Doslovný zápis z rozpráv

Streda, 6. júla 2005 - Štrasburg

27. Vzťahy medzi Európskou úniou, Čínou a Taiwanom, ako aj bezpečnosť na Ďalekom východe

  Předseda. Dalším bodem pořadu jednání je prohlášení Rady a Komise týkající se vztahů mezi Evropskou unií, Čínou a Tchaj-wanem a bezpečnost na dálném Východě.

  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 a! nd 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, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr verehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrter Herr Ratsvertreter! Eigentlich müssten wir jetzt doppelt so viel Zeit bekommen, um auf die ausgezeichneten Ausführungen der Vorredner in der Sache richtig antworten zu können. Deshalb kann ich nur stichwortartig vorgehen.

Ich glaube, wir sind uns einig, dass die Spannungen zwischen den verschiedenen Staaten im Fernen Osten ernst genommen werden müssen, sei es die Spannung zwischen Japan und China, sei es die Spannung zwischen Nordkorea und Japan. Sie können das bis nach Russland hin verfolgen, etwa bei der Frage der vier Inseln, die seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg immer noch besetzt sind. Es ist ganz wichtig, dass wir als Europa einen vernünftigen Beitrag leisten, und zwar nicht nur aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen, Frau Kommissarin, sondern auch aus politischen Gründen. Wir sind uns doch alle einig – und ich nehme an, der Ratsvertreter wird mir zustimmen –, dass wir Demokratie, Menschenrechte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit fördern wollen, und dass wir es als langfristige Grundlage für vernünftige wirtschaftliche Beziehungen ansehen, dass wir auf gleicher Basis arbeiten.

Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben zu Recht auf den erfolgreichen Gipfel Japan/EU im Mai in Luxemburg hingewiesen. Aber manchmal habe ich das Gefühl, dass Rats- und Kommissionsvertreter dreimal so oft in Peking wie in Tokio sind. Auch der Besuch von Taipeh wäre nicht falsch. Taiwan und Japan sind schließlich beides Länder, die Demokratien mit Mehrparteiencharakter haben, in denen es Menschenrechte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit gibt. Beides haben wir in der Volksrepublik China noch nicht gesehen, und es ist nur in sehr weiter Ferne überhaupt absehbar. Man bräuchte eine größere Ausgewogenheit der Besuche und der Kontakte, um darzustellen, dass Demokratien untereinander zusammenarbeiten müssen.

Ich würde gerne vom Rat noch wissen, wie es nun mit den weiteren Überlegungen zur Aufhebung des Waffenembargos aussieht. Wir als Parlament haben drei ganz klare Voraussetzungen: Erstens brauchen wir – wie Sie – wesentliche Fortschritte bei der Menschenrechtssituation in China. Zweitens müssen die Spannungen zwischen Taiwan und China aufhören. Man kann in ein solches Spannungsgebiet, wo China Taiwan mit über 700 an seiner Küste aufgestellten Raketen bedroht, doch nicht Waffen liefern! Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben ein bisschen gemogelt. Soll nun der Waffenkodex rechtlich verbindlich sein? Wenn ja, wann? Denn das ist für uns auch eine Voraussetzung, um überhaupt über eine Aufhebung des Waffenembargos reden zu können.

Wir müssen alles tun, damit die Länder in Asien das, was wir in Europa erreicht haben, nämlich sechzig Jahre nach Ende des zweiten Weltkrieges die Aussöhnung zu schaffen, auch erreichen. Wir sollten sie deshalb aufmuntern, den gleichen Prozess der Aussöhnung zu forcieren, denn ohne Aussöhnung gibt es keine Stabilität und keine Sicherheit.

  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, a ALDE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Az Európai Parlament meggyőző többséggel foglalt állást a kínai fegyverembargó fenntartása mellett. Ennek az embargónak mindaddig fenn kell maradnia, amíg az elrendelés okai fennállnak. Például, amíg több mint százan börtönben vannak a Tienamnen téri tiltakozás résztvevői közül. A példák mutatják, hogy az embargó ellenére is fejlődnek a gazdasági kapcsolatok, tehát ez semmiképpen nem befolyásolja a gazdasági kapcsolatokat, de a politikai kapcsolatokra nézve iránymutató kell legyen. Én személy szerint bízom a brit elnökség álláspontjában, én úgy tapasztaltam, hogy az Egyesült Királyságnak egyértelmű, világos álláspontja van ebben a kérdésben és ehhez gratulálok.

A másik fontos kérdés: Tajvan 1997 óta szeretne megfigyelői státuszt szerezni az Egészségügyi Világszervezetben. Minden évben elutasítják, sajnos ebben az évben is ez történt, és sajnos a tagállamok együttműködésével utasították el. Pedig úgy vélem, hogy Tajvan 23 millió lakosának joga van arra a biztonságra és védelemre, amit az Egészségügyi Világszervezet tud nyújtani számukra, de fordítva is igaz ez, nekünk is szükségünk van arra a tudásra, tapasztalatra – és azt kell mondjam, azokra az anyagi eszközökre is –, amelyeket Tajvan tudna biztosítani számunkra. Teljesen érthetetlen, hogy miért utasítják el Tajvannak ezt a kérését. Nem kívánom megkérdőjelezni az "egy Kína" politikát, de ennek ehhez nincs köze. Tajvan ma is részese számos nemzetközi együttműködésnek, így például a Nemzetközi Kereskedelmi Szervezetnek tagja, részese az APEC gazdasági együttműködésnek, és más nemzetközi szerveze! teknek is. Ugyanakkor az Egészségügyi Világszervezetben megfigyelői tagsággal rendelkezik a Szentszék, a Máltai Lovagrend, a Vöröskereszt, a Vörösfélhold, sőt még az Interparlamentáris Unió is. Ezek után teljes mértékben abszurd dolog, hogy Tajvant elutasítják. Kérem az elnökséget és a Bizottságot, győzzék meg a tagállamokat, hogy jövő évben vegyék fel megfigyelőként Tajvant az Egészségügyi Világszervezetbe.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor Presidente, efectivamente China desempeña un papel fundamental, tanto en la política exterior como en la política comercial europeas. Por ello, precisamente, es tan importante que la Unión Europea se asegure de que su política con relación a China contribuye a mejorar los estándares sociales, ambientales y de derechos humanos, y de que no pone en riesgo la estabilidad y la seguridad regionales.

En este contexto, coincido en que resultan preocupantes algunas de las acciones que recientemente han protagonizado las autoridades chinas, como, por ejemplo, en relación con Taiwán, la adopción de la ley antisecesión.

Hay que recordar también que la Unión Europea sólo podrá aceptar un acuerdo entre China y Taiwán si es el resultado de un diálogo pacífico entre las partes y, especialmente, si es respetuoso con los progresos democráticos hechos por Taiwán.

Por otra parte, como también se ha dicho, respecto al embargo de armas hay que recordar que es preciso mantenerlo intacto, al menos mientras no haya un avance notable en relación con los derechos humanos, lo que incluye también la situación del Tíbet, hasta que se aclare suficientemente lo que ocurrió en Tiananmen y, sobre todo desde mi punto de vista, hasta que el Código de conducta de la Unión Europea se convierta en un texto jurídicamente vinculante.

Por ello, quiero instar al representante del Consejo a que nos alegre este agosto con la adopción de un estatuto jurídicamente vinculante para el Código de conducta, lo cual sería muy celebrado por esta Cámara.

  Erik Meijer, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het oordeel van mijn fractie over de Volksrepubliek China en over de regering die zetelt op het eiland Taiwan was lange tijd eenvoudig. In 1949 was een oude, onbekwame profiteurskliek die niet in staat was een oplossing te bieden voor armoede en onrecht, terecht door het volk weggejaagd. Zij waren gevlucht naar een eiland waar de bevolking zich in meerderheid geen Chinees voelde en dat tot 1945 langdurig niet bij China hoorde. Op dat eiland vestigden zij een militaire dictatuur die probeerde aanvallen te doen op het vasteland. Uiteindelijk verloor dat oude regime zijn internationale erkenning en werd het uit de Verenigde Naties gezet.

Op het vasteland vonden ondertussen allerlei interessante experimenten plaats, zoals industrialisatie van het platteland en een ingrijpende reorganisatie van de landbouw. De komst van fabrieken, spoorlijnen en stuwdammen hielp het land vooruit. Helaas werden bij die experimenten, zoals de Grote Sprong Voorwaarts en de Culturele Revolutie, als gevolg van onervarenheid grote fouten gemaakt die veel mensen het leven hebben gekost. Dat leek de prijs voor een goede toekomst.

Inmiddels is China onder leiding van de erfgenamen van dit revolutionaire bewind nog steeds een land met toekomst, maar de politieke lijn is volstrekt gewijzigd. De Volksrepubliek is nu een supersnelle groeier, maar wel een met grote ongelijkheid, met doodstraffen en zonder democratie of vrijheid van organisatie. Het model lijkt vooralsnog op wat men in Zuid-Korea en Taiwan inmiddels terecht heeft verlaten.

Taiwan heeft zich ontwikkeld van een militaire dictatuur tot een steeds meer met Europa en Japan vergelijkbare parlementaire democratie. Tot die democratie behoort ook dat de wens naar voren komt voor een niet-Chinees, dus onafhankelijk Taiwan. Bij het zoeken naar een oplossing voor een 56-jaar durende deling van wat internationaal wordt erkend als Chinees grondgebied zullen we rekening moeten houden met die nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Alleen zo kunnen we vreedzame oplossingen voor de toekomst helpen vinden.

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de IND/DEM-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ontspanning tussen China en Taiwan zou de veiligheidssituatie in het Verre Oosten aanmerkelijk verbeteren. De huidige situatie oogt daar allesbehalve naar. Voor Raad en Commissie de urgente taak een zakelijker relatie tussen Beijing en Taipei te bevorderen. De sterke Europese handelspositie met beiden biedt daartoe niet alleen de objectieve mogelijkheid, maar noopt er evenzeer toe vanuit het eigenbelang. Eén ding is duidelijk, het volstrekt premature voornemen van de Raad tot opheffing van het wapenembargo tegen de Volksrepubliek heeft, in combinatie met de recente Chinese anti-afscheidingswet, het regionale spanningsveld enorm versterkt. Strategische onnadenkendheid wedijvert hier met een schrijnend gebrek aan inter-Europese diplomatieke confrontatie, respectievelijk trans-Atlantische raadpleging. Naar ik hoop keert de Raad onder Brits voorzitterschap van deze onveilige weg terug. Indien de Europese Unie haar strategische verantwoordelijkheid waarneemt voor h! et Verre Oosten, ondersteunt zij flexibele cross-Straits relations.

De tijd heeft ook op Taiwan niet stilgestaan. Sinds jaren al is er sprake van de ontwikkeling van een eigen nationale identiteit. Voeg daaraan een indrukwekkende democratisering toe. Ziehier de kern van het Taiwan-conflict van vandaag. Bovendien houden de Taiwanezen begrijpelijkerwijs de ontwikkelingen in Hongkong van de laatste jaren in het achterhoofd. Raad en Commissie, commercieel ziet u Taiwan bepaald niet over het hoofd. Diplomatiek lijkt dat, treurig genoeg, wel het geval en daarom sluit ik mij van harte aan bij paragraaf 9 van de ontwerpresolutie. Ondersteun een Taiwanees waarnemerschap bij de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie en geef 23 miljoen vrije Taiwainezen een stem en een gezicht in internationale fora. Zo werkt de Europese Unie mee aan de broodnodige inter-Chinese dialoog.

  Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący, Pani Komisarz, Panie Ministrze! Ogłoszenie przez Chińską Republikę Ludową tzw. „prawa antysecesyjnego” to kluczowy moment dla bezpieczeństwa w regionie Dalekiego Wschodu. Chińska Republika Ludowa, uchwalając ustawę ostentacyjnie sprzeczną z prawem międzynarodowym, pokazała światu, że wraz z urynkowieniem części gospodarki i otwarciem się świata zachodniego na kontakty z Chinami, nie następuje upragnione złagodzenie reżimu w Pekinie.

Chiny wiedząc, że Tajwańczycy nigdy nie zgodzą się na unifikację w sposób dobrowolny, przygotowują się do zbrojnej napaści na ten demokratyczny i dobrze prosperujący kraj. Tylko od naszej reakcji zależy, jaki będzie finał tego procesu, który zaczął się od wydatków na zbrojenia, którego kolejnym krokiem była ta skandaliczna ustawa, której z kolei prostą aplikacją jest wycelowanie 600 pocisków balistycznych w kierunku Tajwanu.

Część reakcji europejskich już znamy. W tym samym czasie, kiedy Chiny dokonują swojej prowokacji, prezydent Francji - kraju o najwyższym bilansie handlowym z Chinami spośród krajów europejskich, ogłasza, że embargo na eksport broni do Chin nie ma już sensu i jest wyrazem wrogości. Wtóruje mu kanclerz Niemiec. Jest to najgorsza z możliwych odpowiedzi. Jeśli posłuchamy tych rad, możemy uzbroić kraj, który nie ukrywa swych agresywnych zamiarów wobec sąsiadów.

Europa potrzebuje innej odpowiedzi na tzw. „ustawę antysecesyjną”. Potrzebuje ona utrzymania embarga i zacieśnienia aktywnej polityki wspierania międzynarodowej pozycji Tajwanu w ścisłej współpracy ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi. Status quo, którego chcieliśmy do tej pory bronić, został podważony. Został podważony jednostronnie przez Chińską Republikę Ludową.

Słuchając tej debaty, pozwolę sobie na jeszcze jedno, może trochę żartobliwe spostrzeżenie. Gdybyśmy w Europie mieli ogólnoeuropejski zakaz pochwały ustrojów totalitarnych, to mam wrażenie, że posłowie postkomunistyczni nie wychodziliby z więzienia ani na jeden dzień i mielibyśmy Parlament, który by funkcjonował w składzie mniejszym o 50 osób.

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, nous savons que la Chine, de par son influence sur la Corée du Nord, détient les clefs de la paix dans cette région du monde. Mais l'attitude de plus en plus agressive de la Chine communiste à l'égard de Taiwan constitue une menace d'autant plus grave pour cette paix que les dirigeants de Pékin disposent de l'arme nucléaire. Ces derniers, depuis 1949, n'ont pas renoncé à annexer Taiwan, devenue grâce au courage de ces habitants, une des économies les plus dynamiques du Pacifique et un modèle de démocratie dans une région où les régimes totalitaires sont encore nombreux.

Cette agressivité ne sera pas apaisée par les compromissions auxquelles se livrent quelques dirigeants européens, au premier rang desquels se trouve M. Chirac, qui est allé jusqu'à inviter dans son château le dictateur communiste chinois. Seule une attitude ferme et décidée amènera les autorités de Pékin à faire des compromis et notamment à reconnaître le droit à l'autodétermination des Taiwanais. Aussi longtemps qu'ils ne le feront pas, les États de l'Union européenne devront maintenir l'embargo sur les armes destinées à la Chine communiste. Si nos gouvernements adoptaient une autre politique, non seulement ils trahiraient les valeurs de liberté et de démocratie dont ils ne cessent de se prévaloir et de se réclamer, mais ils compromettraient gravement la stabilité de l'Extrême Orient.

  Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Ratspräsident, Frau Kommissarin! Ich begrüße die Entschließung über die Sicherheit im Fernen Osten. Vor allem begrüße ich den Umstand, dass diese Entschließung auf einem breiten Konsens aller Fraktionen beruht. Sie bestimmt daher auch den politischen Rahmen, innerhalb dessen die morgen beginnende Korea-Mission stattfindet, in der ich die Ehre habe, den Vorsitz zu führen. Es hat ja bereits vorher zwei Ad-hoc-Missionen gegeben, aber seit es erstmals die Parlamentarische Delegation für die koreanische Halbinsel gibt, ist dies die erste Mission des Europäischen Parlaments nach Nord- und Südkorea überhaupt.

Der politische Hintergrund dieser Reise ist, dass das Europäische Parlament die Europäische Union als siebten Verhandlungspartner in die Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche ins Spiel bringen möchte. Auch liegt es in unserem Interesse, dass Nordkorea seine Isolation überwindet, um entsprechende humanitäre Hilfe der EU zu erhalten. Die Rückkehr zum Verhandlungstisch sowie der überprüfbare Abbau und Verzicht auf Nuklearbewaffnung sind eine wesentliche Voraussetzung nicht nur für die Annäherung der beiden Koreas und damit die Entspannung der Region, sondern auch für den Zugang zu größerer europäischer Unterstützung.

Auch in der Volksrepublik China, wo wir Gelegenheit haben werden, mit Vertretern des außenpolitischen Komitees des Volkskongresses zusammenzutreffen, sind uns die Kernaussagen dieser Entschließung eine politische Vorgabe. Vor allem ist es der Wunsch, dass die Volksrepublik China einen deutlichen Einfluss auf die Haltung Nordkoreas nehmen möge, um einen konkreten Termin für die Wiederaufnahme der Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche zu nennen und auf diese Weise eine politische Lösung zu ermöglichen. In diesem Sinne bieten wir, die europäischen Parlamentarier, unsere guten Dienste an.

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – A Távol-Kelet biztonságának és további fejlődésének megőrzése érdekében szeretném felhívni azon országok kormányainak figyelmét, akik még mindig vitás területi kérdésekkel rendelkeznek, hogy kétoldalú tárgyalások formájában minél előbb rendezzék azokat. Napjainkban a második világháborúval kapcsolatban még mindig felmerülő nézetkülönbségek rámutatnak arra, hogy a történelmi múlttal való szembenézés és annak feldolgozása még várat magára a régióban. A térség biztonságának egyik kérdése a 2005. márciusában a Kínai Népköztársaság által elfogadott elszakadásellenes törvény. Fontosnak tartom a térség status quo-jának megőrzését, és támogatom a kérdés békés, a felek közti párbeszéd útján történő rendezését, az "egy Kína" elv szem előtt tartásával.

Sajnálatomnak adok hangot azzal kapcsolatban, hogy Észak-Korea 2005. februárjában bejelentette, hogy atomfegyverekkel rendelkezik, kilép az Atomsorompó Szerződésből és a hatoldalú tárgyalásokat meghatározatlan időre felfüggeszti. Szeretném leszögezni, hogy továbbra is a hatoldalú multilaterális tárgyalásokat tekintem a rendezés elsődleges keretének, és az azon született elvi egyetértést az atomfegyvermentes Koreai-félsziget megteremtéséről. Remélem, hogy Észak-Korea mihamarabb felülvizsgálja álláspontját, és nemzetközi garanciák biztosítása mellett visszatér a szerződéses keretek közé.

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN). – Cienījamie kolēģi, komisāres kundze, Padomes pārstāvji! Eiropas Savienība vienmēr ir akcentējusi demokrātijas veicināšanu un brīvības tiesiskumu, un cilvēktiesību atbalstīšanu visā pasaulē. Šiem mērķiem ir jābūt demokrātiskas Eiropas stratēģiskai prioritātei un morālai nepieciešamībai, kas vērsta uz civilās sabiedrības un demokrātijas institūtu nostiprināšanu pasaules trešajās valstīs. Šiem aspektiem būtu jābūt noteicošiem, vērtējot Eiropas Savienības, Ķīnas un Taivānas attiecības, kā arī drošību Tālajos Austrumos.

Tāpēc īpaši aicinu paturēt prātā ieroču tirdzniecības embargo pret Ķīnu noteikšanas apstākļus. Nav noslēpums, ka no ieroču tirdzniecības viedokļa embargo pret Ķīnu praktiski nedarbojas. Tāpēc embargo būtu jāvērtē nevis kā ieroču izplatības ierobežošanas mehānisms, bet tikai kā Eiropas Savienības politisks instruments novērtējumam par demokrātijas un cilvēktiesību aspektiem Ķīnā. Tātad vēlme atcelt embargo liecina, ka demokrātijas, brīvības, tiesiskuma un cilvēktiesību jautājumi Ķīnā Komisijai, šķiet, bažas vairs nerada. Vai tiešām tā ir? Vai tā nav liekulība? Vai tiešām Komisija, Francijas, Vācijas vai Nīderlandes valdības, meklējot iespējas ekonomiskiem darījumiem Ķīnā, neredz, ka tur turpinās disidentu apspiešana, Falun Gong piekritēju vajāšana, demokrātijas un brīvības ierobežošana Hongkongā, ka pret demokrātisko Taivānu ir pavērstas vairāk ka septiņsimt Ķīnas raķetes, ka autoritārā Ķīna šajā pavasarī ir likumā nostiprinājusi tiesības veikt militāru iebrukumu demokrātiju attīstošā Taivānā?

Cienījamie kolēģi, šī ir reize, kad Eiropas Parlamentam atkal ir jāatgādina, ka Eiropas atsevišķas amatpersonas, valstu pārstāvji, risinot šauri ekonomiskās intereses, rīkojas saskaņā ar dubultiem standartiem — iedrošina Ķīnu, rāda gatavību ignorēt demokrātiskus ideālus. Šāda attieksme ne tikai mazina drošību Tālajos Austrumos, bet nākotnē kā bumerangs var ietekmēt drošību un stabilitāti arī pašā Eiropā.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – Voorzitter, het wapenembargo tegen China werd ingesteld om te protesteren tegen de bloedige onderdrukking van het studentenverzet op het Tian An Men-plein in 1989. Is er sindsdien, in 16 jaar tijd, iets fundamenteel veranderd op het vlak van de mensenrechten in China? Hoegenaamd niets. Op het Tian An Men-plein hangt trouwens nog altijd een reusachtig portret van Mao Zedong, de grootste massamoordenaar van de twintigste eeuw.

Vandaag de dag zijn er nog altijd mensen die voor hun aanwezigheid op het Tian An Men-plein in de gevangenis zitten. Het zijn trouwens niet de enige politieke gevangenen, want de zogenaamde Volksrepubliek is nog altijd een communistische éénpartijstaat waar geen vrijheid van meningsuiting bestaat, waar geen vrijheid van drukpers bestaat, waar geen vrijheid van godsdienst bestaat.

Eergisteren bijvoorbeeld werd monseigneur Jia Zhiguo, bisschop van de nog altijd ondergrondse katholieke kerk in China gearresteerd. Hij bracht al meer dan twintig jaar van zijn leven door in gevangenschap. De Volksrepubliek China schendt niet alleen op systematische en permanente manier de mensenrechten, maar vormt ook een bedreiging voor de regionale stabiliteit en dus voor de vrede tout court. De zogenaamde anti-afscheidingswet is een mes op de keel van Taiwan.

De Europese Unie blaast tegelijkertijd warm en koud. Enerzijds verklaart men dat de situatie voor de mensenrechten in China moet verbeteren, anderzijds wil men het wapenembargo opheffen en het Chinese regime het signaal sturen dat men het niet te nauw hoeft te nemen met die mensenrechten. Men prijst Taiwan, terecht, voor het economisch succes en voor de reële democratie, maar men maakt de Volksrepubliek niet duidelijk dat een aantasting van de integriteit van Taiwan onaanvaardbaar is. Een strategisch partnerschap met China mag in die omstandigheden geen doel op zich zijn, zoals ook de zogenaamde One China Policy ook geen doel op zich moet blijven.

Als Taiwan ooit formeel zijn onafhankelijkheid uitroept, dan moet Europa die onafhankelijkheid onmiddellijk erkennen en moeten onze lidstaten diplomatieke betrekkingen met Taiwan aanknopen.

  Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, εκπρόσωποι της Προεδρίας, οι τακτικές επισκέψεις στις Βρυξέλλες και στο Στρασβούργο Κινέζων επισήμων αντιπροσώπων και οι συναντήσεις τους με εκπροσώπους του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου αναδεικνύουν το ενδιαφέρον ανάπτυξης της σχέσης της Κίνας με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Παράλληλα όμως έφεραν στην επιφάνεια διαφορές και σε πολιτικό επίπεδο που αργά αλλά σταθερά οδηγούν τις δύο πλευρές σε υποχρεωτική και αρμονική συμβίωση, γιατί η Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Κίνας έχει ανάγκη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση την Κίνα. Επιπλέον, δεν πιστεύω ότι αποτελεί απειλή η παρουσία της Κίνας και της Ινδίας στο χώρο του διεθνούς εμπορίου, όπως ισχυρίσθηκε εδώ πρόσφατα, στην πρώτη του εμφάνιση, ο ασκών την Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου, Tony Blair. Αντίθετα, θα υποστήριζε κάποιος ότι είναι μία καλή ευκαιρία προσέγγισης των λ�! �ών σε όλους τους τομείς συνεργασίας και ευγενούς άμιλλας, μια μοναδική ευκαιρία, όπου η προσέγγιση σε όλα τα επίπεδα θα δώσει λύσεις ακόμη και σε εκκρεμότητες, όπως ανάμεσα στην Κίνα και στην Ταϊβάν, που ζητά την απόσχιση, στην άρση του εμπάργκο πώλησης όπλων εις βάρος της Κίνας από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες και τέλος στην εξάλειψη της παράνομης και αδιευκρίνιστης εξαγωγής προϊόντων, ιδιαίτερα στον τομέα των φαρμάκων, της ηλεκτρονικής τεχνολογίας, των κλωστοϋφαντουργικών και των ειδών ένδυσης.

Δεν είναι συμπτωματικό το γεγονός ότι μπροστά στα αδιέξοδα το κινέζικο καράβι προσπαθεί να συμβιβασθεί. Οι διμερείς σχέσεις που έχει αναπτύξει η Κίνα με κράτη σε όλο τον κόσμο αυξάνονται και επεκτείνονται με γοργούς ρυθμούς, από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες και τη Λατινική Αμερική μέχρι την Ευρώπη. Είναι αρκετό όμως αυτό ή χρειάζονται συντονισμένες ενέργειες από την πλευρά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ώστε οι στόχοι αυτοί να είναι κοινοί και ενιαίοι;

Ένας από τους μεγάλους αυτούς στόχους επιτεύχθηκε την περασμένη εβδομάδα - το ακούσαμε προηγουμένως. Η υπογραφή για συνεργασία για "ανοικτούς ουρανούς" - αύξηση στον τομέα των πτήσεων μεταξύ Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και Πεκίνου - από τον Αντιπρόεδρο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, τον Jacques Barrot, είναι δείγμα καλής θέλησης. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι ανάγκη, κατά συνέπεια, να επισπεύσει τις διαδικασίες ρύθμισης των εκκρεμοτήτων με την Κίνα. Ο άνεμος που πνέει θα έχει σύντομα ανυπολόγιστη ταχύτητα και τότε μόνο ένα Σινικό Τείχος θα μπορούσε να συγκρατήσε! ι τον τυφώνα που λέγεται Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Κίνας.

Κλείνοντας θέλω να ευχηθώ καλή επιτυχία στο Λονδίνο για το 2012, ανάλογη επιτυχία με αυτή της Αθήνας των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων του 2004, παρά τις όποιες αμφιβολίες είχε το Λονδίνο τότε. Και ευχές ακόμη γιατί η Μεγάλη Βρετανία έχει τη δυνατότητα σε συνδυασμό με το Πεκίνο του 2008 να επιτύχει ακόμη μεγαλύτερη σύσφιγξη στις σχέσεις.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – Dámy a pánové, kritici Evropy často tvrdí, že Evropa je příliš zahleděna do sebe, že si maximálně všímá svého okolí, že si nevšímá problémů, např. ve východní Asii. Já myslím, že dnešní debata ukazuje pravý opak, že jsme si vědomi výzev, které přicházejí z východní Asie, rostoucího postavení Číny i postavení Japonska, Severní Koreji, Jižní Koreji a samozřejmě i bezpečnostních problémů, které ve východní Asii panují.

Pokud jde o Čínu, já plně sdílím názor předsedající země Velké Británie, že je potřeba posílit globální dialog, že Evropa a Čína jsou globálními partnery, že společně musí řešit globální výzvy jako je bezpečnost, energetická bezpečnost, jako jsou klimatické změny. Tento dialog, toto partnerství, které, jak já též věřím, bude zarámováno do té rámcové dohody, nevylučuje a naopak podporuje dialog na poli lidských práv. Byl zde zmíněný Tchaj-wan, byla zde zmíněna Jižní Korea, právě tyto dvě země ukazují, jak je možné z totalitní autoritářské země postupně krok za krokem budovat demokracii. A já jsem toho názoru, že zesílený dialog s Čínou právě na poli lidských práv může vést k podobnému výsledku.

  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)

  Předseda. Na závěr této rozpravy jsem obdržel pět návrhů usnesení¹⁽¹⁾ předložených podle čl. 103 odst. 2 jednacího řádu.

Rozprava je tímto uzavřena.

Hlasování proběhne 7. července 2005.

Písemné prohlášení (článek 142)

  Filip Andrzej Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – Bezpieczeństwo na Dalekim Wschodzie jest ważne. Jest ważne szczególnie dla tych, którzy codziennie odczuwają deficyt bezpieczeństwa. Proszę sobie wyobrazić jak mogą się czuć mieszkańcy Korei Północnej skazani na kaprysy swych komunistycznych władców. Jak czują się mieszkańcy Tajwanu, gdy muszą konfrontować swe codzienne życie z tzw. antysecjonistycznymi tendencjami ChRL? Jak czują się Tybetańczycy, którzy stali się mniejszością we własnym kraju? Naszym obowiązkiem jest wspierać tych, którzy są w niebezpieczeństwie.

Zasada "jednych Chin" jest akceptowalna, ale jest akceptowalna do momentu, w którym jej stosowanie nie narusza innej zasady - zasady samostanowienia mieszkańców Tajwanu. Polityka "jednych Chin" nie może doprowadzić do sytuacji, gdy ofiarą jej stosowania będą mieszkańcy Tajwanu. ChRL jest tygrysem ekonomicznym, ale niestety nie jest tygrysem demokracji. Gdyby ChRL była demokratycznym państwem prawa łatwiej byłoby stosować zasadę integralności terytorialnej. Dopóki jednak prawa człowieka nie są tam przestrzegane, nie można akceptować presji ChRL wywieranej na Tajwan.

Europie udało się przezwyciężyć polityczne skutki zimnej wojny. W Azji nie udało się przezwyciężyć politycznych, ekonomicznych i społecznych skutków prawdziwej wojny - wojny koreańskiej. Można dyskutować czy Korea Północna przegrała tę wojnę czy nie. Pewne jest natomiast, że przegrali ją zwykli ludzie. Ludzie, którzy mają prawo, aby żyć normalnie, a nie w skansenie komunistycznego totalitaryzmu.

(1) ¹ Viz zápis.