Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.4.2-020"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@cs1
"Hr. formand, i det forgangne år er EU atter blevet beskyldt for ikke at leve op til sine menneskerettighedsforpligtelser ved at nægte at bruge menneskerettighedsklausuler i handels- og samarbejdsaftaler effektivt. Der var et vigtigt fortilfælde i Usbekistan efter massakren i Andijan, men det faktum, at det varede fire måneder, inden reaktionen kom, er en trist kommentar til den manglende seriøsitet, som klausulerne tidligere er håndteret med.
Trods enorme bekymringer vedrørende menneskerettigheder og EU's indflydelse i Mellemøsten er menneskerettighedsklausuler aldrig taget i anvendelse i forholdene til Egypten, Israel eller Tunesien - i sidstnævnte tilfælde trods EU-erklæringer i fjor om begrænsninger i ytringsfriheden og blokering af ngo-finansiering.
Med AVS-landene erkender jeg, at konsultationer i henhold til artikel 96 har fundet sted med 15 lande i de seneste otte år, og at de i 11 tilfælde har ført til hensigtsmæssige foranstaltninger. EU bevarer imidlertid tætte forbindelser med Angola, Etiopien og Rwanda trods sine fordømmelser af krænkelser i de pågældende lande og uden reelt pres eller reelle handlinger som opfølgning på fordømmelserne. I Eritrea har der hidtil været beskedne reaktioner på demarchen. Der er fortsat tilfælde af tvungne udskrivninger til militærtjeneste, tilfældige tilbageholdelser, chikanerier af flygtninge samt tortur.
Hvordan gør vi høringerne om menneskerettighedsklausulerne til en succes? Der er brug for forpligtelser fra tredjelandets side. I dag synes det i høj grad at afhænge af, hvorvidt landet er afhængigt af EU-bevillinger. Der er brug for koordinering mellem donorer, sådan som det f.eks. var tilfældet efter kuppet i Den Centralafrikanske Republik i 2003. Der er brug for at identificere overtrædelserne og de nødvendige trin for at korrigere dem som i sagen om Guinea-Bissau, hvor der blev afholdt frie og retfærdige valg inden for den opstillede tidsfrist. Og der er brug for en fortsat politisk dialog, noget der kan blokeres, og - som vi har set i dag - desværre manglede i Irans tilfælde.
Vi er enige med kommissæren om, at politiske årsager alt for ofte blokerer for aktioner fra medlemsstaternes side. Jeg finder hende ikke arrogant. Jeg synes, at hun er nobel, når hun værner om EU's urokkelige forpligtelse til at afskaffe dødsstraffen. Jeg var målløs, da Det Britiske Uafhængighedsparti i morges sagde, at vi skulle se gennem fingre med Kinas menneskerettighedskrænkelser, fordi vi har en god samhandel med landet. Jeg lykønsker kommissæren og ordføreren."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Im zurückliegenden Jahr sind erneut Vorwürfe gegen die EU laut geworden, sie versage in ihrem Engagement für Menschenrechte, weil sie sich weigere, Menschenrechtsklauseln in Handels- und Kooperationsabkommen effektiv anzuwenden. Ein wichtiger Präzedenzfall war das Geschehen nach dem Massaker im usbekischen Andijan, aber der Umstand, dass es vier Monate dauerte, bis man reagierte, ist ein trauriger Beleg dafür, dass die Anwendung dieser Klauseln bisher nicht mit der erforderlichen Ernsthaftigkeit betrieben wurde.
Trotz der erheblichen Bedenken im Bereich Menschenrechte und des Einflusses der EU im Nahen Osten sind die Menschenrechtsklauseln in den Beziehungen mit Ägypten, Israel oder Tunesien bisher nicht zum Tragen gekommen, im letzteren Fall trotz deutlicher Äußerungen von EU-Seite zu Beschränkungen der freien Meinungsäußerung und Blockierung von NRO-Mitteln.
Was die AKP-Länder anbelangt, räume ich ein, dass in den letzten acht Jahren mit 15 Ländern die so genannten Konsultationen nach Artikel 96 stattfanden, die in elf Fällen zu entsprechenden Maßnahmen führten. Allerdings unterhält die EU enge Beziehungen zu Angola, Äthiopien und Ruanda, und obwohl sie die Verstöße in diesen Ländern verurteilt, übt sie nicht wirklich Druck aus, so dass diese Verstöße folgenlos bleiben. In Eritrea hat man bisher kaum auf die Démarche reagiert: Zwangswehrpflicht, willkürliche Festnahmen, die Schikanierung von Flüchtlingen und die Anwendung von Folter gehen weiter.
Wie stellen wir sicher, dass die Konsultationen zu Menschenrechtsklauseln auch etwas bringen? Dafür ist auch das Engagement des Drittlands erforderlich. Dies scheint heute zu sehr von der Frage abzuhängen, wie dringend ein Land auf EU-Mittel angewiesen ist. Die Geber müssen sich, so wie beispielsweise nach dem Staatsstreich in der Zentralafrikanischen Republik 2003 geschehen, abstimmen. Verstöße müssen ermittelt und Gegenmaßnahmen festgelegt werden, wie etwa im Falle von Guinea-Bissau, als innerhalb des vorgegebenen Zeitplans freie und faire Wahlen abgehalten wurden. Und es ist erforderlich, einen engen politischen Dialog zu pflegen, was blockiert werden kann und – wie man heute gesehen hat – im Falle des Irans leider nicht geschehen ist.
Wir pflichten der Kommissarin bei, die sagte, dass allzu oft politische Gründe einem Handeln der Mitgliedstaaten im Wege stehen. Ich denke nicht, dass sie arrogant ist. Vielmehr halte ich ihr Festhalten am unbeirrbaren Einsatz der EU für ein Ende der Todesstrafe für idealistisch. Mir hat es die Sprache verschlagen, als die UK Independence Party heute morgen erklärte, wir könnten über die Menschenrechtsverletzungen in China einfach deshalb hinwegsehen, weil wir einen erfolgreichen Handel mit diesem Land betreiben. Ich beglückwünsche die Kommissarin und den Berichterstatter."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, για μία ακόμη φορά τον τελευταίο χρόνο η ΕΕ κατηγορείται ότι δεν τήρησε τη δέσμευσή της για τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα αρνούμενη να χρησιμοποιήσει αποτελεσματικά τις ρήτρες για τα δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου στις εμπορικές συμφωνίες και τις συμφωνίες συνεργασίας. Δημιουργήθηκε ένα σημαντικό προηγούμενο στο Ουζμπεκιστάν μετά τη σφαγή του Αμπιτζάν, αλλά το γεγονός ότι η αντίδραση καθυστέρησε κατά τέσσερις μήνες αποτελεί θλιβερή υπενθύμιση της έλλειψης σοβαρότητας ως προς την αντιμετώπιση των ρητρών στο παρελθόν.
Παρά τις σοβαρότατες ανησυχίες για τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και την επιρροή της ΕΕ στη Μέση Ανατολή, δεν έγινε ποτέ επίκληση της ρήτρας για τα δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου στις σχέσεις με την Αίγυπτο, το Ισραήλ ή την Τυνησία, στην τελευταία περίπτωση παρά τις έντονες δηλώσεις της ΕΕ πέρυσι για περιορισμούς στην ελευθερία έκφρασης και το πάγωμα χρηματοδότησης των ΜΚΟ.
Με τις χώρες ΑΚΕ, αναγνωρίζω ότι τα τελευταία οκτώ χρόνια πραγματοποιήθηκαν με 15 χώρες οι λεγόμενες διαβουλεύσεις του άρθρου 96 και σε 11 περιπτώσεις οδήγησαν στη λήψη των ενδεδειγμένων μέτρων. Ωστόσο, η ΕΕ διατηρεί στενές σχέσεις με την Αγκόλα, την Αιθιοπία και τη Ρουάντα, παρά την καταδίκη των παραβιάσεων στις εν λόγω χώρες και χωρίς καμία ουσιαστική πίεση ή δράση ενόψει αυτής της καταδίκης. Στην Ερυθραία, μικρή είναι η έως τώρα ανταπόκριση στα διαβήματα: συνεχίζεται η υποχρεωτική στρατιωτική επιστράτευση, η αυθαίρετη κράτηση, ο διωγμός των προσφύγων και η χρήση βασανιστηρίων.
Πώς διασφαλίζουμε την επιτυχία των διαβουλεύσεων σχετικά με τις ρήτρες για τα δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου; Απαιτείται δέσμευση από την πλευρά της τρίτης χώρας. Ιδιαίτερα σήμερα αυτό φαίνεται ότι εξαρτάται από το πόσο μεγάλη είναι η εξάρτηση από τη χρηματοδότηση της ΕΕ. Απαιτείται συντονισμός μεταξύ των δωρητών, όπως έγινε για παράδειγμα μετά το πραξικόπημα στην Κεντροαφρικανική Δημοκρατία το 2003. Απαιτείται εντοπισμός των παραβιάσεων και των μέτρων που πρέπει να ληφθούν για να διορθωθούν, όπως στην περίπτωση της Γουινέας-Μπισσάου, όπου διεξήχθησαν δίκαιες και ελεύθερες εκλογές εντός του καθορισμένου χρονοδιαγράμματος. Απαιτείται, τέλος, συνέχιση του στενού πολιτικού διαλόγου, κάτι το οποίο μπορεί να παγώσει και –όπως είδαμε σήμερα– απουσίαζε, δυστυχώς, στην περίπτωση του Ιράν.
Συμφωνούμε με την κ. Επίτροπο ότι πολύ συχνά πολιτικοί λόγοι εμποδίζουν τα κράτη μέλη να αναλάβουν δράση. Δεν πιστεύω ότι επιδεικνύει αλαζονεία· πιστεύω ότι είναι άξια τιμής όταν υπεραμύνεται της ακλόνητης προσήλωσης της ΕΕ στην κατάργηση της θανατικής ποινής. Μένω έκπληκτος από τη δήλωση σήμερα το πρωί του Κόμματος της Ανεξαρτησίας του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου ότι μπορούμε να κάνουμε τα στραβά μάτια στις παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στην Κίνα απλώς και μόνο επειδή έχουμε αποτελεσματικές εμπορικές σχέσεις μαζί της. Συγχαίρω την κ. Επίτροπο και τον εισηγητή."@el10
"Señor Presidente, una vez más, a lo largo el año pasado la UE fue acusada de faltar a su compromiso de defensa de los derechos humanos al negarse a hacer uso efectivo de las cláusulas de derechos humanos en los acuerdos comerciales y de cooperación. En Uzbekistán se sentó un importante precedente tras la masacre de Andizhán, pero el hecho de que la reacción tardara cuatro meses es un triste testimonio de la falta de seriedad que se daba a las cláusulas en el pasado.
Pese a la gran preocupación por los derechos humanos y la influencia de la UE en el Próximo Oriente, las cláusulas de derechos humanos no han sido invocadas nunca en relación con Egipto, Israel ni Túnez, en este último caso a pesar de las rotundas declaraciones de la UE del año pasado sobre los límites a la libertad de expresión y el bloqueo de la financiación de las ONG.
Con los países ACP reconozco que han tenido lugar las llamadas «consultas del artículo 96» en quince países durante los últimos ocho años, y once de esos casos han desembocado en las medidas oportunas. Sin embargo, la UE mantiene estrechas relaciones con Angola, Etiopía y Ruanda pese a condenar los abusos que tienen lugar allí y sin ejercer una auténtica presión ni acciones de ningún tipo tras esas condenas. En Eritrea, hasta ahora se ha respondido muy tímidamente a los acontecimientos: reclutamientos forzosos, detenciones arbitrarias, acoso a los refugiados y continuo recurso a la tortura.
¿Qué podemos hace para asegurar el éxito de las consultas sobre las cláusulas de derechos humanos? Es necesario un compromiso por parte del país tercero. Sin embargo, esto hoy parece estar demasiado ligado a la dependencia de los fondos de la UE. Es preciso identificar las violaciones y los pasos que hay que seguir para corregirlas, como en el caso de Guinea-Bissau, cuando se celebraron elecciones libres y limpias en el plazo previsto. Y hay que mantener un estrecho diálogo político, que puede bloquearse y como hemos visto hoy que lamentablemente tanta falta hacía en el caso de Irán.
Estamos de acuerdo con la Comisaria en que a menudo hay razones políticas que impiden la acción de los Estados miembros. No creo que ella sea arrogante; al contrario, veo nobleza en ella cuando defiende el inquebrantable compromiso por la abolición de la pena de muerte. Me parece asombroso que el Partido por la Independencia del Reino Unido haya dicho esta mañana que debemos mirar a otro lado ante las violaciones a los derechos humanos en China simplemente porque comerciamos con ese país. Felicito a la Comisaria y al ponente."@es20
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, EU:ta on jälleen kerran kuluneena vuonna syytetty siitä, ettei se ole täyttänyt ihmisoikeuksia koskevaa sitoumustaan kieltäytyessään hyödyntämästä tehokkaasti ihmisoikeuslausekkeita kauppa- ja yhteistyösopimuksissaan. Andijanissa Uzbekistanissa tapahtuneen verilöylyn jälkeinen tilanne asetti merkittävän ennakkotapauksen, mutta verilöylyyn reagoitiin joka tapauksessa vasta neljän kuukauden kuluttua tapahtumasta, mikä osoittaa ikävällä tavalla sen, ettei lausekkeeseen ole suhtauduttu viime aikoina vakavasti.
Ihmisoikeuslausekkeisiin ei ole vedottu kertaakaan Egyptin, Israelin tai Tunisian tapauksessa, vaikka näiden maiden ihmisoikeustilanne herättää erityistä huolta ja vaikka EU:lla on huomattavasti vaikutusvaltaa Lähi-idässä. Tunisian tapauksessa EU antoi viime vuonna vahvoja julkilausumia sananvapauden tukahduttamisesta ja kansalaisjärjestöjen rahoituksen jäädyttämisestä.
AKT-valtioiden tapauksessa niin sanottuihin 96 artiklaan perustuviin kuulemisiin on kahdeksan viime vuoden aikana ryhdytty 15 valtion kanssa, ja asianmukaisia toimia toteutettiin 11 tapauksessa. EU:lla on kuitenkin läheiset suhteet Angolaan, Etiopiaan ja Ruandaan, vaikka se on tuominnut maissa tapahtuvat ihmisoikeusrikkomukset, mutta se ei ole ryhtynyt painostukseen tai toimiin näiden tuomitsemisten tueksi. Eritrea ei ole juurikaan reagoinut toimiin tähän mennessä, vaan pakkovärväykset sotajoukkoihin, mielivaltainen vangitseminen, pakolaisten vainoaminen ja kiduttaminen jatkuvat.
Kuinka varmistamme ihmisoikeuslausekkeita koskevien kuulemisten tehokkuuden? Tähän tarvitaan kyseisen kolmannen maan sitoumusta. Liian moniin asioihin näyttää nykyisin vaikuttavan se, kuinka riippuvaisia maat ovat EU:n tuesta. Tarvitaan avunantajien välistä koordinointia, kuten Keski-Afrikan tasavallan vuoden 2003 vallankaappauksen jälkeen. Rikkomukset on yksilöitävä, ja toimia on toteutettava rikkomusten korjaamiseksi, kuten Guinea-Bissaun tapauksessa: siellähän järjestettiin vapaat ja oikeudenmukaiset vaalit asetetussa määräajassa. Lisäksi on jatkettava tiivistä poliittista vuoropuhelua, joka voidaan tarvittaessa keskeyttää. Tänään havaittiin, että nämä tavoitteet valitettavasti puuttuivat Iranin tapausta käsiteltäessä.
Olemme samaa mieltä komission jäsenen kanssa siitä, että jäsenvaltioiden toiminta estyy liian usein poliittisista syistä. En pidä komission jäsentä ylimielisenä. Mielestäni hän puolustaa ylväästi EU:n järkkymätöntä sitoutumista kuolemanrangaistuksen lakkauttamiseen. Mielestäni on järkyttävää, että UKIP-puolueen edustajat totesivat tänä aamuna, että voisimme sulkea silmämme Kiinan ihmisoikeusrikkomuksilta ainoastaan siksi, että käymme sen kanssa paljon kauppaa. Kiitän komission jäsentä ja esittelijää."@fi7
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, nel corso dell’ultimo anno l’Unione europea è stata nuovamente accusata di essere venuta meno all’impegno assunto nei confronti dei diritti umani rifiutandosi di utilizzare effettivamente le clausole relative ai diritti dell’uomo negli accordi commerciali e di cooperazione. Un importante precedente si è avuto in Uzbekistan, dopo il massacro di Andijan, ma il fatto che la reazione dell’Unione europea sia arrivata a quattro mesi di distanza dall’accaduto è una triste dimostrazione della mancanza di serietà con cui sono state considerate le clausole in passato.
Nonostante le enormi preoccupazioni in materia di diritti umani e l’influenza esercitata dall’Unione europea in Medio Oriente, le clausole relative ai diritti dell’uomo non sono mai state invocate nei confronti di Egitto, Israele e Tunisia, benché, in quest’ultimo caso, l’anno scorso l’UE avesse pronunciato forti dichiarazioni in merito alla limitazione della libertà di espressione e al blocco dei finanziamenti destinati alle ONG.
Quanto ai paesi ACP, riconosco che, negli ultimi otto anni, le consultazioni previste dall’articolo 96 sono state condotte con 15 paesi e che, in 11 casi, ne sono scaturite misure appropriate. Tuttavia, l’UE mantiene strette relazioni con Angola, Etiopia e Ruanda, pur condannando le violazioni che vengono perpetrate in quei paesi e senza esercitare alcuna pressione concreta o avviare azioni che facciano seguito a tali condanne. In Eritrea l’iniziativa diplomatica ha prodotto finora scarsi risultati: il servizio militare forzato, la detenzione arbitraria, le vessazioni nei confronti dei profughi e l’uso della tortura continuano.
Come possiamo garantire il buon esito delle consultazioni sulle clausole relative ai diritti dell’uomo? Occorre l’impegno del paese terzo, che oggi appare troppo condizionato dall’entità della dipendenza dai fondi comunitari. Occorre un coordinamento tra i donatori, ad esempio simile a quello cui abbiamo assistito dopo il colpo di Stato nella Repubblica centrafricana nel 2003. Occorre individuare le violazioni e le azioni da intraprendere per porvi rimedio, come nel caso della Guinea-Bissau, in cui si sono tenute elezioni libere ed eque nel quadro del calendario stabilito; occorre inoltre mantenere uno stretto dialogo politico, che talvolta può essere interrotto e – come abbiamo visto oggi – era purtroppo assente nel caso dell’Iran.
Conveniamo con la signora Commissario sul fatto che le ragioni politiche troppo spesso ostacolano l’azione degli Stati membri. Non penso che sia arrogante; penso che sia nobile quando difende il costante impegno dell’Unione europea a porre fine alla pena di morte. Trovo sconvolgente che il partito per l’indipendenza del Regno Unito stamani abbia affermato che potremmo chiudere un occhio sulle violazioni dei diritti umani perpetrate in Cina per il semplice fatto che intratteniamo ottime relazioni commerciali con questo paese. Mi congratulo con il Commissario e con il relatore."@it12
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@lt14
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@lv13
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, het afgelopen jaar is de EU er opnieuw van beschuldigd dat ze haar verplichtingen ten aanzien van de mensenrechten niet nakomt, doordat ze weigert de mensenrechtenclausules in handels- en samenwerkingsovereenkomsten effectief toe te passen. Met het bloedbad van Andijan in Oezbekistan is een belangrijke precedent geschapen, maar het feit dat de reactie vier maanden op zich liet wachten, is het droevige bewijs van het feit dat de clausule in het verleden nauwelijks serieus werd genomen.
Ondanks de enorme bezorgdheid over mensenrechtenkwesties en de invloed van de EU in het Midden-Oosten, is nooit een beroep gedaan op de mensenrechtenclausules in de betrekkingen met Egypte, Israël of Tunesië, de krachtige verklaringen ten spijt die de EU in het laatstgenoemde geval had afgelegd over schendingen van de vrijheid van meningsuiting en het blokkeren van NGO-financiering.
Wat betreft de ACS-landen is er de afgelopen acht jaar met vijftien landen zogenaamd artikel 96-overleg geweest, dat in elf gevallen tot geëigende maatregelen heeft geleid. De EU onderhoudt echter nauwe betrekkingen met Angola, Ethiopië en Rwanda ondanks het feit dat zij de schendingen van de mensenrechten in die landen heeft veroordeeld en zonder dat er naar aanleiding daarvan druk is uitgeoefend of maatregelen zijn genomen. In Eritrea is er tot nu toe weinig respons op de demarche gekomen: er is nog steeds sprake van gedwongen militaire dienst, willekeurige detentie, intimidatie van vluchtelingen en martelingen.
Hoe kunnen we ervoor zorgen dat het overleg over mensenrechtenclausules tot resultaten leidt? Daarvoor is de betrokkenheid van het derde land nodig. Momenteel lijkt een en ander veel te veel af te hangen van de mate van afhankelijkheid van EU-financiering. Er moet sprake zijn van coördinatie tussen donoren, bijvoorbeeld zoals na de staatsgreep in de Centraal-Afrikaanse Republiek in 2003. De schendingen en de te nemen stappen moeten worden omschreven, zoals in het geval van Guinee-Bissau, waar binnen het gestelde tijdpad vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen zijn gehouden, en er moet een nauwe politieke dialoog worden onderhouden. Dat laatste kan worden geblokkeerd en onbrak in het geval van Iran - zoals we vandaag hebben gezien.
We zijn het met de commissaris eens dat de maatregelen van de lidstaten maar al te vaak om politieke redenen worden geblokkeerd. Ik vind niet dat ze arrogant is. Ik vind het nobel dat ze onwrikbaar vasthoudt aan het streven van de EU om een eind te maken aan de doodstraf. Ik was verbijsterd toen ik de
vanochtend hoorde zeggen dat we wel een oogje kunnen dichtknijpen als het gaat om mensenrechtenschendingen in China omdat we er goede handelsbetrekkingen mee onderhouden. Ik feliciteer de commissaris en de rapporteur."@nl3
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, uma vez mais, ao longo do ano passado, a UE foi acusada de não cumprir os seus compromissos em matéria de direitos humanos ao recusar-se a fazer de facto uso da cláusula relativa aos direitos humanos em acordos de comércio e cooperação. Foi estabelecido um importante precedente no Uzbequistão, na sequência do massacre de Andijan, porém, o facto de a reacção ter levado quatro meses constitui um sinal negativo da falta de seriedade com que, no passado, se encarou estas cláusulas.
Apesar das enormes preocupações em matéria de direitos humanos e da influência da UE no Médio Oriente, a cláusula relativa aos direitos humanos nunca foi invocada nas relações com o Egipto, Israel ou a Tunísia, neste último caso, apesar das firmes declarações proferidas no ano passado pela UE sobre a limitação da liberdade de expressão e o bloqueio ao financiamento das ONG.
Com os países ACP, reconheço que as chamadas consultas ao abrigo do artigo 96º tiveram lugar com 15 países ao longo dos últimos oito anos, conduzindo, em 11 casos, a medida adequadas. No entanto, a UE mantém relações estreitas com Angola, Etiópia e Ruanda, apesar de condenar a existência de violações nesses países, sem que seja exercida qualquer pressão concreta ou sem que tenha sido desencadeada qualquer acção na sequência dessas condenações. Na Eritreia houve uma ténue resposta às providências tomadas até ao momento: persistem casos de recrutamento militar forçado, detenção arbitrária, maus-tratos aos refugiados e recurso à tortura.
Como poderemos nós garantir o êxito do processo de consultas ao abrigo da cláusula relativa aos direitos humanos? É necessário o compromisso da parte do país terceiro. Hoje, muito parece estar ligado à dimensão da dependência dos financiamentos da UE. É necessária coordenação entre dadores, por exemplo, como aconteceu após o golpe de Estado na República Centro-Africana, em 2003. É necessária uma identificação das violações e dos passos necessários para as rectificar, como no caso da Guiné-Bissau, onde foram realizadas eleições livres e justas dentro do calendário previsto; é necessária a manutenção de um diálogo político estreito, algo que pode ser bloqueado e – como hoje vimos – fez falta no caso do Irão.
Concordamos com a Senhora Comissária que os motivos políticos bloqueiam frequentemente as acções por parte dos Estados-Membros. Não considero que a Senhora Comissária seja arrogante; penso que é nobre quando defende o firme compromisso da UE em pôr cobro à pena de morte. Considero inacreditável que o Partido da Independência do Reino Unido tenha afirmado esta manhã que poderíamos fechar os olhos face às violações dos direitos humanos por parte da China, simplesmente porque de facto mantemos relações comerciais com este país. Felicito a Senhora Comissária e o relator."@pt17
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@sk18
"Mr President, once again over the past year the EU has been accused of failing in its commitment to human rights by refusing to effectively use human rights clauses in trade and cooperation agreements. An important precedent was set in Uzbekistan following the Andijan massacre, but the fact that the reaction took four months is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to the clauses in the past.
Despite huge human rights concerns and EU influence in the Middle East, human rights clauses have never been invoked in relations with Egypt, Israel or Tunisia, in the latter case despite strong EU statements last year on curbs on freedom of expression and the blocking of NGO funding.
With the ACP countries, I acknowledge that so-called Article 96 consultations have taken place with 15 countries over the last eight years, in 11 cases leading to appropriate measures. However, the EU maintains close relations with Angola, Ethiopia and Rwanda despite condemning abuses there and without any real pressure or action to follow up those condemnations. In Eritrea there has been little response to the démarche so far: forced military conscription, arbitrary detention, harassment of refugees and the use of torture continue.
How do we ensure the success of consultations on the human rights clauses? It needs commitment on the side of the third country. Too much today this seems dependent on how far there is dependence on EU funding. It needs coordination between donors, for example as took place after the coup in the Central African Republic in 2003. It needs identification of the violations and the steps that need to be taken to rectify them, as in the case of Guinea-Bissau, when free and fair elections were held within the timescale set; and it needs the maintenance of close political dialogue, something that can be blocked and – as was seen today – was sadly lacking in the case of Iran.
We agree with the Commissioner that political reasons too often block action by Member States. I do not think she is arrogant; I think she is noble when she upholds the EU’s unswerving commitment to ending the death penalty. I find it breathtaking that the UK Independence Party this morning said that we could turn a blind eye to human rights violations with China simply because we trade effectively with it. I congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur."@sl19
"Herr talman! Ännu en gång under det senaste året har EU anklagats för att misslyckas med sitt åtagande för mänskliga rättigheter genom att vägra att effektivt använda människorättsklausuler inom handels- och samarbetsavtal. Ett viktigt prejudikat fastställdes i Uzbekistan efter massakern i Andisjan, men det faktum att reaktionen inte kom förrän efter fyra månader är en dyster redogörelse för den brist på allvar som man tidigare givit klausulerna.
Trots en enorm oro för de mänskliga rättigheterna och EU:s inflytande i Mellanöstern, har klausuler om mänskliga rättigheter aldrig åberopats i förbindelser med Egypten, Israel eller Tunisien, i det senare fallet trots kraftfulla uttalanden av EU förra året när det gällde kontroll av yttrandefriheten och blockering av icke-statliga organisationers finansiering.
När det gäller AVS-länderna erkänner jag att så kallade samråd enligt artikel 96 har ägt rum med 15 länder under de senaste åtta åren, och i 11 fall har det vidtagits lämpliga åtgärder. EU behåller emellertid nära förbindelser med Angola, Etiopien och Rwanda trots att unionen fördömt överträdelser där och utan några egentliga påtryckningar eller åtgärder för att följa upp dessa fördömanden. Eritrea har hittills inte reagerat nämnvärt på utspelen: tvångsvärnplikt, godtyckliga fängslanden, övergrepp mot flyktingar och användningen av tortyr fortsätter.
Hur kan vi säkerställa att samråden om människorättsklausulerna blir framgångsrika? Det krävs engagemang från tredjeländernas sida. Det verkar i dag i alltför stor utsträckning bero på hur stort beroendet av EU-finansiering är. Det krävs samordning mellan donatorer, så som skedde efter kuppen i Centralafrikanska republiken 2003 till exempel. Kränkningarna måste fastställas och likaså de åtgärder som måste vidtas för att rätta till dem, som i fallet med Guinea-Bissau, när fria och rättvisa val hölls inom den fastställda tidsplanen. Det krävs även en bibehållen nära politisk dialog, något som kan blockeras och – som vi såg i dag – tyvärr saknades i fallet med Iran.
Vi håller med kommissionsledamoten om att politiska skäl alltför ofta blockerar medlemsstaternas åtgärder. Jag anser inte att kommissionsledamoten är arrogant; jag anser att det är nobelt av henne att upprätthålla EU:s orubbliga engagemang när det gäller att sätta stopp för dödsstraffet. Det är hisnande att UK Independence Party i morse sa att vi skulle kunna se mellan fingrarna när det gäller brott mot mänskliga rättigheter och Kina bara för att vi har en effektiv handel med dem. Jag vill gratulera kommissionsledamoten och föredraganden."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Aplausos)"20,17
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"Richard Howitt (PSE ). –"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"UK Independence Party"8
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples