Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 July 2005 - Strasbourg

27. Relations between the EU, China and Taiwan and security in the Far East

  President.   The next item is the Council and Commission statements on relations between the EU, China and Taiwan and security in the Far East.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, in the 30 years since the European Union established diplomatic relations with China, both the European Union and China, and indeed the EU-China relationship, have seen quite remarkable change. The European Union-China relationship is now as close as it has ever been. But now, more than ever it is crucial that the European Union adapts to the challenge of China’s political and economic growth. European Union economies need to be able to respond to the competition and the opportunities offered by China and other emerging economies in Asia. The European Union has many interests at stake in China and East Asia more widely, clearly a highly important region in the 21st century. It is vital that the European Union and China both work together, with other international partners, to tackle global problems.

Discussion between the European Union and China is now rightly on a broad range of topics, including regional security, human rights, environment, education, migration, climate change and transportation. Just last week, the first EU-China Aviation Summit took place. All these discussions bring benefits to both parties. The European Union already has a lot of experience to share and often China is approaching problems in a new way and the European Union can learn from its fresh approach.

The eighth European-China Summit in September in Bejing will be an opportunity to celebrate 30 years of official relations between the European Union and China and to look forward to the next 30 years. This will be an opportunity for the European Union and China to work together as global partners on global challenges. We look forward to this chance for the European Union and China to combine their efforts in order to address the challenges of climate change and energy security through dialogue and practical cooperation.

Of course there are differences between us, but it is a sign of the maturity of the relationship that we can discuss these constructively, for example, through the EU-China human rights dialogue.

Human rights are of course a fundamental part of European Union foreign policy. The European Union acknowledges that China has made considerable progress over the last decade in its social-economic development and welcomes steps towards the strengthening the rule of law and cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms. But much more is needed.

The European Union continues to have serious concerns about human rights in China, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Journalists, lawyers, and members of NGOs continue to be harassed. The death penalty continues to be used extensively; there is widespread administrative detention and we have serious concerns about the use of torture. The situation in Tibet and Xinjiang remain a concern. The Council welcomes China’s work towards the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and hopes that as this work continues there will be real improvements in the day-to-day lives of all China’s citizens.

Another issue which China and the European Union discuss frequently is that of Taiwan. The last 30 years have seen tremendous change in Taiwan too. Taiwan is one of the most successful Asian tigers, experiencing an enviable 5.9 % economic growth just last year. GDP per capita in real terms is considered to be on a par with Japan and Hong Kong. But change there has not just been economic, but also political. Thirty years ago Chiang Kai-Shek died and his son Chiang Ching-kuo continued in power thereafter. It was not until 1996 that Taiwan had its first democratic presidential election. Now Taiwan is a full democracy.

The European Union’s Member States have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Nevertheless, its economic and commercial ties with Taiwan are strong. Taiwan is of course a member of the World Trade Organisation. Taiwan and the European Union also enjoy solid relations in other non-political areas, such as science, education, culture and various technical fields.

However, other aspects of the cross- Strait relationship are not so positive and this has consequences for regional security. In March this year China introduced its ‘anti-secession’ legislation with the intention, it said, of halting or deterring Taiwanese moves towards independence. It was largely a codification of existing Chinese policy but it made reference to China’s strong commitment to peaceful reunification and more disturbingly made reference to the use of non-peaceful means should circumstances warrant. The description of what those circumstances might be was rather vague. The European Union reacted by reaffirming its adherence to its one-China policy and its opposition to any use of force to resolve this issue.

The European Union’s position has always been that the question of Taiwan should be resolved peacefully through constructive dialogue and it has urged both sides to avoid unilateral measures which might heighten tensions. In a statement at the beginning of this year, the European Union welcomed the agreement to cross-Strait charter flights over the Lunar New Year. It considered that this type of practical cooperation would help to promote dialogue and understanding between the parties and hoped that ways could be found to build upon it. We note the dialogue between the Mainland and visiting opposition Taiwanese leaders and hope that the Mainland will soon be able to commence similar dialogue with the elected leadership in Taiwan.

On regional matters, China and the European Union share a common interest with others in a stable Korean peninsula. Given its influence with the DPRK, China has a key role in efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, a role which the European Union supports.

The European Union remains keen to contribute to peace and security in the Asia and Asia-Pacific region. It is one of our key objectives. Speaking for the United Kingdom for a moment, we are keen to use the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the European Union to take forward work in this area. The European Union should aim to engage more actively in the political management of the regional security challenges. Among current concerns, the European Union has called for early and unconditional resumption of the six-party talks and for the complete verifiable and irreversible dismantling of any DPRK nuclear weapons programme.

We need to look further at ways to strengthen the European Union’s contribution in regional fora such as ASEM and as a member of the ASEAN regional forum, the only Asia-wide multilateral forum on regional security. It also makes sense for the European Union to develop strategic dialogues with other key players in the East Asian region. The security of the region is not just a concern to those there, but to all of us.

Since China’s reform of the economy which began in 1978, its economy has grown by almost 10% a year on average. In that time, Chinese-European trade has grown more than fortyfold. The EU is now China’s most important trading partner, and China is the EU’s second most important trading partner, after the United States.

In 2003, China became the world’s fourth largest trader, and its foreign trade continues to grow by 37%, a growth rate unrivalled by any major trading nation. China has also overtaken the US as the largest recipient of foreign direct investment anywhere in the world.

China has made considerable efforts to live up to its new role in the global economic system. To comply with its World Trade Organisation obligations and accession commitments, it has cut tariffs across the board and engaged in a thorough overhaul of laws and regulations. Nevertheless, concerns remain. The business environment in China is still a difficult one for the foreign businesses that operate there. For example, laws to protect intellectual property rights are not implemented vigorously enough. The WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong this year provides an opportunity for the European Union and China to work together once again to help achieve an ambitious and balanced outcome.

With this tremendous economic growth in China has come change in other areas too. It was not until the mid-1990s that the European Commission drew up its first Asia strategy and China policy papers. This first policy paper attempted to define a long-term strategy to address China’s swift economic and indeed political development. At the same time, engagements stopped being rather haphazard and regular annual summits became the norm. In 1996, the first Asia-Europe meeting was held and two years later the first EU-China Summit took place.

Against this backdrop of rapid change, the main legal framework for EU-China relations, the Bilateral Trade and Economic Co-Operation Agreement of 1985 is looking decidedly out of date. The European Union is looking forward to the introduction of a new framework agreement that is more in keeping with the multifaceted relationship we enjoy today. I hope that during the period of the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the European Union, progress can be made on this. We will also be looking for progress on a number of other issues, including climate change of course in this week when the G8 leaders gather in Gleneagles, and towards market economy status for China.

Energy security is an issue of concern to all countries. It is a requirement of economic growth and development. Current global levels of energy production and consumption are already considered as having a negative impact on the global climate, and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise over the coming decades. The European Union and China face an important dual challenge, ensuring energy security and combating climate change.

The European Union recognises its obligation to reduce its own emissions while at the same time assisting countries such as China to meet their growing energy needs in a sustainable manner. The European Union and China have significant and internationally respected scientific and technological expertise. There is therefore excellent scope for the European Union and China to significantly strengthen collaboration in this important field.

The European Union and China do, of course, have differences. The agreement reached at the conclusion of the recent EU-China textile negotiations shows what can happen when we sit down to discuss those differences amicably and seek win-win solutions. China has acted, as the Commissioner for Trade, Mr Mandelson, said and I quote ‘as a responsible and valued partner’.

The time available to me for these remarks to the Parliament today is too short to encapsulate relationships which have evolved over 30 years, but I hope that others will now be able to contribute their thoughts on this important evolving relationship.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by welcoming Mr Alexander in his new role, especially here in Parliament. We will have many debates together and it will be a pleasure to work with him.

I am very happy about this debate, because the situation in Asia and also in East Asia is indeed a major strategic issue. Asia is today not only the continent with the largest population but also with the highest economic growth rate and the highest rates of spending for research and development. The Far Eastern countries invest in their future and Asia will, no doubt, be the continent at the centre of the world stage in the 21st century. We have to know that and prepare for it.

Security in the Far East is a topic, therefore, of direct concern to European interests. It is part of the overall global responsibility for security and stability that lies at the heart of the European Union’s role in foreign policy. Moreover, stability in the Far East directly impacts not only on the prosperity and the well-being of our citizens but also of the citizens of this continent. China, Japan and the Republic of Korea are among the world’s top six economies, if the EU is counted as one. They also count among our major trading partners and are also key recipients of European foreign investment. Japan, for its part, is also a major source of investment in Europe, not least in some of the new Member States. In short, instability in the most dynamic region in the world would have serious consequences that would be deeply felt in Europe.

What, therefore, are the European responses and what are the instruments at our disposal to address this issue? I would like to tackle that question now.

Let us look at the main issues at stake in East Asia. Over the medium-term future, three major policy issues will dominate the political agenda in East Asia. Firstly, how to respond to the rise of China. Secondly, ensuring stability on the Korean peninsula and, thirdly, a peaceful resolution of tensions between China and Taiwan. The proper handling of these issues will have major implications both for our regional and wider security.

By contrast, the degree of economic integration in East Asia is also very impressive. However, this alone will not be sufficient to make East Asia more stable or more peaceful, particularly as the DPRK is still outside the emerging economic cooperation. Moreover, unlike in Europe in the later half of the 1980s, economic ties have not resulted in improved political relations. On the contrary, the economic rise of China and its assertive foreign policy have fanned concerns in some neighbouring countries that a more prosperous China could use its economic gains to pursue its national interests more forcefully and dominate the region both politically and economically.

The China-Japan rivalry has surfaced earlier and more visibly than expected by many observers. A trend in all East Asian countries towards a more nationalistic orientation may set the stage for using bilateral conflicts as a valve for domestic consumption. In China, for instance, as part of the process to move away from ideological constraints, nationalism has been revived as a unifying theme. With a generational change in Korea, anti-Communism based on the traumatic experience of the Korean War has lost its appeal. The new leadership, in line with the views of the younger generation often appears to see a forceful policy vis-à-vis North Korea as more of a threat to peace than North Korea’s nuclear programme. In Japan, a nationalistic renaissance can be observed, not founded on a young generation movement, but on an elite’s wish to change a so-called ‘self-denigrating attitude’ in Japan. This tendency in all three countries to favour nationalistic policies does not bode well for solving the concrete political problems that will become more urgent in the years to come. Moreover, with the technological rise of China, the economies may, in fact, move from complementarity to more intense competition and thereby heat up the political environment rather than cool it down.

Rising tensions are not a given, however. For instance, the meeting in Jakarta on 23 April between Japan’s Prime Minister Koizumi and China’s President – at which I participated – was held specifically to de-escalate the tension and that demonstrates that both sides understand that they would stand to lose economically from rising tensions. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the follow-up steps complicated rather than calmed down the situation when Vice Prime Minister Wu Yi abruptly cancelled a scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi. If nonetheless managed well, the Tokyo-Beijing rivalry could lead to constructive competition and thus would open the way to addressing long-standing conflicts, as witnessed, for instance, by the India-China rapprochement, followed by a visit of Prime Minister Koizumi to New Delhi and Tokyo’s increased interest in South East Asia. In this regard, it is very interesting to see the European example of overcoming war hostilities and cold war separation become a object of strong interest and study in East Asia. This provides us with an opening that we should use to foster relations with all regional players.

We are taking a number of concrete steps to address the various issues at hand in order to clearly voice Europe’s views for a way forward and to express our concerns about the situation. There is a political dialogue. It is true that we are just celebrating our 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations. There is also a human rights dialogue and all the security issues are there and are being discussed. Indeed, at the next summit with China, which will be held in September, we will try to come up with the idea of a more comprehensive and more ambitious framework agreement, because the old one is no longer fulfilling our most ambitious goals. There are 20 sectoral dialogues with the various ministers at ministerial level to prepare China for its WTO trade obligations and also, for example, for its obligations as regards intellectual property rights and as regards labour protection, which our colleague also mentioned. The general idea is fully reciprocal two-way relations.

On the China-Japan tensions, we have used recent high-level meetings – notably the EU-Japan Summit on 2 May in Luxembourg – to discuss stability issues in East Asia at the highest governmental level. In that context, we have agreed to intensify our political dialogue and we have said that energy issues in particular should be very high on our agenda, together with Japan. We want to do this, not least with a view to responding to Japan’s concern over a possible future lifting of the EU’s arms embargo on China. As a first follow-up, we held a ministerial Troika with Japan on 6 May in the margin of the ASEM meeting. In our political dialogue with China, we are also addressing the issue of Sino-Japanese tensions and calling for moderation and reconciliation.

On the arms embargo, the European Council Conclusions of December 2005 clearly stipulate that there should not be any change in the quantity or quality of arms exports to China. Therefore, any possible future decision on lifting the embargo should not alter the security situation in East Asia.

Moreover, the European Union has started a strategic dialogue with the United States on East Asia to address the security concerns of our partners, and information missions have been carried out to the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand to explain our position. We are finalising the reinforced Code of Conduct on arms experts.

Let me say two more things before the debate and then I will answer your questions. Regarding China’s Anti-Secession Law, in its statement issued on 15 March, the European Union clearly expressed its concern about this legislation. On that occasion, the European Union reiterated the principles guiding its policy, i.e. its attachment to a ‘one China’ policy and to the peaceful resolution of disputes. We have also called on both sides to develop initiatives for dialogue and understanding. It must be said that we were happy to see that Taiwan opposition leaders went to mainland China. We hope that in the future all parties will be involved in such contacts.

I refer again to the DPRK’s nuclear programme. I would remind you that the European Union – and the Commission also – is a board member of KEDO. We have financially and otherwise supported this – currently suspended – activity with a view to finding a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. We continue to give our full support to possible six-party talks as a way forward and have impressed our view very clearly on the North Korean Government on various occasions. I hear that a parliamentary delegation is going to North Korea. We will be very happy to listen to you and to learn from you when you come back.

I will stop here. There is a lot to be said, because these issues, as I have said, are at the centre of our global policy for the 21st century.

  Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we could actually do with a double allocation of speaking time in order to respond properly to the excellent speeches by those who have spoken to this topic so far, and it is for that reason that I have no option but to speak in summary form.

I think we all agree that the tensions in the Far East have to be taken seriously, whether we are talking about the tension between Japan and China or that between North Korea and Japan. You can take that further, as far as Russia, if you want to include such issues as the four islands that have been occupied ever since the end of the Second World War. It is vitally important that this Europe of ours should make a proper contribution, not merely out of economic considerations, but also with political considerations in mind. After all, we all agree – and I assume that the President-in-Office does too – that we want to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and that we regard our work to these ends as a long-term basis for sound economic relationships.

Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner was right to mention the success of the May summit held between Japan and the EU in Luxembourg, but I sometimes get the feeling that members of the Council and the Commission visit Peking three times as often as they visit Tokyo. It would be no bad thing either for them to visit Taipei; after all, both Taiwan and Japan are countries with multi-party democracies, in which human rights are observed and the rule of law prevails. Neither of those things are yet the case in the People’s Republic of China, and there is only a very distant prospect of either of them being so. If we want to demonstrate the need for democracies to cooperate among themselves, then the numbers of visits and contacts would have to be more evenly balanced.

What I would very much like the Council to tell us now is what position has been reached in the ongoing deliberations on the lifting of the arms embargo. We in this House insist on three things before this can happen. Firstly, we – like you – expect substantial improvements as regards human rights in China. Secondly, the stand-off between Taiwan and China must be brought to an end. With China threatening Taiwan with over 700 rockets stationed on its coast, this is a flash point to the like of which you do not deliver weapons. To the Commissioner, who, I think, was being rather evasive, I would ask whether the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports is now to be legally binding, and if so, when. That, too, is something we regard as a sine qua non if there is to be any sort of talk about lifting the arms embargo.

We must do everything in our power to get the countries of Asia to where we are now: the state, sixty years after the end of the Second World War, of having been reconciled with one another. It is for that reason that we should encourage them to press on with the same process of reconciliation, without which there can be no stability and no security.

  Glyn Ford, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Party of European Socialists. This compromise resolution is one that we support, because we believe that it is important that the European Parliament speak with one voice. However, understandably it does not exactly represent the views of my Group, nor for that matter those of the other Groups that have signed it. It is exactly what it says: a compromise.

The Far East is an increasingly important region for trade and aid with increasing globalisation of both economics and politics. Security issues affect us all: now when North-East Asia sneezes, we all threaten to catch a cold. I would like to make three main points.

First, with respect to the arms embargo with China, it was rightly imposed after the horrors of Tiananmen Square. We rightly still have concerns about China’s human rights record, but, as the Council said, things are moving in the right direction. For us, it is the lack of a full legal base for the code of conduct on arms that is as much a problem for the lifting of the embargo as the situation in China.

Second, with respect to North Korea, as you have said, Commissioner, a delegation is leaving tomorrow, of which I am part, under the leadership of Ursula Stenzel. This will be the first meeting between a standing delegation of the European Parliament and the Supreme People’s Assembly of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

This Parliament has made its position clear in the past and will reiterate it in the vote tomorrow. The European Union has contributed EUR 500 million to humanitarian aid, development and KEDO in North Korea. We believe increasingly that we should have a policy of ‘no say, no pay’. We will seek to continue critical engagement to bring North Korea back to the table, out of the cold and into the world, but we want a place at that table when they come back to it.

Lastly, no country is immune from blame for the current tensions in this region: the China-Taiwan, China-Japan, Japan-South Korea issues and that of the Korean peninsula itself. There is a continuing need to come to terms with the region’s history. The countries might well learn from the historical Franco-German and German-Polish reconciliations here in Europe. As Commissioner Rehn said in a previous debate, ‘there is no lasting peace without reconciliation around truth and justice’.

  István Szent-Iványi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (HU) The European Parliament has declared itself in favour of retaining the arms embargo on China by a substantial majority. This embargo must remain in place as long as the reasons for its imposition persist. For example, as long as several hundred people who participated in the Tienanmen Square protest are still in jail. The examples show that economic relations are developing despite the embargo, so it clearly has no influence whatsoever on economic relations, but it needs to serve as a pointer as regards political relations. Personally, I trust the position of the British Presidency; in my experience, the stance of the United Kingdom is clear and unambiguous regarding this issue and I commend it for this.

The other important issue: Taiwan has sought observer status in the World Health Organisation since 1997. Its application has been rejected every year, including this year, unfortunately. And unfortunately, the Member States have participated in turning down its application. It is my opinion, however, that Taiwan’s 23 million inhabitants have a right to the security and protection that the World Health Organisation has to offer, but the reverse is also true: we also need the knowledge and experience and – I have to say, the financial resources – that Taiwan has to offer. It is utterly incomprehensible why they keep rejecting Taiwan’s request. I have no desire to call into question the ‘one China’ policy, but this has nothing to do with that. Taiwan already participates in numerous areas of international cooperation. For example, it is a member of the World Trade Organisation; it participates in economic cooperation within APEC and is a member of other international organisations. At the same time, organisations such as the Holy See, the Knights of Malta, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and even the Inter-Parliamentary Union have observer status in the World Health Organisation. In the light of this, it is utterly absurd that Taiwan has been turned down. I ask the Presidency and the Commission to persuade the Member States to grant Taiwan observer status in the World Health Organisation next year.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, China in fact plays a fundamental role, both in European foreign policy and in European commercial policy. That is why it is so important for the European Union to ensure that its policy on China contributes to improving social, environmental and human rights standards, and that it does not jeopardise regional stability and security.

In this context, I agree that some of the recent actions of the Chinese authorities are worrying, such as the adoption of the anti-secession law in relation to Taiwan.

We must also remember that the European Union will only be able to accept an agreement between China and Taiwan if it is the result of a peaceful dialogue between the parties and, in particular, if it respects the democratic progress achieved by Taiwan.

Furthermore, as has already been said, with regard to the arms embargo, we must remember that it must remain in place, at least until there is significant progress with regard to human rights, which also includes the situation in Tibet, until what happened in Tiananmen is sufficiently clarified, and above all, in my view, until the European Union’s code of conduct becomes a legally binding text.

I would therefore like to urge the representative of the Council to delight us in August by adopting a legally binding statute for the code of conduct, which would be warmly welcomed by this House.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, for a long time, my group took a straightforward view of the People’s Republic of China and of the government that sits on the island of Taiwan. It was that, in 1949, an old and incompetent clique of profiteers, incapable of offering a solution to poverty and injustice, was sent packing by the people, and rightly so. They fled to an island where most of the people did not feel Chinese and which, up to 1945, did not belong to China for sustained periods of time. On that island, they set up a military dictatorship and tried to carry out attacks on the mainland, eventually forfeiting international recognition and being thrown out of the United Nations.

Meanwhile on the mainland, all kinds of interesting experiments were going on, including the industrialisation of the countryside and a sweeping reorganisation of agriculture. The advent of factories, railway and dams helped the country move forward. Unfortunately, during those experiments, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, as a result of inexperience, serious mistakes were made which claimed many lives. That seemed to be the price they had to pay for a prosperous future.

The situation now is that, led by the heirs to this revolutionary regime, China is still a country with a future, but our political line has changed completely. Despite enjoying exponential growth, the People’s Republic suffers from very pronounced inequality, imposes the death penalty, and lacks both democratic processes and freedom of organisation. For the moment, the model is reminiscent of what South Korea and Taiwan have rightly abandoned.

Taiwan has developed from a military dictatorship into a democracy that can increasingly be compared with Europe and Japan. As a democracy, it aspires to become a non-Chinese, and therefore independent, Taiwan. In our search for a solution to a 56-year long division of what is internationally recognised as Chinese territory, we will need to take these new developments into account. Only in that way can we help find peaceful solutions for the future.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, détente between China and Taiwan could considerably improve the security situation in the Far East, which at present appears anything but secure. The Council and Commission have the urgent task of promoting a more businesslike relationship between Beijing and Taipei. The strong European trading position with both countries not only offers an objective opportunity of doing this, but also means that such action must necessarily be in our own interests. One thing is clear, the Council’s positively premature intention to lift the arms embargo against the People’s Republic has, together with the recent Chinese anti-secession law, enormously increased tension in the region. It is difficult to tell what predominates here: a lack of strategic thinking or the disturbing lack of diplomatic straight talking within Europe, let alone of transatlantic consultation. I hope that the Council, under the British Presidency, will abandon this unsafe approach. If the European Union takes up its strategic responsibility towards the Far East, it will support flexible cross-Straits relations.

Time has not stood still in Taiwan either. For years, it has developed its own national identity and has undergone an impressive democratisation process, both of which are at the heart of the Taiwanese conflict today. The Taiwanese are also, and understandably, very much aware of recent developments in Hong Kong. The Council and Commission certainly do not appear to be ignoring Taiwan commercially speaking, but they are, unfortunately, doing so on the diplomatic front. That is why I am happy to endorse paragraph 9 of the draft resolution. I urge you to support Taiwanese observer status in the World Health Organisation and give 23 million free Taiwanese a vote and a face in international fora. That is how the European Union can help establish the desperately needed inter-Chinese dialogue.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Alexander, the proclamation by the People’s Republic of China of an ‘anti-secession law’ is a key moment for security in the Far East. By enacting a bill that blatantly violates international law, the People’s Republic of China has made it clear to the rest of the world that the Peking regime is not becoming more moderate as had been hoped, even though the country has allowed market forces to operate in parts of its economy and the West has become more open to contacts with China.

China knows that the Taiwanese will never voluntarily agree to unification, and so it is making preparations for an armed attack on this democratic and prosperous country. It is entirely up to us to determine the outcome of a process that began with spending on armaments, followed by the above-mentioned law, which is nothing short of scandalous, and which in turn has had a direct effect in that 600 ballistic missiles have been targeted at Taiwan.

We are already familiar with the reactions of some EU Member States. While this provocation was going on, the President of the Member State that does the most trade with China, or in other words France, announced that there was no longer any point to the embargo on arms exports to China, and that this embargo was a manifestation of hostility. The German Chancellor has echoed his comments. This is the worst of all possible responses, and if we followed this advice, we could be providing arms to a country that makes no secret of its aggressive intentions towards its neighbours.

Europe needs to respond differently to this ‘anti-secession law’. It needs to keep the embargo in place, and to step up its policy of active support for Taiwan’s position in the international arena, by acting in close cooperation with the United States. Our aim up until now has been to maintain the status quo, but the latter has been undermined unilaterally by the People’s Republic of China.

If I may, I should like to make one final comment which occurred to me while listening to the debate, and which should not be taken too seriously. If there were an EU-wide ban on praise for totalitarian systems, I do not believe that the Members of this House from post-Communist countries would manage a single day out of prison, and there would be 50 fewer Members of this Parliament.

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that China, because of its influence over North Korea, holds the keys to peace in that region of the world. However, the increasingly aggressive attitude of Communist China towards Taiwan constitutes a threat to this peace that is all the more serious because the leaders in Beijing have nuclear weapons. Ever since 1949, those leaders have never given up hope of annexing Taiwan, which has, thanks to the courage of its inhabitants, become one of the most dynamic economies in the Pacific and a model of democracy in a region where there are still many totalitarian regimes.

This aggression will not be appeased by the shady deals in which some European leaders are indulging, foremost among them being Mr Chirac, who has gone as far as inviting the Chinese Communist dictator to his chateau. Only a firm, decisive attitude will bring the authorities in Beijing to make compromises and, in particular, to recognise the right of the Taiwanese to self-determination. Until they do so, the Member States of the European Union must maintain the embargo on exporting arms to Communist China. Were our governments to adopt a different policy, not only would they be betraying the values of freedom and democracy that they are always so proud of affirming, but they would also be seriously compromising the stability of the Far East.

  Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I welcome the resolution on security in the Far East, and particularly the broad consensus on the part of all groups that underpins it. That being so, it will determine the political remit for the mission to Korea, which sets off tomorrow, and which I have the honour to be chairing. Although there have already been two ad hoc missions, this one, following on from the recent establishment of a Parliamentary Delegation for the Korean peninsula, is the first ever to both North and South Korea.

Politically speaking, this trip is the expression of Parliament’s desire that the European Union should have influence, as a seventh negotiating partner, on the six-party talks. It is also in our interest that North Korea should emerge from its isolation and thus become able to receive from the EU the humanitarian aid that it needs. Its return to the negotiating table, its decommissioning of existing nuclear weapons and its abandonment of plans for new ones are essential preconditions not only for rapprochement between the two Koreas and for the resultant détente in the region, but also for its own access to more help from Europe.

We will also be having the opportunity to meet representatives of the Foreign Policy of the Chinese People’s Congress, and here too, this resolution’s core statements will be our policy guidelines. Our primary aspiration is that the People’s Republic of China should exert considerable influence on North Korea’s attitude towards naming a date for the resumption of the six-party talks, which will make a political solution possible. It is towards this end that we, Europe’s parliamentarians, offer our good offices.

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – (HU) In the interests of ensuring that security is maintained and development continues in the Far East, I would like to call upon the governments of countries where disputes over territorial issues still persist to resolve these as soon as possible by means of bilateral negotiations. In this day and age, the persistence of differences of opinion in connection with the Second World War is an indication that the region still needs to come to terms with its past history and work through it. One issue relating to security in the region is the ‘anti-secession’ legislation passed by the Republic of China in March 2005. I consider it important to maintain the status quo in the region, and I support the peaceful resolution of the issue by means of dialogue between the parties, bearing in mind the ‘one China’ principle.

I would like to express my dismay regarding North Korea’s announcement in February 2005 that it possesses nuclear weapons, and that it is pulling out of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and suspending the six-party talks indefinitely. I would like to make it clear that I still believe the multilateral, six-party talks provide the primary framework for resolving the issue, and that an agreement in principle reached on this basis is needed to ensure a Korean peninsula free from nuclear weapons. I hope that North Korea will review its position as soon as possible, provide the appropriate international guarantees and return to the framework of the Treaty.

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN). (LV) – Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, members of the Council, the European Union has always laid great emphasis on encouraging democracy and the free rule of law and on worldwide support for human rights. These goals should be the strategic priority and a moral necessity for the democratic Europe, geared towards the reinforcement of civil society and democratic institutions in the world’s third countries. These aspects are what should determine our assessment of the relations between the European Union, China and Taiwan, as well as of security in the Far East.

That is why I particularly call on you to bear in mind the circumstances in which the arms trade embargo on China was introduced. It is no secret that from an arms trade point of view, the embargo on China is practically inoperative. That is why the embargo should be evaluated not as a means of restricting the spread of weaponry but solely as a political instrument of the European Union for assessing the situation of democracy and human rights in China. Therefore a wish to lift the embargo suggests that the Commission is no longer concerned about the questions of democracy, freedom, the rule of law and human rights in China. Is that really so? Is not this hypocrisy? Do the Commission and the governments of France, Germany or the Netherlands really not see, in their search for business opportunities in China, that dissidents are still being suppressed, followers of Falun Gong are still being persecuted, democracy and freedom are being restricted in Hong Kong, that more than 700 Chinese missiles are targeted towards democratic Taiwan, and that authoritarian China passed a law this spring giving it the right to carry out a military attack on the developing democracy in Taiwan?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an occasion for the European Parliament again to put on record that some individuals holding office in Europe and representatives of Member States are acting in accordance with double standards when pursuing narrow economic interests. They are emboldening China and showing a willingness to ignore democratic ideals. Such an attitude not only reduces security in the Far East but can also rebound like a boomerang in future and affect security and stability in Europe itself.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the arms embargo against China was imposed as a protest against the bloody crackdown on student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Have any fundamental changes been made in the area of human rights in China in the subsequent 16 years? None whatsoever. In fact, a huge portrait of Mao Tse-Tung, the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century, is still on display on Tiananmen Square.

To this day, there are people in prison for being present at Tiananmen Square. Nor, in fact, are they the only political prisoners, for the so-called People’s Republic is still a Communist one-party state without any freedom of expression of opinion, freedom of the press or freedom of religion.

Only the day before yesterday, for example, Bishop Jia Zhiguo, an underground Roman Catholic bishop in China, was arrested. He has already spent more than 20 years of his life in prison. Not only does the People’s Republic of China systematically and continually violate human rights, but it also forms a threat to regional stability and, by extension, to peace full stop. The so-called anti-secession law is like a knife held to Taiwan’s throat.

The European Union is blowing hot and cold at the same time. On the one hand, it stresses that the human rights situation in China should improve, while on the other, it seeks to lift the arms embargo, thereby sending a message to the Chinese regime that it does not have to be too careful about human rights. Taiwan is given credit, and rightly, for its economic success and for real democracy, but it is not being spelled out to the People’s Republic that it is unacceptable to challenge Taiwan’s integrity. Under such circumstances, a strategic partnership with China should not be an end in itself, any more than the so-called One China Policy should remain an end in itself.

If Taiwan ever declares formal independence, then Europe must recognise this without delay and our Member States must establish diplomatic relations with it.

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the Presidency, the regular visits to Brussels and Strasbourg of Chinese officials and the meetings between them and representatives of the European Parliament highlight the interest in developing relations between China and the European Union.

At the same time, however, they have also brought to light differences at political level which slowly but surely are leading both sides to an unavoidable and harmonious symbiosis, because the People's Republic of China needs the European Union and the European Union needs China. In addition, I do not believe that the presence of China and India in the area of international trade represents a threat, as recently maintained here, in his first appearance, by the President-in-Office of the Council, Tony Blair. On the contrary, one would maintain that it is a very good opportunity for rapprochement between the peoples in all sectors of cooperation and friendly rivalry, a unique opportunity, during which rapprochement at all levels will provide solutions even to outstanding issues such as those between China and Taiwan, which is seeking secession, the lifting of the weapons embargo against China by the European Union and the United States and, finally, the abolition of the illegal and indiscriminate export of goods, especially in the pharmaceutical, electronics and textile and clothing sectors.

It is no coincidence that, in the face of the impasses, the Chinese are trying to compromise. The bilateral relations which China has developed with states throughout the world are increasing and extending at a rapid pace, from the United States and Latin America to Europe. Is this enough or is coordinated action needed on the part of the European Union so that these objectives are common, single objectives?

One of these major objectives was achieved last week, as we heard just now. The signature of the ‘open skies’ cooperation agreement increasing flights between the European Union and Beijing by the Vice-President of the European Commission, Jacques Barrot, is an example of goodwill. The European Union therefore needs to speed up procedures to settle outstanding issues with China. The wind which is blowing will soon reach incalculable speeds and then only a Wall of China will be able to restrain the typhoon called the People's Republic of China.

To close, I wish London the same good luck for 2012 as Athens had with the 2004 Olympic Games, despite any doubts which London had at the time. Good wishes also because Great Britain has the capacity, in conjunction with Beijing in 2008, to strengthen relations still further.

  Libor Rouček (PSE).  – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, critics of Europe often claim that it is too self-absorbed, and that it takes a great deal of notice of what is going on in neighbouring countries while ignoring problems in other parts of the world, such as Eastern Asia. I believe that today’s debate will demonstrate exactly the opposite, namely that we are very much aware of the challenges emerging from Eastern Asia, of the growing importance of China and the role of Japan, North Korea and South Korea, and of course of the security problems that are rife in Eastern Asia.

As far as China is concerned, I agree entirely with the current UK Presidency that global dialogue needs to be strengthened, that Europe and China are global partners, and that they must tackle global challenges such as security, energy security and climate change together. I too believe that this dialogue and partnership will be enshrined in the framework agreement, and that it will actually encourage dialogue on human rights rather than ruling it out. Previous speakers have already referred to Taiwan and South Korea, and these two countries are prime examples of the way in which a democracy can gradually be built out of a totalitarian and authoritarian country. In my opinion, a similar outcome could be achieved if we were to step up dialogue with China on human rights issues.

  Aloyzas Sakalas (PSE). – Mr President, perhaps this policy under consideration is the best one at the given time. I am going to start by mentioning the political background.

Our policy is based on the ‘one China’ principle, but this principle has deprived the people of Taiwan of another fundamental principle: that of self-determination. I might understand the pragmatism of the EU, but it should not be selective, as we have never spoken of a ‘one Korea’ principle, for example.

My next comment is about the compatibility of China and Taiwan. I can hardly imagine two states under one political umbrella if they have such incompatible political systems. I see two options: we must either revise the one-China principle and adjust our policy in respect of it, or wait for an indefinite amount of time until China per se becomes a democratic state with a multi-party system, a rule of law and respect for human rights.

The proposed policy stems from the second option, but it is by no means the best choice.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, let me begin by thanking the honourable Members for their wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions to this important and timely debate. I also thank the Commissioner for her generous welcome in this Parliament today. I also look forward to our many debates over the weeks and months to come.

Let me respond first to some of the main points raised during the last hour. Mr Jarzembowski spoke of the importance of the recent EU-Japan meeting. We clearly welcome and will work towards strong relations with Japan, and, of course, with China. He spoke wisely of the need for continued understanding and reconciliation within the region.

Mr Ford recognised the interdependence that is surely one of the hallmarks of our globalising world. He also raised the issue of the arms embargo, as did a number of speakers, including Mr Szent-Iványi, Mr Romeva i Rueda, Mr Belder and Mr Kristovskis. Let me, therefore, take a moment or two to address the queries that have been raised.

As Members are aware, a review of the European Union arms embargo was, of course, announced by the European Council in December 2003 and is presently ongoing. In June, the European Council also recalled its conclusions of 16 and 17 December 2004 and invited the Council to continue its work on that basis. No date was set for a decision. The Council also welcomed the launch of a strategic dialogue on Asia with the United States and Japan. We look forward in the course of our Presidency to taking this forward.

No decision has yet been taken on lifting the EU arms embargo in China. The review launched in December 2003 is, as I have said, ongoing. In its conclusions in December 2004, the Council recalled the importance of the criteria of the code of conduct, which have been referred to by a number of Members today, including the provisions regarding human rights, stability and security in the region and the national security of friendly and allied countries.

Mr Szent-Iványi also raised the issue of the European Union’s position on Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Organisation. There are difficulties over Taiwanese membership of the World Health Organisation. The WHO is a United Nations specialised agency where statehood is therefore a prerequisite of membership. The public health benefits to Taiwan from observer status appear limited, since the World Health Organisation and Taiwan already share information on an informal basis. The European Union made its position public on Taiwanese participation at the 2004 World Health Assembly. Ireland issued an EU Presidency statement that strongly supported the principle enshrined in the WHO Constitution that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. It also expressed hopes that all parties will show flexibility in finding mechanisms to allow Taiwanese medical and public health officials to participate in these activities. At this year’s World Health Assembly, the issue did not come up for vote in the General Committee, but we understand that the WHO secretariat and China recently signed a memorandum of understanding on WHO technical exchanges with Taiwan.

Mr Meijer offered his own distinctive views on Chiang Kai-Shek and on his successors in Taiwan. I would simply reiterate the point I made in my introductory remarks that today Taiwan is, of course, a full democracy.

Mr Szymański and Mrs Dobolyi spoke of the anti-secession law recently passed by China. So let me say a further word on China-Taiwan relations and cross-strait tension. The European Union and the Council attach great importance to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is important for the whole region and indeed beyond. The Taiwan question should be settled peacefully, as I said, through peaceful negotiations. We welcome any efforts by both sides to lower tensions, such as, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the cross-strait charter flights and visits by Taiwanese opposition parties. We hope that both sides can find a mutually acceptable basis for a resumption of peaceful dialogue and avoid unilateral measures, which might heighten tensions.

Luxembourg issued two Presidency statements this year on cross-strait relations. In February, a statement was issued welcoming the agreement to cross-strait direct charter transfer flights over the Lunar New Year. The second statement issued in March by the Luxembourg Presidency followed China’s adoption of its anti-secession law, which has caused so much commentary in the course of our debate this afternoon. That statement voiced concerns over the legislation’s reference to the use of non-peaceful means. It asked all parties to avoid any unilateral action that might rekindle tensions and also encouraged both sides to develop initiatives that contribute to dialogue and to mutual understanding.

In his meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Li on 17 March, almost immediately after the passage of the law, the High Representative, Javier Solana, expressed the European Union’s concerns about some elements of the anti-secession law. He acknowledged positive elements in the law, strongly supporting the call for cross-strait dialogue and cooperation, but made clear that references to a potential resolution of the issue by non-peaceful means was very much at odds with European Union policy. He clarified once again the position of the EU: first, full support for a one-China policy and, secondly, resolution of the situation through dialogue and peaceful means.

Mrs Stenzel told us of her mission departing for the Korean peninsula tomorrow and this was also referred to by Mr Mavrommatis. I wish her and her colleagues well in this important work and I look forward to hearing a full report of her endeavours on her return.

Mr Rouček mentioned the criticism sometimes directed at the European Union that it is too inward looking. I would simply say that those who make that criticism would have done well to listen to the calibre and contributions of the debate we have had this afternoon. I therefore welcome his endorsement of our approach, which recognises that Europe must look outwards and actively engage with the challenges and also the opportunities that our modern globalising world provides.

Mr Kristovskis and Mr Claeys appropriately raised the issue of human rights in China. I can assure both Members that the European Union raises a lot of human rights concerns with the Chinese Government at the biannual European Union-China human rights dialogue, which is a regular high-level exchange. The last round was held in Luxembourg in February. The next round will take place in Beijing this autumn. The European Union also regularly engages Chinese interlocutors on human rights issues, including at the very highest levels outside these dialogues. The European Union also funds human rights projects within China.

Let me say a word or two in conclusion. The Chinese presently have a target to reach per capita income comparable to that of today’s developed countries by about 2050. The significant development of economic strength was really the opening framework with which I approached this debate. That was echoed by the words of the Commissioner immediately following my contribution. Whether it reaches that ambitious target or not, the development of its economic and trade ties is already all but irreversible. China is also accepting the responsibility that economic strength brings. It has more influence on the world stage in such fora as the WTO, the G8 and the United Nations. This is all to the good. Many of the problems we face today, such as climate change, which will clearly be one of the significant items being discussed in Gleneagles over the days to come, can only be solved through action by all.

The Council has a close interest in supporting China’s successful transition to a stable, prosperous and open country that fully embraces free market principles and the rule of law. For this reason, the European Union has a policy of strong engagement with China. This engagement is mutually beneficial and is not confined solely to matters of trade. The European Galileo programme will provide high precision global satellite navigation services, an area in which China is keen to develop links with the European Union. A cooperation agreement was concluded in October 2003, under which China has pledged to contribute EUR 200 million to this programme.

Of course, we do not imagine that there will not be disagreements or that there will not be differences of opinion. We trust that our relationship with China is strong enough for us to be able to meet to address these challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, a lot has been said in this very interesting debate. I thank all Members for their interesting contributions. They have concentrated on a few topics.

With regard to the arms embargo, my colleague has said almost everything. I should just like to answer Mr Jarzembowski, confirming that we are aiming at a legally binding code of conduct. It will depend on the Member States, but that is our aim.

With regard to human rights, it was said by a few Members that we have not mentioned human rights. That is simply not true. On the contrary, human rights feature in all our political dialogues and great significance is attached to them. I recently met with Foreign Minister Li and I was also involved in a troika in China. The main topic there, apart from the arms embargo and some trade issues, was the human rights issue. We clearly said – and this went on record – that the Chinese should go on, for instance, with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with releasing prisoners incarcerated after the Tiananmen Square protests. We have a human rights dialogue at least, where these issues can be clearly talked through and then, hopefully, taken up by the Chinese.

I would also like to mention Taiwan. The European Union has advocated – and this is a unanimous policy – the one-China policy, which means that we do not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state and we have no diplomatic or formal political relations with Taiwan. Nevertheless, we have cultural and economic relations with Taiwan. Therefore, it is not for us politicians but for high officials to go to Taiwan, where they hold exchanges of views. We also do not support Taiwan's efforts to become a member in international fora because, if such membership implies statehood, that is not possible according to the consequent policy that we have. Taiwan was able, by contrast, to join the World Trade Organization because the WTO supposes that each member is a separate customs territory, thus making Taiwan's membership possible.

With regard to the China-Taiwan question, the EU has been very explicit with both sides, consistently insisting on a peaceful resolution through dialogue, as I mentioned. We were indeed very pleased, and said as much, when opposition politicians went there. We said that we encouraged them to do such things with all other politicians.

The whole question of the United Nations, of multilateral diplomacy, is very important. We stand before a reform of the United Nations. China will have a very important say there. We would like to work in a very constructive way.

I should like to pay tribute to Mrs Stenzel and other colleagues for this interesting mission to the DPRK. It would be in all our interests if the six-party talks were resumed. If needed, we are always standing ready. There is no need for the European Union to come in, but if there is a need – we have always mentioned that to all the parties – then certainly we would be prepared and ready.

I thank you for this highly satisfactory discussion. We must accept a China that will rise with or without us. Therefore, we must focus all our interests in shaping that rise to ensure that China emerges as an open society committed to the rule of law at home and abroad and also as a power that acts responsibly regionally and with regard to global security and, hopefully, in the future, democratically. It is now at a critical place in the global supply chain, meaning that the significant EU business and consumer interests also need to be consolidated and advanced. We need to influence the reform process in all areas of society and the economy. We try to do that in our bilateral talks, in our troika talks, within the framework of the different international organisations, or at the United Nations.

(Applause)

  President.   I have received five motions for resolutions¹⁽¹⁾ to wind up the debate, tabled pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on 7 July 2005.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Filip Andrzej Kaczmarek (PPE-DE).  – (PL) Security in the Far East is of crucial importance, particularly for those people who suffer from the lack of security in the region on a daily basis. I ask the House to imagine how it must feel to be a citizen of North Korea, condemned to endure the whims of Communist rulers; how it must feel to live in Taiwan, and to go about one’s daily life in the face of anti-secession efforts by the People’s Republic of China; or how it must feel to be a Tibetan, and to have become part of a minority in one’s own country. It is our duty to provide support to those in danger.

The ‘One China’ policy is only acceptable so long as it does not involve violating the Taiwanese people’s right to self-determination, and Taiwanese citizens must not suffer from its enforcement. The People’s Republic of China may be an economic tiger, but in democratic terms it is unfortunately anything but. The principle of territorial integrity would be easier to apply if the country were a democratic state under the rule of law. Until the People’s Republic of China improves its human rights record, however, any pressure brought to bear by it on Taiwan will be unacceptable.

Europe has succeeded in overcoming the political effects of the Cold War, whereas Asia has not managed to overcome the political, economic and social effects of a real war, namely the Korean War. It is debatable whether or not North Korea lost this war, but there can be no doubt that ordinary people did. These people are entitled to lead a normal life, instead of living in an open-air museum of Communist totalitarianism.

(1) ¹ See Minutes.