Teljes szöveg 
A dokumentum állapota a plenáris ülésen
Válasszon egy dokumentumot : O-000107/2012

Előterjesztett szövegek :

O-000107/2012 (B7-0114/2012)

Viták :

PV 22/05/2012 - 14
CRE 22/05/2012 - 14

Szavazatok :

OJ 13/06/2012 - 118

Elfogadott szövegek :

2012. május 22., kedd - Strasbourg Lektorált változat

14. Az egyrészről az Európai Unió, másrészről Kolumbia és Peru közötti kereskedelmi megállapodás (vita)
A felszólalásokról készült videofelvételek

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad pytaniem ustnym do Komisji dotyczącym umowy o handlu między Unią Europejską a Kolumbią i Peru skierowanym przez Vitala Moreira, Bernda Lange, Mário Davida w imieniu Komisji Handlu Międzynarodowego (O-000107/2012 - B7-0114/2012)


  Bernd Lange, Verfasser. − Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Ich glaube, es ist klar, dass Handel nicht Selbstzweck ist, sondern dazu dient, die Lebensbedingungen der Menschen zu verbessern. Wenn man sich die Situation in Kolumbien und Peru ansieht, dann gibt es eben große Herausforderungen zur Verbesserung der Lebensbedingungen.

Insofern prüft das Parlament gerade angesichts der Rechte durch den Vertrag von Lissabon natürlich sehr genau, ob das vorliegende Handelsabkommen mit Kolumbien und Peru diesen Ansprüchen gerecht wird. Es gibt erhebliche Zweifel, ob die Herausforderungen allein durch dieses Handelsabkommen angegangen werden können. Da gibt es Fragen, inwieweit die Zivilgesellschaft bei dem Implementierungsprozess des Handelsabkommens adäquat eingebunden ist und die Unabhängigkeit ihrer Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten und auch die Möglichkeiten, entsprechende Beschwerdeverfahren einzuleiten, gewährleistet sind. Oder die Frage der Einschränkung der Anstrengungen zur Durchsetzung des Nachhaltigkeitskapitels. In Artikel 267 und in Artikel 277 werden ja Einschränkungsmöglichkeiten hinsichtlich der materiellen Ressourcen gemacht. Insofern, glauben wir, ist es notwendig, dass wir mit der kolumbianischen Regierung und der peruanischen Regierung zusätzliche Vereinbarungen treffen, damit wir auch sicher sein können, dass das Handelsabkommen den Lebensbedingungen der Menschen deutliche Verbesserungen bringt.

Da geht es zum einen darum, die arbeitsrechtlichen Herausforderungen auch für die Menschen, die im informellen Sektor beschäftigt sind, durchzusetzen. Etwa 58 % der Menschen in Kolumbien z. B. arbeiten im informellen Sektor und haben da ganz andere arbeitsrechtliche Bedingungen als die anderen regulär beschäftigten Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer. Auch die Frage der Interessensvertretungen der Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer gilt es gerade angesichts der IAO-Konventionen 129 und 135 noch einmal anzupacken. Die Frage der Arbeitssicherheit und die Stärkung des sozialen Dialogs analog der IAO-Richtlinie 144 gilt es auch zu verbessern.

Wir haben das Beispiel der Vereinigten Staaten, aber wir haben auch das Beispiel der Schweiz, die zusätzlich zu den Freihandelsabkommen Aktionspläne aufgestellt haben. Das sollten wir auch tun!


  Mário David, author. − Mr President, why (you may ask) this oral question and resolution form when this Parliament has the task of voting to give or withhold its consent? Because a trade agreement is also a political instrument and we wanted to have an opportunity to discuss politics and our foreign relations with these countries which soon will be closer to us.

We think this is a good agreement for both the European Union and our Andean partners and we strongly support it. We trust this agreement will help our partner countries on their path to economic growth and development, contributing to fighting poverty, promoting social cohesion and sustainable development. We strongly believe this agreement will help to improve the general perception, here in Europe, of Colombia in particular, which has been criticised by persons who still look at it as if it was the same country it used to be in the 1990s, in the last millennium.

But the one and only truth is that Colombia has changed. It has dramatically changed for the better. We Europeans must keep on supporting these changes by approaching our friends, not by repelling them. By supporting nations, governments, and politicians, we are sharing the same values – as we do. By being nearer to our partner countries we are helping their citizens. This is the only known way to make a better and fairer world.

We also suggest that our partner countries should create a transparent and binding road map, possibly with the support of the Commission, regarding human labour rights and sustainable development. We also want to see both in Peru and Colombia the establishment of permanent institutionalised mechanisms that guarantee the role of civil society. In an open and free society civic organisations have the right to be heard, but then it is up to the democratically elected governments to make their choices and assume their responsibilities. The role of civic forums is not to replace governments, particularly when they are democratically elected governments, as is the case in both countries.

Two last remarks: firstly, to express our highest admiration to both Colombia and Peru for a notable improvement of the general living standards of their citizens. A special word for President Juan Manuel Santos, who is changing very rapidly a country that lived for decades with an armed conflict, violence and impunity, corruption and drug trafficking. President Santos will be remembered for what he is presently doing in Colombia, be it in the fields of human rights, labour activists, sustainable development or indigenous peoples’ rights. Nevertheless, despite these herculean efforts, change takes time.

To conclude, a final word to express my deep disappointment at the fact that apparently this Parliament did not accept an invitation from the Congresses of both Colombia and Peru to participate in two hearings with an MEP delegation from all political groups. I hope that it can be more than just the two rapporteurs who will go there. It would be particularly important for colleagues to see the realities through their own eyes. Some would certainly be surprised at how the reality is much better than the perception they have.


  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the protection of human rights is already central to our relationship with Colombia and Peru, precisely because we have long used our cooperation programmes to further human rights in the region.

Human rights is a priority area of focus under the 2007-2013 Country Strategy Paper for Colombia and we are undertaking a broad range of measures under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, covering labour rights, women’s rights, the rights of indigenous people and the rights of children and youth more broadly.

For example, we have actions promoting the reintegration into society of child soldiers and street children in Colombia. We are working to support the right to join and form trade unions, also in Colombia; and we have projects to support the implementation of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, in both Colombia and Peru.

In total, we have already spent some EUR 50 million in this area. But the politically relevant fact behind these figures is that, as in all areas, Europe’s assistance is demand driven. This means that we are not simply pursuing values that we cherish: we are pursuing the objectives that our partners identify as priorities. So not only the European Union but also Colombia – and Peru for that matter – have set the improvement of human and labour rights as a priority on our bilateral cooperation agenda.

However, we all know that cooperation is not sufficient. It needs to be matched by appropriate international commitments, and so it is. It is an undisputed fact that Colombia has acceded to all core ILO labour standards. The issue in the past has been about implementation of the standards on the physical safety of trade unionists, and the legal framework for trade union activity, but today it must also be an undisputed fact that the situation has improved enormously.

The incidence of violence against trade unionists has decreased considerably. The Government’s protection programme for people under threat, including many trade unionists, has been completely overhauled. There are now higher levels of prosecution and conviction, and police and judicial capacities have been strengthened. The Government has also moved to eliminate legal and practical obstacles to freedom of association and collective bargaining, for example by reducing the scope for outsourcing and labour intermediation.

The legislation regulating strikes has been reformed, incorporating important international principles into the national legislation, such as making decisions on the legality of strikes the responsibility of the courts.

Peru, for its part, has implemented the key ILO conventions, and Peruvian law now provides a good framework for the right of association. The number of trade unions registered nationwide is increasing, although more effort is needed to increase their representativeness.

Although all of this progress is impressive, the situation is not yet as it should be. Indeed, the Vice-Presidents of both countries admitted as much when they travelled to Brussels to speak to the Committee for International Trade (INTA Committee) earlier this year. But I also want to make very clear that we would do no service to human or labour rights in either country by rejecting this agreement, because one of the core objectives of the agreement has been, precisely, to reinforce these positive developments. Allow me to illustrate this.

Firstly, civil society organisations and citizens have an important role in the implementation of the agreement. Both countries and the European Union will have to set up advisory groups of civil society representatives, including a balanced representation of economic, social and environmental interests. Those groups must be regularly consulted by governments about how the agreement is being put into practice, and they will also be able to make recommendations on their own initiative.

Concretely, there will be regular inter-governmental meetings, and on every occasion we will have to hold an open session where all civil society organisations and citizens can directly raise issues. All decisions and reports that governments make must be public. What this means is that civil society will help us in the Commission, and you in Parliament, to oversee the implementation of the provisions – on sustainable development in particular, but also the rest of the agreement.

Secondly, the agreement establishes a transparent, predictable and comprehensive mechanism to ensure implementation of core labour and environmental conventions. It establishes an arbitration system to deal with disagreements on trade and sustainable development. This can be triggered by the European Union, Colombia or Peru – regardless of whether the country targeted agrees. Once it has been set in motion, it will follow a fixed set of procedural steps and deadlines. A group of impartial and independent experts will study the matter to see if the country has lived up to its legal commitments under the agreement. They will then issue a full public report of their findings of fact.

I consider this system more, rather than less, effective than the general dispute settlement mechanism which applies to other parts of the agreement. True, it does not provide for the usual retaliatory mechanisms, like raising tariffs, but these would be counterproductive. They do not encourage permanent changes in a country’s policies, and too often they end up harming those they are intended to protect.

In addition, the arbitration procedure does not have to wear the straitjacket imposed by the regular dispute settlement mechanism. There is no obligation to prove that problematic measures have an effect on trade. That means that we will be in a position to open arbitration procedures in a much wider range of cases. This is far more consistent with the objectives and the rationale behind our trade and sustainable development chapters.

As if all this were not enough, the procedure is, in any case, backed up by the human rights clause. The very first article of the text states that respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and fundamental human rights is an essential element of the agreement. If a government violates this essential element, the European Union, Colombia or Peru would be able immediately to suspend the benefits of the agreement to that government’s country. I do not see how this could be expressed more clearly or more strongly.

Now, I know that some in this House are in favour of establishing some sort of action plan on implementation with Colombia, as the USA has done. But the situation is not identical. The US-Colombia free trade agreement does not contain a human rights clause, which is why an action plan is necessary in their case.

Nothing that you could put in any action plan would be as effective as what is already in our agreement with Colombia and Peru, and this could have a broader impact than you might think. If we were unilaterally to impose additional binding mechanisms ex post, our partners could question the good faith of our negotiating positions.

I therefore urge you to look closely at this agreement – to examine it in great detail – because I think that when you do so you will be fully reassured as to the balances it strikes.


  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kollegen! Zweifelsohne muss sich die Situation in Kolumbien und Peru in puncto Menschenrechte und Rechtstaatlichkeit weiter verbessern. Aber statt das Augenmerk ausschließlich auf noch bestehende Schwachstellen zu legen, müssen wir der Realität in diesen Ländern Rechnung tragen, indem wir auf die permanenten Verbesserungen in den letzten Jahren blicken. Kolumbien und Peru bemühen sich seit Jahren mit wechselndem Erfolg gegen zum Teil erhebliche Widerstände in den eigenen Ländern, Missstände zu beseitigen und den Anforderungen der Menschenrechte nachzukommen.

Es ist meine feste Überzeugung, dass wir den Ländern Südamerikas in diesem Streben behilflich sein und unsere gegenseitigen Handelsströme weiter ausbauen müssen. Der Handel mit Gütern und Dienstleistungen zieht nicht nur wirtschaftliche Erfolge nach sich, er erfordert vor allem auch den Austausch der Menschen in Europa und in Südamerika. Dieser Austausch ist essenziell, um ein noch tieferes Verständnis der Bedeutung und des absoluten Wertes von Rechtstaatlichkeit und Menschenrechten zu ermöglichen.

Daher bin ich sehr zufrieden, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, dass die Kommission die an sie gerichteten Fragen im Wesentlichen zufriedenstellend beantworten kann und meine Einschätzung teilt, dass die momentan im Zustimmungsverfahren befindlichen Freihandelsabkommen mit Kolumbien und Peru ein bedeutender Schritt in die richtige Richtung sind.


  Vital Moreira, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, não tenho dúvidas de que o acordo do tratado de comércio deve ser julgado sobretudo pelos seus méritos em termos de prosperidade e bem-estar dos cidadãos, dos trabalhadores, dos empresários da União. Mas também é certo que a política de comércio externo não pode ser alheia à política internacional de direitos humanos da União. Também considero que a União não pode celebrar acordos de comércio apenas com países que mantenham padrões de defesa de direitos humanos e de proteção tão elevados como os da União, mas considero que quando celebramos tratados de comércio internacional com países com situações problemáticas em matéria de direitos humanos devemos garantir que pelo menos esses acordos contribuem para melhorar a situação existente e ter um impacto positivo no balanço de direitos humanos desses países. E é por isso que é importante esta questão oral, saber se este tratado de comércio internacional com a Colômbia e o Peru, além dos seus méritos comerciais que a meu ver não estão em causa, contribuiu também positivamente para a melhoria da situação dos direitos humanos nesses dois países.


  Catherine Bearder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, at a time when we are all struggling with rising unemployment and falling exports, I understand the need for access to new markets for European companies, and I understand the need and desire to support the Commission in its efforts to achieve this. However, the European Union has always fought, and will always fight, for more than merely its economic interests abroad. Our Treaties commit us to supporting democracy, human rights and environmental protection – not just on paper, but in practice – in everything we do, both within the Union and through our external relations.

Colombia is a country where deforestation, water pollution and biodiversity loss remain serious problems. The Colombian Government has introduced environmental legislation but, as the Commission’s own sustainable impact assessment has shown, the capacity to properly enforce this is lacking. Ratifying the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) at this point, without proper environmental enforcement in place, will result in increased pressure, more damage to the environment and more destruction to the livelihoods of rural population groups in Colombia.

Paragraph 6 of this oral question requires a thorough response from the Commission. It must spell out the steps that it will take together with the Colombian Government to safeguard the natural environment, before this FTA comes into force. We have commitments, too, that civil society groups will help monitor the FTA, so we must ensure that those groups are free to speak out and that they represent the peoples most at threat from development, especially the indigenous peoples of the forests.

If we are to be a leader in high human and environmental standards throughout the world, we must lead with really binding resolutions, and with clear and strong actions to safeguard core European values. I will support this FTA only when I see those actions coming into force. Until then I cannot support a Treaty where actions on the environment and human rights remain just an aspiration.


  Amelia Andersdotter, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Diskussionerna kring avtalen med Colombia och Peru visar att mänskliga rättigheter berör. Jag vill ta upp frågan med yttrandefrihet, rätt till kunskap och rätt till utbildning. Det avtal som EU har förhandlat fram med Colombia och Peru tillsammans med flera andra avtal som tvingats på dessa länder innehåller starka immaterialrättsobligationer och oflexibla handelsregler utan att säkerställa motsvarande begränsningar av de monopolställningar som dessa rätter innebär.

I Colombia har detta lett till att en handling som att göra en privat kopia eller begränsad kopiering i undervisningssyfte nu är straffbart, kriminellt.

Vi behöver lägga vikt i våra handelsrelationer med tredjeländer, vikt vid yttrandefrihet, rätt till utbildning och rätt till kunskap. Vi behöver avtal som inför och stärker begränsningar av upphovsrätt på internationell nivå. Det finns inga goda skäl för unionen att inte leda en sådan utveckling på det internationella planet. Det finns inte heller några goda anledningar för oss att godkänna ett avtal som inte tar steget mot en bättre politik på det området.


  Willy Meyer, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, lo cierto y verdad es que los defensores de los derechos humanos de Colombia y la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas constatan que no hay ninguna mejora respecto al Gobierno del Presidente Uribe.

Hay una situación de estancamiento; hay una persecución permanente de los sindicatos, de los defensores de los derechos humanos, y, solamente por eso, este Acuerdo comercial debería contener una cláusula que pudiera evaluar con claridad si efectivamente el Acuerdo sirve para avanzar, para no permitir la continua violación de los derechos humanos en Colombia.

Pero, además, nosotros creemos que la parte comercial de este Acuerdo no tiene en cuenta las asimetrías. Estamos hablando de un país, Colombia, que es uno de los países con más desigualdades del mundo, y mucho nos tememos que, al no tener en cuenta las asimetrías comerciales, la complementariedad, un comercio justo, podríamos crear una situación que acelere todavía mucho más las desigualdades.

Por eso somos tremendamente críticos con este Acuerdo que esperemos que no sea ratificado.


  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, Señorías, ya que estamos abordando un debate sobre un Acuerdo entre la Unión Europea y Perú y Colombia, y hablando de derechos humanos, me gustaría, señor Presidente, que este Parlamento alzase su voz para condenar el asesinato que se produjo en el día de ayer de 12 miembros de las fuerzas armadas colombianas a manos de la organización terrorista de las FARC, a 150 metros de la frontera de Venezuela. Y creo, señor Presidente, que este Parlamento debería trasladar su condena y su afecto y su solidaridad, en estos momentos difíciles, al conjunto de la sociedad colombiana y a los familiares de las víctimas.

La Comisión ha dejado meridianamente claro que no deberíamos poner el acento, señor Presidente, en una dinámica continua de exigencias que no se han impuesto a otros países que han suscrito acuerdos de esta naturaleza. Creo que deberíamos poner el acento en el hecho de que este Acuerdo supone un marco claro y predecible para tratar de superar un régimen de concesiones unilaterales, que quiero recordar a algunos colegas que existe ya y está en vigor y que va a afectar al comercio, a las inversiones y a los servicios.

Y, en ese contexto, me sorprende mucho que algunos colegas de esta Casa digan que este Acuerdo les suscita dudas, pero no les suscita dudas la situación de los derechos humanos en Guatemala, en El Salvador, en Honduras o en Nicaragua, con que la Unión Europea ha concluido un acuerdo de la misma naturaleza, o en México, donde todos sabemos cuáles son los índices de violencia.

Lo que es cierto, señor Presidente, es que este Acuerdo va a permitir a Perú y a Colombia jugar en pie de igualdad con otros países que se benefician de las mismas facilidades, como es el caso, evidentemente, de Chile, es el caso de Turquía, de Marruecos, de Egipto, de Israel o de los países del CARICOM.

Yo creo, señor Presidente, que este Acuerdo ha sido firmado por la Unión Europea, sus 27 Estados miembros, la Comisión y Perú y Colombia, y creo que es caer en un ejercicio de paternalismo decirles a nuestros países socios lo que les conviene o lo que les deja de convenir. Creo que son suficientemente adultos para saber que quieren este Acuerdo porque la Unión Europea es un socio conveniente.

Y creo, señor Presidente, que, en vez de estar pensando en introducir medidas discriminatorias y adicionales, lo que tenemos que hacer es poner claramente el acento en por qué, señor Comisario, este Acuerdo, después de dos años y medio casi, no ha sido todavía ratificado.

Creo que esta situación no redunda en beneficio de la imagen de la Unión Europea y que, por el contrario, debemos proceder rápidamente a su ratificación.


  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, el Acuerdo es bueno para la Unión Europea, para Colombia y para Perú porque impulsa el desarrollo y combate la pobreza, y eso es una buena herramienta contra la injusticia social, que es el mejor caldo de cultivo para la violencia.

Además, hemos podido comprobar la disposición de los gobiernos de la zona para progresar en este campo. Entre los indicadores más significativos destacaría el diálogo permanente y recíproco sobre los derechos humanos que se estableció con carácter voluntario en 2009, y la ratificación de los convenios fundamentales de la OIT.

Además, hay que citar la ley de víctimas, la de devolución de tierras, el programa de protección de amenazados –que cubre ya a once mil personas– y el incremento de los recursos destinados a investigar los crímenes de que han sido víctimas los sindicalistas y activistas de derechos humanos.

Estas actuaciones mejoran muy significativamente la calidad de vida de peruanos y colombianos, aunque todavía nos quede mucho por hacer. Por eso apoyo la Resolución, pido que se valoren estos progresos y rechazo el riesgo de victimización que pueda sufrir la ciudadanía en la región.

Por un lado, están librándose del terrorismo; no les castiguemos, además, con reservas basadas en prejuicios, porque podemos perjudicar su evolución hacia la paz, la democracia y el desarrollo económico y social.


  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I was very taken with the balanced nature of Commissioner De Gucht’s contribution. I realise that much progress has been made in Colombia and I think that we need to encourage and reward the effort which has been made.

Last year I arranged for the international trade union body to come and address the Committee on Development in relation to their concerns about the murder of trade unionists and I spoke to a woman from Colombia, a young woman whose father had been murdered simply for trying to organise labour so that they would get a decent income.

None of us could object to that and none of us could stand over that. I promised her I would raise this issue; I did raise this issue and we did pursue this issue. It had some effect because the Attorney-General and some of the ministers from Colombia came here and tried to make their case. But I would like the Commissioner to take this up directly with the International Trade Union Congress, to try to persuade them that there is sufficient cover in this for them to buy into it, because the human rights situation is such that a lot of Members in this House who would like to see the agreement signed, still have concerns; we want to see momentum, and protection for people who have the right to organise.

So I want to see the situation in Colombia advanced; I want to see a reward for the efforts made; but I also want to see protection for people who are going about their lawful business in organising labour.


  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, I share the objectives of many in this debate who wish for an end to the conflict and to human rights abuses in Colombia. However, in deliberating on the draft Free Trade Agreement, I ask colleagues to base our assessment not on oft-repeated commitments, but on actual results in securing convictions for the perpetrators of human rights abuse in Colombia – in what, according to the United Nations, is a country with an impunity rate of more than 94%.

To the Commissioner, who tells us again tonight of undoubted improvement, I say that I agree there has been an improvement in language. How does he respond, however, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which says that last year human rights violations got worse in Colombia, or to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court who says this is one of three countries in the world with the worst levels of international crime?

On the proposed action plan, I pay tribute to Catherine Bearder and the amendment she is putting forward: I hope we will support it. But I ask my friend Mr Lange, and all the Members of the House, to recognise that the American National Trade Union Federation says the Colombian Government has failed to comply with their action plan, so Europe must do better – not simply by ensuring benchmarks which are really binding, but also through the same dispute mechanism for human rights as for trade complaints, and crucially we must see concrete implementation before, not after, parliamentary ratification.

Finally, three weeks ago after taking part in a demonstration, Daniel Aguirre Piedrahita, the General Secretary of the Colombian sugar cane workers’ union, was assassinated in cold blood, leaving a wife and three young daughters. He is one of 61 trade unionists assassinated since President Santos came to power, so I ask all colleagues, in dealing with this issue, to show proper respect for those who have suffered most.


  Daniel Caspary (PPE). - Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bin sehr dankbar, dass wir heute die Gelegenheit haben, über dieses geplante Freihandelsabkommen zu sprechen. Bei allen Problemen, die es sicherlich heute noch in einigen Ländern gibt, vor allem auch in Kolumbien, sollten wir alle nicht vergessen, wie die Situation noch vor wenigen Jahren in diesem Land war. Wir fangen doch nicht auf der grünen Wiese an, sondern die Situation war vor wenigen Jahren in diesem Land doch wirklich schwierig. Terrorismus war ein großes Thema, und die letzten Regierungen haben extrem viel daran gesetzt, die Situation für die Menschen wirklich zu verbessern. Wer behauptet, dass sich die Situation in Kolumbien in den letzten Jahren nicht dramatisch verbessert hat, sagt einfach nicht die Wahrheit.

Natürlich muss die Situation sich weiterentwickeln, es müssen weitere Verbesserungen kommen. Wir wissen alle, wenn wir uns die Situation in Europa anschauen: Auch bei uns wird nicht alles von heute auf morgen gut. Verbesserungen brauchen Zeit. Die Verbesserungen in der Vergangenheit waren schon extrem groß, wenn ich an das Thema Demokratie in dem Land denke, wenn ich an die Sicherheitslage und die dramatischen Verbesserungen in diesem Bereich denke, wenn ich an Terrorismusbekämpfung denke und wenn ich an meinen Vorredner denke, der das Thema der Gewerkschafter angesprochen hat. Ich glaube, dieses Schutzprogramm der kolumbianischen Regierung gerade für Gewerkschafter ist beispiellos. Natürlich hat es leider immer noch nicht dazu geführt, dass es keinerlei Morde mehr gibt. Auch bei uns in Europa gibt es leider immer noch Morde. Aber die Verbesserungen kann man doch nicht von der Hand weisen. Gerade für Gewerkschafter und Gewerkschaftsfunktionäre in Kolumbien hat sich in den letzten Jahren doch wirklich einiges getan.

Was wäre denn die Antwort? Sollen wir die Tür zumachen? Sollen wir sagen, trotz aller enormen Verbesserungen in den letzten Jahren ist uns das alles nicht genug? Sollen wir sagen, all die Verhandlungen waren umsonst? Sollen wir sagen, all die Verbesserungen erkennen wir nicht an? Sollen wir sagen, wir wollen in Zukunft keinen Dialog und Gesprächsfaden aufrechterhalten? Wollen wir nicht alle gemeinsam alles daransetzen, die Regierungen in beiden Ländern wirklich dabei zu unterstützen, die Lebenssituation für die Menschen zu verbessern? Da gehört aus meiner Sicht Handel dazu. Da gehört dazu, dass wir auch unseren Markt in Europa für Produkte aus Kolumbien und Peru öffnen, dass wir den Ländern die Gelegenheit geben, Wohlstand zu erwirtschaften, die Grundlage dafür zu schaffen, die Lebenswirklichkeit für die Menschen weiter zu verbessern.

Deswegen – bei allen Hausaufgaben, die in den Ländern noch zu erledigen sind – denke ich, der Aktionsplan, der ja auch im Entschließungsentwurf genannt wird, ist ein guter Schritt. Aber ich bitte wirklich alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen, nicht auf die Defizite zu schauen, die sicherlich heute noch da sind. Da müssen wir den Kolumbianern helfen. Aber wir sollten vor allem auch berücksichtigen, dass in den vergangenen Jahren etliches zum Guten der Menschen in den Ländern passiert ist.


  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, Señorías, en primer lugar quiero agradecer tanto a la Comisión Europea como a los Gobiernos de Colombia y Perú el gran esfuerzo realizado para que este Acuerdo concluya con éxito.

Mi total apoyo a un acuerdo que sin duda traerá beneficios a ambas regiones, tanto Colombia como Perú, y que ayudará a mejorar la condición de los derechos humanos en Colombia.

Este Acuerdo es un ejemplo para una región clave para la Unión Europea como Sudamérica. No obstante, me preocupa otro acuerdo, respecto del que la Comisión está a punto de abrir negociaciones. La Comisión debe mostrarse contundente defensora de la seguridad jurídica en las inversiones que se realicen y que tan importantes son para mejorar los flujos comerciales entre ambas partes.

Por ello, me gustaría aprovechar esta oportunidad para preguntar al Comisario De Gucht qué medidas está barajando tomar respecto a la cuestión de Repsol YPF. La mejor garantía para que un posible acuerdo con Mercosur llegue a buen puerto, como así ha sido con el Acuerdo que hoy debatimos aquí con Colombia y Perú, sería una respuesta firme y decidida por parte de la Unión Europea respecto al caso Repsol.

No permitamos que nuestros aliados al otro lado del Atlántico sean más contundentes que nosotros en una cuestión que afecta a Europa.


Procedura pytań z sali


  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Acordurile comerciale încheiate de UE cu alte ţări reprezintă un instrument important pentru intensificarea relaţiilor economice. Totodată, ele trebuie să sprijine evoluţiile democratice, dezvoltarea durabilă şi respectarea drepturilor omului. Cetăţenii europeni au aşteptări în acest domeniu. Ei sunt din ce în ce mai atenţi la provenienţa produselor pe care le folosesc şi la modul în care ele au fost realizate. În ceea ce priveşte Columbia şi Peru, acordul comercial trebuie să poată produce o schimbare calitativă în domenii precum creşterea economică şi coeziunea socială. Invit la rândul meu Comisia să prezinte măsurile avute în vedere pentru a asigura impactul pozitiv şi durabil al acţiunii Uniunii în ţările partenere. Doresc să ştiu, în mod special, dacă au fost întreprinse acţiuni specifice vizând protecţia drepturilor femeilor şi copiilor.


  Evelyn Regner (S&D). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Herr Caspary! Es ist ein Faktum, dass trotz verbesserter Gesetzgebung das große Morden an den Gewerkschaftern in Kolumbien weitergeht. Die Realität und Normen klaffen hier auseinander. Die Anzahl der ermordeten Gewerkschafter betrug 49 im Jahr 2010. Herr Howitt hat die Zahlen für 2011 gesagt, das heißt, eine Verbesserung ist nicht zu verzeichnen. Wir brauchen also ein effektives Nachhaltigkeitskapitel.

Im Freihandelsabkommen heißt es: „Die relevanten internationalen Standards sind zu achten.“ Aber was heißt das? Es ist keine präzise Aufzählung enthalten, welche ILO-Abkommen das nun sind. Weiters gibt es, anders als im Abkommen mit Südkorea, keine Referenz zu fairem und ethischem Handel. Das fehlt schmerzhaft, insbesondere weil die Strukturen von sozialem Dialog und Dialog mit der Zivilgesellschaft absolut nicht vorhanden sind. Das heißt also: Wir brauchen sehr wohl einen verbindlichen Aktionsplan zur Achtung von arbeitsrechtlichen Normen.


  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, por supuesto que estamos a favor de acuerdos comerciales, pero, sobre todo, de acuerdos comerciales justos y equitativos, que garanticen la protección de los derechos humanos.

Si contemplamos el capítulo de desarrollo sostenible, éste tiene una enorme fragilidad y no es vinculante. Exceptúa el mecanismo de resolución de disputas, y la sociedad civil solo puede opinar sobre su contenido, pero no sobre el conjunto del Tratado de Libre Comercio.

Hace falta que Colombia y Perú cumplan ciertas condiciones antes de la ratificación, entre ellas: mejoras comprobables en materia de derechos humanos; retorno de los campesinos a sus tierras; desmovilización efectiva de los paramilitares; cooperación con la justicia europea; abandono de la reforma de la justicia militar, que da un cheque en blanco a la impunidad; y protección de los pueblos indígenas, por supuesto.

Es necesario también revisar los capítulos sobre servicios financieros, que están permitiendo que se autorice en estos acuerdos lo que se está impidiendo hacer en Europa.


  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). - Întrebările pregătite de autori sunt foarte oportune şi la obiect, dar eu aş mai fi adăugat încă o întrebare: cum intenţionează Comisia să încurajeze reducerea numărului de copii utilizaţi ca forţă de muncă în agricultură în cele două state? Potrivit ultimelor studii statistice disponibile, în Peru sunt folosiţi pentru diferite munci mai mult de două milioane de copii între 6 şi 14 ani, adică 29% din numărul total al copiilor din această grupă de vârstă. 70% dintre aceştia, aşadar 1,4 milioane de copii, lucrează în agricultură. Columbia de asemenea, a cunoscut o creştere accentuată a volumului de copii exploataţi prin muncă, astfel cel puţin un milion de copii au fost angajaţi în anul 2009, majoritatea în agricultură. Această problemă ar trebui, aşadar, să se afle pe agenda discuţiilor oficiale cu cele două state alături, desigur, de celelalte probleme ridicate aici.


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I would like to reiterate what some colleagues have already said, which is that the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved as it should have done. We have had, this year alone, 13 assassinations of human rights defenders, which is almost half as many again as in 2011. So we cannot really say that the situation is good. I am in favour of a dialogue and I do not mind having agreements with countries, but we really have to see what we can do as the European Union to improve the human rights situation, specifically.

What I am concerned about is that, according to a recent study by the German unions, in comparison with the EU-Korea Agreement this free trade agreement with Colombia we are negotiating only makes recommendations on certain criteria and there are no obligations. For example, labour and environmental conventions only have to be implemented when there are enough resources. I would like to know from Mr De Gucht whether he is in favour of an action plan, which many people here are calling for, prior to ratification of the agreement.


(Koniec procedury pytań z sali)


  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I will try to go so as quickly as possible because we are already over time.

Let me take as a starter the question of whether I agree that we should have another agreement before we can vote on the ratification of the trade agreement with Colombia and Peru. I do not think so, because what some are in fact asking the European Commission is to restart negotiations with Colombia on a roadmap which would probably take another six months. We would then have to translate it into 23 languages, which would take another six months.

The agreement was, in fact, concluded with Colombia more than two years ago; we now have to come to terms with this. I have outlined in detail the provisions of the agreement, I am not going to repeat them. There is also a very clear human rights clause in the agreement.

I expect the European Parliament to follow up what happens once the agreement has been ratified; the Commission will do the same. We have a lot of possibilities to steer the process; it would not be a good idea to restart discussions at this point.

Is everything perfect in Colombia and Peru? It is not, but I have the conviction that much has changed for the better. Secondly, the politicians in both countries are serious when they claim that they are trying to resolve sometimes very difficult and long-standing situations. I think we have an honourable partnership with them in this enterprise for the better. I hope that the Parliament will give its assent to what we have proposed.


  Przewodniczący. − Zamykam debatę

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 149)


  Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D), por escrito. – En primer lugar, me gustaría dejar claro que considero que este Acuerdo comercial entre la UE, Colombia y Perú es fundamental para optimizar las relaciones entre estos países y la Unión.

Sin embargo, y tal y como expone la pregunta oral que hoy debatimos, hay algunas cuestiones que generan cierta preocupación, especialmente en lo que atañe al respeto de los derechos humanos. No cabe duda de que Colombia ha hecho importantes esfuerzos en este terreno, como el cierre del polémico DAS (agencia de inteligencia) o la aprobación de la Ley de Víctimas y Restitución de tierras, que el Parlamento valora positivamente. Pero aún persisten amenazas para el ejercicio de los derechos laborales y la representación sindical.

Por todo ello, creemos que sería de gran ayuda que la Comisión planteara mecanismos para garantizar que los acuerdos comerciales supongan avances reales en materia de desarrollo, derechos humanos y laborales. En este sentido, las cláusulas más exigentes que permiten la suspensión inmediata y unilateral en caso de graves violaciones de los derechos humanos van en la buena dirección. En el caso de América Latina, este nuevo Acuerdo contribuye a reforzar nuestra asociación estratégica con la región, que es una de las que más se parecen a Europa en términos culturales y políticos.

Utolsó frissítés: 2012. június 25.Jogi nyilatkozat