission remains concerned by the situation of human rights in China in general and more specifically in the field of civil and political rights. We particularly have in mind here freedom of expression, religion and association and the protection of the rights of minorities, for instance in Tibet and in the province of Xinjiang.

In this context, the repression of human rights defenders remains a key concern. Exercising the right to speak freely often leads to beatings, to house arrest or even to terms of imprisonment. Access to the internet – the right to information – is closely monitored and restricted and those, for instance, who speak up in favour of greater autonomy for Tibet receive disproportionately long terms of imprisonment. The use of state secrecy legislation as well as other loosely defined criminal provisions facilitates the prosecution of those who speak or publish freely.

The Commission therefore urges the Chinese Government to permit expressions of all forms of opinion. This is also, we think, a very important factor for how the international public views China, particularly next year in the run-up to the Olympics, when all eyes will be on China. History shows that allowing freedom of expression leads, in the long term, to a far more stable society. We all know that.

All these issues are regularly addressed in the EU-China human rights dialogue. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the most recent dialogue which was held in October in Beijing allowed a sincere and an in-depth exchange of views on all topics of our concern, with several of the discussions leading to follow-up activity. It is important to recognise that this dialogue provides an important forum where both parties can openly speak about their genuine concerns while contributing to a better understanding of our differences – and our differences remain notable.

In this context we regret the Chinese decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Seminar in Berlin over the participation of two NGOs and that, for similar reasons, the Seminar could not be held in Beijing recently. We consider that civil society has a very important role to play and the Seminar provides the appropriate forum for NGOs to make their valuable contributions. I trust we are able to find a mutually agreed solution so that this important exercise will continue its successful path in the future, as underlined by the EU-China Summit.

Let me close by saying that there are two more important human rights issues which we regularly raise with the Chinese side as a matter of high priority. One is the ratification by China of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other one is the release of those who were imprisoned at the time of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations or who later commemorated the 1989 events. Decisive action on both sides would send a clear positive signal and would be highly welcome.


  Edward McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I should like to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner for that statement.

I think it is very important, following the EU-China summit – and particularly the EU-China human rights dialogue – that there should be an opportunity for Members of this House to examine the outcome. I do not want to spend time on the EU-China summit. I want to talk about the human rights dialogue, because that was what took me to Beijing last May when, jointly with Ms Flautre, I was preparing a report on the reform of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

I want this afternoon to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That, of course, is the vast majority of people in China, who want change and reform. But that movement is led by, among others, Gao Zhisheng, a Christian lawyer who has disappeared from his home in Beijing, where he was being held under house arrest following his conviction for ‘subversion’ this time last year.

While I know that his name was among those raised in the dialogue, I think that one of the problems that we find in this House is in relation to the dialogue. While I note that the Commissioner says that it was a sincere and in-depth exchange of views – and I am sure that was true on the side of the Europeans – I am not convinced that would be the case on the side of the Chinese. In my experience – since the time when I was EU-China rapporteur back in 1997, 10 years ago when this process began – there has been absolutely no product in human rights terms from China in the sense that people’s lives have been improved or prisoners have been released or torture has stopped or the massive imprisonment reported by Harry Wu from the Laogai Foundation has ended. He estimates that there are 6.8 million people in one form of detention or other in China today, many of them there for religious convictions – and we think especially here of the Falun Gong practitioners, who are blameless but who are tortured for their beliefs and, in many cases, are dying.

I would like also to reflect on the imminence of the Olympic Games. One should not forget that Article 1 of the Olympic Charter states that countries should enjoin ‘universal fundamental ethical principles’. That means only one thing: that China cannot be held to be an appropriate host for these Games, especially since nothing has fundamentally changed since 2001. I hope all Groups will support the joint motion, which calls for an assessment by the IOC of China’s compliance with the terms which were agreed back in 2001. I fear they will be found wanting. My view is that the Olympics should be transferred forthwith to Athens and remain there forever.


  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Um es gleich von vornherein zu sagen, ich glaube, dass die Olympischen Spiele in China bleiben sollten, weil es eine gute Gelegenheit ist, gerade diese Olympischen Spiele auszunützen, um den Dialog zu forcieren. Das steht auch in der Gemeinsamen Entschließung, Kollege McMillan-Scott, und wenn Sie der Meinung sind, die Sie vertreten haben, sind Sie gegen die Gemeinsame Entschließung.

Es war eine frühere Kollegin von Ihnen, Frau Ferrero-Waldner, Madeleine Albright, die als amerikanische Außenministerin festgestellt hat, dass es natürlich viel schwieriger ist, die Menschenrechte in China anzusprechen als in Burma, weil hier auch geopolitische Gründe eine Rolle spielen. In der Tat wollen wir China als Partner für die Lösung vieler Probleme. Aber das darf uns nicht daran hindern, die Menschenrechtsfrage sehr wohl und sehr intensiv anzusprechen, und zwar nicht unbedingt als Lehrmeister, als jene, die alles besser wissen. Ich bin sehr froh, dass die Grundrechtecharta heute unterschrieben worden ist, weil viele Redner auch belegt haben, dass wir nur dann ein Recht haben, über Menschenrechtsfragen zu sprechen, wenn wir selber sehr gut in der Wahrung der Menschenrechte sind. Wir sind vielmehr der festen Überzeugung, dass es im Interesse Chinas ist, dass die Menschenrechte nicht mit Füßen getreten, sondern wirklich respektiert werden.

China will Stabilität haben. Wie soll die Stabilität Chinas erhalten bleiben, wenn die Menschenrechtsfrage nicht stärker angesprochen wird? Wir wollen nicht, dass China zerfällt. Es ist nicht sinnvoll, Europa aufzubauen und China zerstören zu wollen, aber ohne Respekt für die Menschenrechte besteht eine Gefahr für die Stabilität Chinas. Wir wollen eine soziale Orientierung in China haben. In diesem ungeheuren Wachstumsprozess, von dem auch Herr Barroso gesprochen hat, ist es nur möglich, die Stabilität zu bewahren, wenn auch die sozialen Aspekte berücksichtigt werden. Ich kann aber nicht die sozialen Aspekte berücksichtigen, wenn nicht auch die Menschenrechtsfrage berücksichtigt wird, wenn nicht möglich ist, dass sich Gewerkschaften organisieren, dass sich Bürgerinitiativen organisieren.

Wir wollen ein stärker ökologisch orientiertes China haben, weil Umwelt ein wichtiges gemeinsames globales Gut ist. Wir wissen, dass in China viele Initiativen entstehen, um massiv gegen die Verletzung der Mindeststandards für Ökologie und Umwelt zu protestieren. Es wäre gut für China, wenn das Land auf diese Stimmen hörte, das wäre ein Fortschritt für China.

Daher glaube ich, es ist nicht eine Frage der europäischen Überheblichkeit, sondern eine Frage der Vertretung gemeinsamer Interessen. Im Interesse Chinas werden wir die Menschenrechtsfrage ansprechen, und wohlaufgeklärte Vertreter des politischen Systems in China werden gut beraten sein, wenn sie auf uns und auf diese Entschließung hören, die im Interesse Chinas ist und die China voranbringen würde, was ohne Respekt für die Menschenrechte nicht möglich ist.


  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I much admire the contribution of China to the development of world civilisation. In terms of technology, in terms of society and in terms of culture, China has probably contributed more than any other country to the development of humankind.

I regret that China’s growing economic maturity is not accompanied by a growing political maturity. But I regret, too, that the European Union is not doing more to push China in the right direction.

Two days ago, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Union proclaimed its commitment to the ‘promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world as a cornerstone of our external action policy’.

And yet, two weeks ago, Messrs Barroso and Socrates left the summit early, having secured Europe’s economic interests, leaving officials to negotiate the conclusions – conclusions which, unsurprisingly, made little mention of human rights, supported the lifting of the arms embargo and opposed Taiwan’s bid to join the United Nations. They did much to undermine Mr Solana’s carefully crafted words the previous month.

I wonder what the world is coming to when the European Union, the self-styled protector of universal, interdependent and indivisible human rights, fails to speak out clearly against one of the world’s worst human rights abusers.

I suspect that both the Chinese and others may come to regret the decision to host the Olympic Games in Beijing. The Chinese authorities themselves promised that they would bring a greater climate of freedom and openness. And yet figures from Human Rights Watch suggest that abuses have increased in the last seven years. Not only does China continue to execute more people than the rest of the world combined but it has clamped down dramatically on internal dissent and media freedom in advance of the Games.

These developments violate the spirit of the Olympic Charter. They are in direct contravention of commitments made by the Beijing authorities themselves in the Host City Contract which they signed with the International Olympic Committee.

That contract has not been made public. Why? Because, if the world saw the complete and total disjunction between Chinese promises and Chinese practices, we would have no choice but to boycott Beijing in the same way that we boycotted apartheid South Africa.

I do not believe in boycotts. I have also maintained that engaging with a China committed to reform and opening would bring greater fruits than empty threats. But President Hu Jintao has to accept that a deal is a deal. The Host City Contract, the human rights clause in the Chinese Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – these are promises made to China’s citizens. If China wants the Olympics to prove its legitimacy and credibility to the world, then in return it must prove that it is willing to honour its human rights commitments: by improving media freedom in line with the Olympic pledges, by suspending the death penalty in line with United Nations demands, by ceasing its support for military dictators from Burma to Darfur and by allowing elections by universal suffrage in Hong Kong. That is how China can win its place at the heart of the international community.


  Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chiny Ludowe to kraj, który możemy znaleźć na każdej liście łamania praw człowieka: wolność słowa, zrzeszania się, przymusowe aborcje, zniknięcia, tortury, w końcu wolność religijna i zapowiedzi agresji wobec Tajwanu.

Chiny wciąż prześladują wiernych Kościoła Katolickiego Od 1999 roku jedną z najbardziej szykanowanych grup jest Falun Gong, jak wynika ze sprawozdania Davida Kilgour'a, byłego sekretarza stanu ds. Azji w rządzie Kanady, w Chińskich obozach pracy przymusowo pobiera się im organy. W ostatnim czasie zniknęli bez śladu ludzie, których jedyną winą jest spotkanie z wiceprzewodniczącym tego Parlamentu, posłem McMillanem-Scottem.

Jednocześnie nasze relacje handlowe kwitną. Chiny rozpychają się w Afryce, a niebawem zaproszą miliony gości na olimpiadę. Nie mogę zrozumieć, dlaczego do tej pory nie pada najbardziej oczywisty postulat olimpiada 2008 powinna być bojkotowana przez wolny świat.


  Hélène Flautre, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, nous discutons aujourd'hui avec Mme Ferrero-Waldner, et je m'en félicite. Cela dit, lors du 10e sommet UE-Chine, qui s'est tenu à Pékin le 28 novembre, l'Union européenne était représentée par son Président, par le commissaire chargé du commerce extérieur et par le commissaire chargé des affaires économiques et monétaires.

Alors, il est vrai que depuis 2000, les échanges commerciaux entre l'Union européenne et la Chine ont augmenté de 150% et qu'il est, malheureusement, beaucoup moins aisé de produire des statistiques sur l'aggravation de la situation des droits de l'homme en Chine. Il n'y a rien de tabou à discuter des questions liées aux droits de l'homme en même temps que de celles liées au commerce. Chacun voit bien le lien qu'il y a entre ces dernières et, par exemple, la liberté syndicale, la capacité pour les travailleurs en Chine de se mobiliser, de revendiquer de meilleures conditions de travail. Cette attitude générale est déplorable, d'autant qu'elle est en train de nous faire manquer le coche, alors que la décision de 2001 promettait l'ouverture de la Chine et des progrès dans le domaine des droits de l'homme et de la démocratie. La réalisation de cette promesse, la population chinoise l'attend et elle nous interpelle.

Son aspiration à l'ouverture au travers de l'organisation des Jeux est désavouée et voilà qui laisse un profond goût d'amertume. Non seulement les Jeux n'ont été, pour l'instant, que l'occasion de renforcer une politique de répression qui s'intensifie, mais pire encore, l'organisation des Jeux elle-même comporte des effets pervers et est prétexte à de graves violations. Je pense aux expropriations forcées ou à l'exploitation de la main-d'œuvre des migrants. Cela n'a rien d'étonnant quand on apprend, par la voie du dissident Hu Jia, que le chef du Bureau de la sécurité de Pékin est aussi celui qui est chargé de l'organisation des Jeux olympiques à Pékin.

On trouvera peut-être enfin le moyen de s'en étonner et de le dénoncer quand les mesures d'intimidation et de répression viseront encore plus drastiquement les journalistes étrangers, ce qui a déjà commencé, car on les empêche déjà de travailler. L'arrestation, par exemple, de deux journalistes de l'Agence France-Presse, le 12 septembre, montre que la réglementation introduite en janvier 2007 n'est appliquée qu'occasionnellement, et seulement dans la mesure où les sujets traités ne sont pas gênants pour le régime. Les engagements pris par la Chine restent lettre morte et ses efforts pour y manquer vont jusqu'à l'établissement de listes noires. Il existe aujourd'hui une liste noire recensant 42 catégories de personnes considérées comme persona non grata pendant les Jeux olympiques, du Dalaï Lama au Falun Gong, en passant par les dissidents du régime.

Cette année, en janvier, a été entamée la négociation d'un nouvel accord-cadre UE-Chine. On s'en félicite, puisqu'un nouvel accord, ça veut dire aussi une nouvelle clause "droits de l'homme et démocratie". Cela veut dire un nouvel espace d'échanges sur les droits de l'homme avec les autorités chinoises. Cela dit, 2007 a également été l'année qui a vu l'annulation du séminaire juridique qui prépare le dialogue "droits de l'homme" parce que les autorités chinoises refusaient la participation de deux ONG dont celle, bien connue, de Mme Sharon Hom, militante des droits de l'homme. La fermeté de l'Union à ce moment-là était tout à fait salutaire. En même temps, évidemment, elle pose la question de la poursuite de ce type de séminaires. Notre position est qu'il faut faire l'un et l'autre. Il est très important de poursuivre l'organisation de séminaires juridiques. Dans le même temps, nous ne pouvons accepter les diktats des autorités chinoises sur la participation à ces séminaires.


  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – Collega's, in dit halfrond werden de voorbije decennia al veel ronkende verklaringen over mensenrechten afgelegd. De plechtige ondertekening van het Handvest van de grondrechten moest de essentie van Europa nog maar eens in de verf zetten. Wij zijn een waardengemeenschap steunend op solidariteit, tolerantie en respect voor de mensenrechten.

Dat althans wat de theorie betreft, maar de waarheid ziet er anders uit. Want het echte devies van de Europese Unie inzake mensenrechten zou anders moeten luiden. De laatste weken werd nog maar eens in overvloed bewezen dat zij die hun mond vol hebben over mensenrechten vaak dat andere beginsel van de Realpolitik huldigen: Erst das Fressen und dann die Moral.

In Parijs rolt Nicolas Sarkozy in ruil voor lucratieve contracten de rode loper uit voor een massamoordenaar die enkele dagen geleden het terrorisme nog probeerde te legitimeren en er prat op gaat dat hij geen woord verspilt aan mensenrechten in zijn land. In Lissabon wordt een bloeddorstig tiran als Mugabe met alle egards ontvangen, want ook in Afrika moeten wij aan onze commerciële belangen denken.

In China houden we er dezelfde houding op na. Vorig jaar nog liet Amnesty International weten dat Peking achteruit boert op cruciale thema's zoals de doodstraf, gerechtelijke procedures, persvrijheid en bewegingsvrijheid voor mensenrechtenactivisten. Ondertussen wordt de Chinese hoofdstad vakkundig opgekuist, zegt Amnesty International. Heropvoeding door arbeid en gevangenzetting zonder aanklacht worden nu ook toegepast voor overtredingen, zoals het onwettig aanplakken van affiches, taxi's zonder vergunning en bedelarij, om maar iets te noemen.

De mensenrechtenactivisten zullen moeten zwijgen, maar de stadia zullen fonkelen volgend jaar, collega's. Vele Europese excellenties zullen staan drummen om bij de opening van de Spelen vooraan op de tribune te zitten. En als ze terugkomen naar huis zullen ze ongetwijfeld de strijd tegen het extremisme in Europa voortzetten. Man kann nicht genug fressen, wie man kotzen möchte.


  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – Neįmanoma paneigti fakto, kad nuo 1998 m., kai prasidėjo Kinijos ir Europos aukščiausiojo lygio susitikimai, ES ir Kinijos santykiai – politiniai, ekonominiai, prekybiniai, moksliniai – sparčiai plėtojosi, jie išaugo į strateginę partnerystę. Tačiau strateginė partnerystė, kaip mes ją suprantame, remiasi bendromis vertybėmis, pagarba demokratijai, žmogaus teisėms.

Pagarba žmogaus teisėms ir laisvėms buvo, yra ir bus ES vienybės pamatas, ir tai nėra vienadienė deklaracija, ES tai įrodo visa savo daugiau nei pusės šimto metų istorija. Tai laikas suprasti ir šalims, ES partnerėms: yra dalykų, kurių ES neatsisakys ir į nieką neiškeis. Tai noriu akcentuoti ypatingai šiandien, kai prieš kelias valandas šioje salėje buvo pasirašytas istorinis dokumentas – ES Pagrindinių teisių chartija.

Čia turėčiau pažymėti ir tai, kad yra dalykų, kurie stabdo ES ir Kinijos santykių plėtrą, ir raktas ieškant sprendimo dauguma atvejų yra Kinijos valdžios rankose.

Kalbėdamiesi su Kinijos atstovais, net ir derybose dėl prekybos ar ekonominio bendradarbiavimo sutarčių, mes visada prisimename ir prisiminsime, kad dėl politinių įsitikinimų, išpažįstamo tikėjimo, priklausymo etninei mažumai Kinijos piliečiai kenčia kalėjimuose, net dėl ekonominių nusikaltimų, pavyzdžiui, mokesčių slėpimo, jie baudžiami mirties bausme.

Pastaruoju metu, artėjant Pekino olimpinėms žaidynėms, sužinojome apie naujus „išradimus", t. y., kad statant olimpinius objektus žmonių gyvenamieji būstai griaunami nesumokant net kompensacijos, kad patvirtintas 42 kategorijų asmenų, kurie nebus įleidžiami į olimpiadą, sąrašas, įskaitant Dalai Lama su bendraminčiais, žurnalistus, žmogaus teisių gynėjus.

Galiu pasakyti viena: tai visiškai nesuderinama nei su olimpinių žaidynių tradicijomis, nei apskritai su olimpiados dvasia. Todėl siūlau nedelsiant panaikinti garbės Kinijai nedarančius sąrašus ir užtikrinti, kad olimpiados proga būtų paleisti visi politiniai, sąžinės kaliniai, kad būtų paskelbtas moratoriumas mirties bausmės vykdymui.

Apgailestauju, kad ES ir Kinijos aukščiausiojo lygio susitikimas Pekine netapo istoriniu įvykiu, o jo dalyviai – politikais, kurie ES ir Kinijos santykiams būtų suteikę naują kokybę. Pritrūko tiek nedaug – tik daugiau dėmesio ir pagarbos žmogui ir jo teisėms.


  Glyn Ford (PSE). – Madam President, I speak in this debate on the EU-China summit and the EU-China human rights dialogue, although from some of the resolutions tabled by political groups in this House you would not have known that the first half of this debate existed.

It is quite right that we raise with the Chinese the issue of human rights. The human rights situation in China is far from adequate. China continues to use the death penalty, as Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner stated in her opening statement. They repress campaigning organisations for Tibetan autonomy, religious groups outside a very narrow range of officially permitted groups, as well as others who promote their regions, promote press freedom and try and organise trade unions. We also have the insurmountable barrier with respect to the hundreds of millions of migrant workers in China who try to organise themselves to end exploitation and to promote decent labour standards.

Yet there is a complete refusal on the part of many in this House to acknowledge any of the progress that China has made over the past two decades. The human rights situation in China in my view, although far from adequate, is far better than it was back in the days of Tiananmen Square. As the Commissioner stated, the death penalty, for example, now requires confirmation by the Chinese Supreme Court. My own experience is that in China now there is a large degree of freedom of thought but not freedom to organise, because that still is the sine qua non in terms of what China and the Chinese authorities actually forbid.

We must continue to press China on these issues, but a refusal to recognise any progress positively discourages those progressive and liberal forces within the regime who are trying to push further, because they get no recognition for what they have done already.

China is now a global economic, industrial and political power. The EU needs to have a critical engagement that rightly criticises China where it has gone wrong, where it must go further, at the same time as we engage in a dialogue on tackling global warming, the negative impacts of globalisation, African development and the fight against terrorism.


  Dirk Sterckx (ALDE). – Voorzitter, ik vind het een heel goede zaak dat we strategische partners aan het worden zijn. Ik vind het een heel goede zaak dat we niet meer alleen economische banden hebben, maar dat bijvoorbeeld de culturele uitwisseling de voorbije jaren enorm gegroeid is. Ik vind het een hele goede zaak dat de politieke dimensie zoveel aandacht krijgt en ik ga daar één voorbeeld uithalen.

Afrika: het moet zo zijn dat we China blijven aanspreken op zijn Afrika-beleid, en we hebben nu een kader waarin we dat kunnen doen. Ik ben blij dat meneer Michel daar binnenkort onder meer voor naar Peking gaat. En ik vind het een hele goede zaak dat we economisch ook altijd maar meer samenwerken. Maar ik maak mij grote zorgen over onevenwichtigheden in die economische relatie.

Ik vind bijvoorbeeld niets terug over het feit dat wij onze ondervinding, als het gaat over de interne markt, veel meer zouden moeten overbrengen op de Chinezen, die op dat punt nog heel veel kunnen doen om hun markt te verbeteren. Hetzelfde geldt voor regionaal beleid, voor het wegwerken van regionale verschillen. Wij hebben daar ondervinding in. Wij hebben daar dingen over geleerd. Ik stel vast dat de Chinezen niet zo graag daaraan meedoen.

Bovendien heeft de heer Mandelson erop gewezen dat er nogal wat onzekerheid is voor investeerders in China en dat dat ten nadele is van onze uitvoer naar China, maar ook van de ontwikkeling van de Chinese economie. Ik denk dat hij gelijk heeft. Je hebt een rechtsstaat nodig, zekerheid, voor een bloeiende economie. Of het nu gaat over intellectuele eigendom, over veiligheid van producten of over kapitaalbeheer. Maar je hebt die rechtsstaat natuurlijk ook nodig als het gaat over individuele mensenrechten. Dat is minstens even belangrijk, zo niet, nog veel belangrijker.

Ik ben blij dat we een verslag krijgen over de mensenrechtendialoog. Ik vind dat we dat elke keer zouden moeten krijgen. Ik zie, zoals u, een aantal positieve tekens, commissaris, maar we moeten als Europees Parlement de nadruk blijven leggen op een aantal dingen die er niet zijn: vrijheid van meningsuiting, minderhedenbeleid, dwangarbeid is er nog wel, jammer genoeg, machtsmisbruik is er te veel, jammer genoeg, de doodstraf is er nog altijd. Wij moeten als Europees Parlement daarop de nadruk blijven leggen, dat is een werk van elke dag.


  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich glaube, für uns alle stellt sich immer wieder die Frage, welchen politischen Umgang wir mit China pflegen wollen. Der Kollege Sterckx hat eben noch einmal zu Recht von der strategischen Partnerschaft gesprochen. Als Ziel finde ich das ausgesprochen wünschenswert. Aber wir müssen realistisch sein, im Moment haben wir das noch nicht, weil wir kein gemeinsames Wertefundament haben – Menschenrechte, Umgang mit Minderheiten, Todesstrafe – es gibt de facto noch keine strategische Partnerschaft.

Ich finde es sehr richtig, und das sage ich ganz bewusst als grüne deutsche Europaabgeordnete, dass Angela Merkel den Dalai Lama getroffen hat, denn da wird mit dem Einhalten der Menschenrechte ernstgemacht.

Was ich andererseits überhaupt nicht in Ordnung finde: Als Staatspräsident Sarkozy letztens hier sprach, hat er gesagt, dass Menschenrechte das Aushängeschild der Europäischen Union sein müssen, um drei Wochen später nach China zu fahren und die Menschenrechte da nicht zum Thema zu machen. Das ist europäische Doppelmoral, das dürfen wir nicht zulassen!

Ich glaube ganz entschieden, dass zu unserem Dialog mit China – den ich befürworte und den wir auch politisch wollen müssen – auch Konfrontation gehört und nicht Liebedienerei. Wenn wir das miteinander verbinden, selbstbewusst mit China verhandeln, müssen wir deutliche Kritik üben. Auch müssen die Chinesen im Rahmen der Olympiade ihre selbstgesetzten Ziele einhalten, und wir Europäer sollten mutig und offen sein und die Chinesen auch mit unserer Kritik konfrontieren.


  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Madam President, a few hours ago the President of the European Parliament signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights and declared that ‘we have a moral and political obligation to defend human dignity. This applies to each human being in this world.’ And the Portuguese Prime Minister stated that ‘the Charter is part of the EU foreign policy’.

Let me turn to China. We understand that, by becoming the host of the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese Government committed itself to fully respect both the Olympic ideal of human dignity and internationally guaranteed human rights.

The European Parliament now has to conclude that there has been a recent increase in political persecutions related directly to the Olympics. In addition, more people are being executed in China than in the rest of the world combined – up to 10 000 a year.

Defenders of human dignity are being arrested, and up to seven million people are being tortured in the notorious Laogai camps.

What should we do? I think the answer was provided here yesterday by the Sakharov Prize Winner Osman, who told us to put more pressure on the respective governments: to do something concrete. There is an understanding of the sin of omission – responsibility for what we could and might have done but failed to do. It is not enough to voice our concerns; it is time to apply the principle of conditionality and to declare, as our colleague, Mr Watson, told us: a deal is a deal.

The only way to make the Communist dictators in China respect their citizens more is to send a signal that we take our own values of solidarity and human dignity seriously enough to make dictators feel real pain for their abuses and arrogance.


  Józef Pinior (PSE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wielokrotnie Parlament Europejski podkreślał łamanie praw człowieka w Chinach oraz brak demokracji w tym kraju. Są to kwestie oczywiste. Nawet wczoraj, przy okazji dyskutowania sprawozdania Unii Europejskiej za zeszły rok dotyczącego praw człowieka mówiliśmy o kwestii braku praw człowieka, demokracji, rządów prawa w Chinach.

Z drugiej strony nie wydaje mi się właściwe, aby nie dostrzegać także zmian na lepsze, które w Chinach się odbywają. Szczególnie nadchodzący rok igrzysk olimpijskich powinien być wykorzystany przez Unię Europejską do wywierania presji na władze Chin w kierunku liberalizacji, a także demokratyzacji, przestrzegania rządów prawa, uwolnienia wszystkich więźniów politycznych.

W dniu 20 listopada b.r. delegacja Podkomisji Praw Człowieka Parlamentu Europejskiego do Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych w Nowym Jorku spotkała się z przedstawicielami dyplomacji chińskiej przy ONZ, z dyplomatą Liu Zhenminem. Oceniam to spotkanie jako konstruktywne. Ze strony chińskiej mamy sygnały pewnego otwarcia i wrażliwości na wywieranie presji w kierunku praw człowieka i demokracji. Zostało to także podkreślone w rozmowach z delegacją Podkomisji Praw Człowieka przez przedstawicieli Human Rights Watch i Amnesty International.


  István Szent-Iványi (ALDE). – Elnök asszony! Biztos asszony! 2008. augusztus 8-át, az olimpiai játékok megnyitóját milliárdok várják nagy érdeklődéssel. Nem csak a sportszerető emberek figyelnek erre, hanem mindazok, akik az emberi jogok terén előrelépést várnak Kínától. Sajnos, az eddigi eredményekkel egyáltalán nem lehetünk elégedettek. A Kínai Kommunista Párt örülhet, hiszen a hatalmának a legitimizálásához sok sikert érhetett el ennek során. De nekünk is van lehetőségünk arra, hogy az olimpiáig terjedő időszakot jól használjuk ki, és szigorúan számon kérjük az emberi jogok területén fellépő törvénytelenségeket. Az Európai Unió-Kína emberi jogi dialógusnak eddig 24 fordulóját tartották meg. Ennek a mérlege sajnos egyáltalán nem kedvező. Van némi előrelépés, például a halálbüntetés alkalmazásának területén, de számos területen súlyos visszalépés tapasztalható. Ilyen a szólásszabadság, ilyen a médiaszabadság, ilyen az internetszabadság. Ahhoz, hogy változtatni tudjunk, változtatni kell az emberi jogi dialógusokon is.

Először is ki kell mondanunk, hogy az emberi jogi dialógus nem kizárólagos fóruma az ilyen problémák felvetésének. Minden tagállamnak kötelessége a bilaterális kapcsolatokban is szigorúan és keményen föllépni ezekben az ügyekben.

Másodszor: biztosítani kell a civil szervezetek jelenlétét és a tárgyalások nyilvánosságát. A nyilvánosság nagyon fontos, hogy ellenőrizni tudjuk, hogy mi történik ott. Hiszen a dialógus nem öncél, csak akkor van értelme, ha érdemben hozzájárul az emberi jogi helyzet javulásához Kínában.

Végül szeretnék az ujgur kisebbség helyzetéről szólni. Erről keveset esik szó, ez egy elfeledett kisebbség. Őket nem csak az általános elnyomás sújtja Kínában, de etnikai, vallási és nyelvi diszkrimináció áldozatai is. Én nagyon kérem, hogy az ő érdekükben is lépjenek fel. Köszönöm.


  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – Señor Presidente, yo quisiera aprovechar este espacio para hacer un par de recordatorios, pero un par de recordatorios a los Gobiernos europeos.

El primero tiene que ver con el periódicamente comentado levantamiento del embargo de armas a China, y quiero recordar que esta Cámara, en varias ocasiones, ha insistido en que este levantamiento sólo podrá tener lugar cuando haya verdaderos avances, significativos avances, en relación con la situación de los presos de Tiananmen de 1989, no en términos genéricos sino específicamente en relación con este tema, porque esto es lo que, en estos momentos, estamos esperando que haya por parte de las autoridades chinas: algún, insisto, significativo avance que permita tomar esa actitud.

Hasta entonces yo creo que no solamente es prematuro, sería un pésimo mensaje y una muy mala imagen para la Unión Europea levantar un embargo que, insisto, se puso en su momento por unos motivos muy concretos que no han sido en absoluto esclarecidos.

El segundo mensaje, también apoyando la opinión de mi colega Trüpel: es inaceptable que algunos países y Gobiernos europeos se sometan y de alguna forma sucumban a las presiones de las autoridades chinas para impedirles reunirse formalmente con personas significativas chinas, disidentes en algunos casos o representantes como el Dalai Lama, a cambio, precisamente, de no poner en riesgo las relaciones comerciales con China.

Yo creo que esto es, precisamente hoy, que hemos firmado la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales, algo que es totalmente incoherente con la lógica fundamental que queremos imponer en la Unión Europea.


  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Na Cimeira a Europa falou claro sobre como a China perverte regras da OMC, desrespeitando direitos laborais, exportando produtos nocivos para a saúde, pirateando tecnologia e dificultando o acesso europeu ao mercado chinês. Os dirigentes chineses não estavam habituados a ouvir a UE falar tão francamente e retaliaram, retendo por uns dias a declaração conjunta, mas a liderança europeia lamentavelmente não se aguentou no balanço, não só fez concessões inaceitáveis sobre o referendo em Taiwan, que não contradiz a "One China Policy", como se absteve de confrontar Pequim com graves problemas de direitos humanos. Porque não houve tempo, disse o Presidente José Sócrates a jornalistas portugueses, talvez se fale nisso ao jantar.

Pena de morte, libertação de presos desde o massacre de Tianamen, uma das razões porque este Parlamento defende a manutenção do embargo de armas à China. Detenções e julgamentos arbitrários, corrupção e despejos forçados, perseguição e repressão de jornalistas e utilizadores da Internet, repressão de tibetanos e de minorias, responsabilidades nas tragédias do Darfur e da Birmânia. Nenhuma destas questões fundamentais esteve na ordem do dia da Cimeira. Claro que não é só a UE que tem que pedir contas a Beijing por realizar os Jogos Olímpicos de 2008. Se o Comité Olímpico Internacional mede como está a qualidade do ar, porque não avalia Beijing quanto ao respeito pela ética olímpica face aos seus cidadãos e aos estrangeiros? Ninguém, e muito menos o Conselho e a Comissão da UE, podem continuar a secundarizar a luta pelas liberdades e os direitos humanos na China. Essa é uma maratona que o enquadramento olímpico de 2008 só irá estimular. Ela não afecta apenas milhões e milhões de chineses, mas terá consequências para toda a Humanidade.


  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Der EU-China-Menschenrechtsdialog findet seit elf Jahren zweimal jährlich hinter verschlossenen Türen statt, doch die Menschenrechtslage in China wird dadurch nicht besser. Die Berichte über die Hinrichtungen, Folter in Gefängnissen und Arbeitslagern sowie die Unterdrückung der Tibeter machen deutlich, dass wir Europäer unserer Verantwortung nicht gerecht werden.

Die Olympischen Spiele stehen vor der Tür und sind ein wichtiges Argument dafür, dass China seinen Reformwillen ernsthaft unter Beweis stellen muss. Gleichzeitig dürfen auch wir nicht mit gespaltener Zunge sprechen. Es ist sehr gut, dass Bundeskanzlerin Merkel den Dalai Lama trotz der heftigen Kritik empfangen hat. Es wäre nur konsequent, wenn es ihr Belgien, Frankreich und andere Staaten gleichtäten. Die EU wird weltweit als Stimme der Menschenrechte akzeptiert und wir müssen endlich konsequent handeln, auch im Dialog mit China.


  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – Madam President, today we are having a debate on the EU-China summit, which took place 10 days ago, and on the 24th Round of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, which took place two months ago.

Especially today, let me start with the second one. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is a core principle of the EU and its policies and it is something that we all strongly care about and support. But I am one of those who believe that the EU should follow a result-oriented approach in promotion of respect for human rights rather than a purely principled one and, most importantly, we have to accept that the improvements will only come step-by-step. That does not mean that the EU should hesitate in voicing its criticism and using its power to insist upon democratic reforms.

I am also one of those who care about the high-level product safety that affects 550 million European citizens; who care about trade imbalance, effective market access, intellectual property rights and international competition policies that affect thousands of European companies and millions of European employees; and who care about cooperation on environment protection, international environment governance and climate change that affects the whole population of the Earth.

Because we care about all the above, we strongly support the Commission and Council and its Presidency for addressing, negotiating and stressing continuously each one of the issues in regular dialogue with the Chinese side. A simple reading of the 18-page joint statement of the last EU-China summit is enough to understand that the complexity, sensitivity and importance in the EU-China cooperation...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, this debate again shows that societal change takes time, and I think we always have to remember where China has come from. I think we also have to acknowledge a certain progress, as I said at the beginning. But, at the same time, it is true that we are not yet where we would like to see China.

Therefore, I think the Human Rights Dialogue – also accompanied by the NGO seminar – remains the cornerstone for addressing our human rights concerns with China.

However, I think we need to be determined but also realistic. Determined to convince China that it is in its own best interest to establish full respect for human rights across the board. Realistic, because we need to recognise that only through engagement and long-term effort can we really hope to achieve genuine reforms in China. In this context, I would also like to say that the continued holding of the NGO seminar is in the mutual interest of both China and the European Union. This has also just been confirmed by the summit.

I think, therefore, there is a good chance that, back-to-back with the next human rights dialogue under the Slovenian Presidency, we will be able to resume this civil society seminar.

On a few other questions, let me just say that human rights were also mentioned in the joint statement that is there, and I will just read out the first few lines. ‘The two sides emphasised their commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and continued to place a high value on the EU-China human rights dialogue, including the accompanying legal seminar.’ You see: there it is. They underline the importance of concrete steps in the fields of human rights and affirm their commitment to further strengthening dialogue and so on.

I would also like to say that there are a few concrete points that were highlighted in this discussion on which we want to see progress, such as the Falun Gong. The situation of Falun Gong followers who have been subject to repression because of their beliefs remains a matter of concern for us. We raised this issue several times, and more particularly on the occasion of the sessions of the Human Rights Dialogue. We asked, and will continue to ask, the Chinese authorities to put an end to the harsh treatment imposed on Falun Gong followers.

Concerning the death penalty, I have said before that this issue is high on our agenda, and in this framework we have been urging China – and will continue along these lines – to reduce the scope of capital crimes, with a view to ultimately abolishing the death penalty.

A first step would be to impose a moratorium on implementation. Then, as I said in my introductory remarks, would come a review of death penalty sentences by the Supreme Court as a first step which would be continuously monitored.

I think the debate has shown very clearly that there is a mixed picture: there is progress, but there is still a lot to be done, and I can only say we will further engage with China in order to encourage China to make progress. I think the Olympic Games will be a good opportunity for China to show that more progress has been made by then.


  Die Präsidentin. Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden gemäß Artikel 103 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung sechs Entschließungsanträge(1) eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007, statt.


(1)Siehe Protokoll

Ultima actualizare: 10 ianuarie 2008Notă juridică