Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-06-Speech-3-323"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-06"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:ELi ja Hiina suhted (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060906.23.3-323"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-06-Speech-3-324⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Glyn Ford⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² unknown; Labour and the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party (2004-11-08--2009-07-13)²² member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@cs^1,1 "Hr. formand! Vi kan tilslutte os mange punkter i hr. Belders betænkning. Vi er enige i, at Kina skal påtage sig et stigende internationalt ansvar på grund af landets status som permanent medlem af FN's Sikkerhedsråd og nu som verdens fjerde største økonomi. Vi er enige i betydningen af Kinas rolle i Afrika og Mellemøsten. Vi skal indlede en dialog med Kina om situationen i Nordkorea, hvor Kina har spillet en væsentlig rolle som leder af sekspartsforhandlingerne, om Iran, hvor Kina kan spille en rolle i løsningen af den nukleare krise, og om Darfur, hvor Kina på grund af sine olieinteresser indtil nu har modsat sig indsættelsen af FN-styrker. Vi ser frem til oprettelsen af et strategisk partnerskab mellem EU og Kina, og vi støtter helt klart ophævelsen af dødsstraffen - noget vi indtrængende opfordrer alle lande, herunder Japan, Republikken Korea og USA, til også at gøre. Vi skal opnå kontinuerlige fremskridt på menneskerettighedsområdet. Desværre lider betænkningen generelt under manglen på balance og de mange udeladelser. Jeg troede, at der var tale om en forglemmelse, men i åbningstalen gjorde hr. Belder det klart, at begrundelsen for at udelade ét Kina-politikken i betænkningen ikke er, at han har glemt at inddrage denne politik, men at han ønsker at ændre den. Jeg håber, at de medlemmer af Gruppen for Det Europæiske Folkeparti (Kristelige Demokrater) og De Europæiske Demokrater, der stadig støtter betænkningen, ikke vil acceptere dette, men støtte vores ændringsforslag. Der er to linjer om problemerne for de 150 millioner vandrende arbejdstagere - som udgør over 10 % af Kinas befolkning, én sætning om uafhængige fagforeninger og ikke mindre end fem afsnit om et religiøst mindretal, som er hundrede gange mindre. Problemet er, at hr. Belder ikke kan se skoven for bare træer. Vi skal naturligvis støtte alle undertrykte grupper, men hvor er ordførerens proportionssans? Det er ligeledes rigtigt at tro på nogle af de negative historier, vi hører om Kina, men det er ikke rigtigt at tro på negative historier uden tilstrækkelige beviser. Der er områder, hvor vi bevæger os ind på territoriet for Udvalget om International Handel, men betænkningen har en meget mere protektionistisk linje end det pågældende udvalgs seneste betænkning. Spørgsmålet om situationen for markedsøkonomien springes helt over, selv om 40 lande i verden allerede har tildelt Kina status som markedsøkonomi - senest Republikken Korea i november 2005. jeg respekterer Europa-Parlamentets holdning til embargoen, men i denne sammenhæng insisterer vi på, at alle vores partnerskabslande skal følge en embargo, der sætter Kina i samme situation som Burma og Zimbabwe - som jeg personligt betragter som langt værre med hensyn til undertrykkelse og diskrimination - samtidig med at vi opfordrer Kina til også at lægge pres på de to lande, som vi påstår er identiske med Kina. I punkt 4 bemærkes det, at Kina vil råde over 1 milliard euro i valutareserver ved udgangen af 2006. Det er kun et tusind gange forkert. Det drejer sig rent faktisk om 1 billion og ikke 1 milliard, og det er der ingen, som har bemærket, og det hævdes samtidig, at det er en fantastisk nøjagtig betænkning, som alle støtter. Ingen steder anfægtes det, at Kina råder over for få euro - frem for amerikanske dollars - eller at Kina bør fortsætte samarbejdet med EU vedrørende sekspartsforhandlingerne. Det nævnes ikke, at Kinas bekymring om Yasukuni-templet er afspejlet i afsløringen for nylig af, at den japanske kejser nægtede at besøge Yasukuni-templet efter, at krigsforbrydere var blevet hyldet i templet. Endelig ønsker vi, som Kommissionen nævnte, engagement og partnerskab, ikke konfrontation og inddæmning. Jeg er bange for, at der med betænkningen sendes det forkerte budskab."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Vielem in Herrn Belders Bericht können wir zustimmen. Auch wir meinen, dass China aufgrund seines Status als ständiges Mitglied des Sicherheitsrats und als nunmehr viertstärkste Wirtschaftsmacht eine wachsende internationale Verantwortung übernehmen muss. Wir sind uns einig, was die Bedeutung der Rolle Chinas in Afrika und im Nahen Osten angeht. Wir müssen mit China einen Dialog über die Lage in Nordkorea führen, wo das Land bislang eine wichtige Rolle beim Vorsitz in den Sechser-Gesprächen gespielt hat, oder über den Iran, wo China bei der Suche nach einer Lösung des Nuklearkonflikts behilflich sein kann, oder über Darfur, wo sich China wegen seiner Ölinteressen bisher gegen den Einsatz von UNO-Truppen gesperrt hat. Wir sehen der Errichtung einer strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen der EU und China erwartungsvoll entgegen, und wir sind natürlich für die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe – was wir in allen Ländern fordern, auch in Japan, der Republik Korea und den Vereinigten Staaten. Wir wollen eine ständige Verbesserung der Menschenrechtslage. Bedauerlicherweise leidet jedoch der gesamte Bericht an einer mangelnden Ausgewogenheit und an Unterlassungssünden. Ich hatte gedacht, es seien Unterlassungssünden, aber in seiner Rede zur Eröffnung der Aussprache stellte Herr Belder klar, dass er die Ein-China-Politik im Bericht nicht deshalb unerwähnt ließ weil er es vergessen hatte, sondern weil er eigentlich dafür ist, sie zu ändern. Ich hoffe, diejenigen Abgeordneten in der christdemokratischen Fraktion, die immer noch dafür sind, werden da nicht mitmachen, sondern unseren Änderungsantrag unterstützen. Wir haben zwei Zeilen zur Notlage der 150 Millionen Wanderarbeiter – das sind 10 % der Bevölkerung Chinas –, einen Satz zu freien Gewerkschaften, aber fünf Absätze zu einer religiösen Minderheit, die hundert Mal kleiner ist. Das Problem besteht darin, dass Herr Belder vor lauter Bäumen den Wald nicht zu sehen vermag. Ja, natürlich müssen wir für alle diese unterdrückten Gruppen eintreten, aber wo bleibt der Sinn des Berichtserstatters für Verhältnismäßigkeit? Ebenso tut man Recht daran, einige schlimme Dinge zu glauben, die man uns über China erzählt, aber man tut nicht Recht daran ohne die notwendigen Beweise zu glauben. Es gibt Bereiche, in denen wir uns sehr auf dem Territorium des Ausschusses für internationalen Handel bewegen, aber der Bericht verfolgt eine viel stärker protektionistische Linie als der jüngste Bericht dieses Ausschusses. Die Frage des marktwirtschaftlichen Status wird ganz schnell abgetan, doch haben vierzig Länder China bereits marktwirtschaftlichen Status zuerkannt – jüngstens erst die Republik Korea im November 2005. Ich respektiere die Auffassung des Europäischen Parlaments zum Embargo, aber hier verlangen wir von allen unseren Partnerschaftsländern, dass sie bei einem Embargo mittun, das China in dieselbe Lage versetzt wie Burma und Simbabwe – die ich persönlich, was die Unterdrückung und Diskriminierung angeht, für viel schlimmer halte –, während wir China gleichzeitig auffordern, mit uns zusammen auf diese beiden Länder Druck auszuüben, von denen wir genau dasselbe behaupten wie von China. Unter Ziffer 4 in der englischen Fassung stellen wir fest, dass China zum Ende des Jahres 2006 eine Milliarde US-Dollar an Fremdreserven zur Verfügung haben wird. Die Genauigkeit des Berichts ist ordentlich; sie ist nur um ein Tausendfaches falsch: Es handelt sich nämlich um eine Billion und nicht um eine Milliarde, und niemand hat es bemerkt; dennoch ist es ein wunderbar genauer Bericht, den jeder befürwortet. An keiner Stelle beschweren wir uns darüber, dass China zu wenig Euro – nicht Dollar – besitzt oder sagen wir, China solle bei den Sechser-Gesprächen mit der Europäischen Union weiter zusammenarbeiten. Wir erwähnen nicht die Tatsache, dass sich Chinas Bedenken zum Yasukuni-Schrein in der jüngst bekannt gewordenen Tatsache widerspiegeln, dass der japanische Kaiser den Besuch des Schreins ablehnte, weil dort auch hochrangige Kriegsverbrecher verehrt werden. Abschließend möchte ich betonen, wie schon die Frau Kommissarin sagte, dass wir Engagement und Partnerschaft wollen, nicht Konfrontation und Eindämmung. Ich fürchte, dieser Bericht vermittelt die falsche Botschaft."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συμφωνούμε με πολλά από όσα περιλαμβάνει η έκθεση του κ. Belder. Συμφωνούμε ότι η Κίνα πρέπει να επωμιστεί μια όλο και μεγαλύτερη διεθνή ευθύνη λόγω της θέσης της ως μόνιμου μέλους του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας και τώρα ως η τέταρτη μεγαλύτερη οικονομία. Συμφωνούμε με τη σπουδαιότητα του ρόλου της Κίνας στην Αφρική και τη Μέση Ανατολή. Πρέπει να διεξαγάγουμε διάλογο με την Κίνα σχετικά με την κατάσταση στη Βόρεια Κορέα, όπου διαδραματίζει σημαντικό ρόλο ως προεδρεύουσα στις εξαμερείς συνομιλίες· σχετικά με το Ιράν, όπου η Κίνα μπορεί να διαδραματίσει κάποιο ρόλο προσπαθώντας να βρει μια λύση για την πυρηνική κρίση· και σχετικά με το Νταρφούρ, όπου η Κίνα, λόγω των πετρελαϊκών συμφερόντων της, έχει έως σήμερα αντισταθεί στην ανάπτυξη δυνάμεων των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Αναμένουμε τη δημιουργία μιας στρατηγικής εταιρικής σχέσης ΕΕ-Κίνας και σίγουρα στηρίζουμε την ανάγκη για την κατάργηση της θανατικής ποινής – κάτι που ζητούμε σε όλες τις χώρες, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της Ιαπωνίας, της Δημοκρατίας της Κορέας και των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών. Πρέπει να υπάρξει συνεχής βελτίωση όσον αφορά τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα. Ωστόσο, δυστυχώς, συνολικά, η έκθεση χαρακτηρίζεται από έλλειψη ισορροπίας και παραλείψεις. Θεώρησα ότι επρόκειτο για λάθη παραλείψεων, αλλά στον εναρκτήριο λόγο του ο κ. Belder κατέστησε σαφές ότι το γεγονός πως δεν περιλαμβάνεται στην έκθεση μια κοινή πολιτική για την Κίνα δεν οφείλεται στο ότι το ξέχασε, αλλά στην πραγματικότητα είναι υπέρ της αλλαγής αυτής. Ελπίζω ότι όσοι από την Ομάδα των Χριστιανοδημοκρατών εξακολουθούν να το υποστηρίζουν δεν θα συνεχίσουν να το κάνουν, αλλά θα στηρίξουν την τροπολογία μας. Υπάρχουν δύο γραμμές σχετικά με την κατάσταση των 150 εκατ. εργαζομένων μεταναστών – πάνω από το 10% του πληθυσμού της Κίνας, μία πρόταση σχετικά με τις ελεύθερες συνδικαλιστικές οργανώσεις και, παρόλα αυτά, υπάρχουν πέντε παράγραφοι σχετικά με μια θρησκευτική μειονότητα που είναι εκατό φορές μικρότερη. Το αρνητικό είναι ότι ο κ. Belder βλέπει το δέντρο και όχι το δάσος. Ναι, βεβαίως, πρέπει να υποστηρίξουμε όλες τις καταπιεσμένες ομάδες, αλλά πού είναι το αίσθημα αναλογικότητας του εισηγητή; Αντίστοιχα, είναι σωστό να πιστέψουμε κάποια από τα αρνητικά που μας λένε για την Κίνα, αλλά δεν είναι σωστό να τα πιστεύουμε χωρίς τις απαραίτητες αποδείξεις. Υπάρχουν τομείς όπου βαδίζουμε στα χνάρια της Επιτροπής Διεθνούς Εμπορίου, αλλά η έκθεση ακολουθεί μια πολύ πιο προστατευτική γραμμή σε σχέση με την πρόσφατη έκθεση αυτής της επιτροπής. Το θέμα που αφορά το καθεστώς οικονομίας της αγοράς παρακάμπτεται πολύ εύκολα, ωστόσο 40 χώρες στον κόσμο έχουν ήδη παράσχει καθεστώς οικονομίας της αγοράς στην Κίνα – πιο πρόσφατα η Δημοκρατία της Κορέας, τον Νοέμβριο του 2005. Σέβομαι την άποψη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με το εμπάργκο, αλλά εδώ επιμένουμε ότι όλες οι χώρες με τις οποίες έχουμε εταιρικές σχέσεις ακολουθούν ένα εμπάργκο που βάζει την Κίνα στην ίδια κατάσταση με τη Λευκορωσία και τη Ζιμπάμπουε –κάτι που προσωπικά θεωρώ ότι είναι χειρότερο όσον αφορά την καταπίεση και τις διακρίσεις– ενώ, ταυτόχρονα, ζητούμε από τους Κινέζους να μας βοηθήσουν στην άσκηση πίεσης σε αυτές τις δύο χώρες που λέμε ότι είναι ίδιες με την Κίνα. Στην παράγραφο 4, σημειώνουμε ότι η Κίνα θα έχει στη διάθεσή της 1 δισ. ευρώ (στην αγγλική έκδοση της έκθεσης) σε συναλλαγματικά αποθέματα έως το τέλος του 2006. Η ακρίβεια της έκθεσης είναι ωραία· είναι μόνο χίλιες φορές λάθος: στην πραγματικότητα πρόκειται για ένα τρισεκατομμύριο και όχι για ένα δισεκατομμύριο και, παρόλα αυτά, κανείς δεν το παρατήρησε· ωστόσο, πρόκειται για μια εξαιρετικά ακριβή έκθεση που όλοι εγκρίνουν. Πουθενά δεν παραπονιόμαστε ότι η Κίνα έχει πολύ λίγα ευρώ –και όχι δολάρια– και δεν λέμε ότι η Κίνα θα πρέπει να συνεχίσει να συνεργάζεται με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σχετικά με τις εξαμερείς συνομιλίες. Δεν αναφέρουμε το γεγονός ότι η ανησυχία της Κίνας για το Yasukuni Shrine απεικονίζεται στο προσφάτως αποκαλυφθέν γεγονός ότι ο Ιάπωνας Αυτοκράτορας αρνήθηκε να το επισκεφθεί άπαξ και υπήρχαν εκεί σημαντικοί εγκληματίες πολέμου. Τέλος, όπως είπε η Επίτροπος, επιθυμούμε δέσμευση και εταιρική σχέση, και όχι αντιπαράθεση και ανάσχεση. Φοβούμαι ότι η έκθεση αυτή δίνει λάθος μήνυμα."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, estamos de acuerdo con mucho de lo que dice el informe del señor Belder. Estamos de acuerdo en que China tiene que asumir una responsabilidad internacional creciente debido a su condición de miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad y a que ahora es la cuarta economía más importante del mundo. Estamos de acuerdo con la importancia del papel de China en África y en Oriente Próximo. Hemos de mantener un diálogo con China sobre la situación en Corea del Norte, donde ha desempeñado un papel importante presidiendo las conversaciones a seis bandas; sobre Irán, donde China puede desempeñar un papel intentando encontrar una solución a la crisis nuclear; y sobre Darfur, donde, debido a sus intereses petroleros, China se ha resistido hasta ahora al despliegue de fuerzas de la ONU. Esperamos el establecimiento de una asociación estratégica entre la Unión Europea y China y sin duda apoyamos la necesidad de abolir la pena de muerte, cosa que pedimos a todos los países, inclusive Japón, la República de Corea y los Estados Unidos. Es preciso que haya una mejora continua en el ámbito de los derechos humanos. Sin embargo, por desgracia, en conjunto el informe padece una falta de equilibrio y comete un pecado de omisión. Yo creía que se trataba de un pecado de omisión, pero en su intervención inicial el señor Belder ha dejado claro que la razón por la cual la política de una China única no está en el informe no es porque la haya olvidado, sino que en realidad está a favor de cambiarla. Espero que los diputados el Grupo Demócrata-Cristiano que aún lo apoyen dejen de hacerlo, y que apoyen nuestra enmienda. Hay dos líneas sobre la difícil situación de 150 millones de trabajadores migrantes –más del 10 % de la población de China–, una frase sobre los sindicatos libres y cinco apartados sobre una minoría religiosa que es cientos de veces más pequeña. El problema es que al señor Belder los árboles no le dejan ver el bosque. Sí, por supuesto, hemos de defender a todos los grupos oprimidos, pero ¿dónde está el sentido de la proporción del ponente? Igualmente, es correcto creer algunas de las cosas malas que nos cuentan sobre China, pero no es correcto creerlas «todas» sin disponer de las pruebas necesarias. Hay ámbitos en los que nos adentramos en territorio de la Comisión de Comercio Internacional, pero el informe adopta una línea mucho más proteccionista que la del reciente informe de dicha comisión. La cuestión del estatuto de economía de mercado se despacha rápidamente, pero 40 países del mundo ya han concedido el estatuto de economía de mercado a China, siendo el último en hacerlo la República de Corea, en noviembre de 2005. Respeto el criterio del Parlamento Europeo sobre el embargo, pero aquí estamos insistiendo en que todos los países con los que mantenemos una asociación apliquen un embargo que coloca a China en la misma situación que Birmania y Zimbabue –países que personalmente considero que están en peores condiciones en cuanto a la opresión y discriminación–, mientras que, al mismo tiempo, pedimos a los chinos que nos ayuden a presionar a esos dos países que, según nosotros, son exactamente iguales que China. En el apartado 4 vemos que, a finales de 2006, China tendrá a su disposición 1 000 millones de euros en reservas para explotaciones agrarias. La exactitud del informe está bien; solo se equivoca unas mil veces: en realidad se trata de un billón y no de 1 000 millones, y aún así nadie se ha dado cuenta; aún así es un informe muy preciso que todos apoyan. En ningún lugar nos quejamos de que China tenga demasiados pocos euros –en lugar de dólares– ni decimos que China debería seguir trabajando con la Unión Europea en las conversaciones a seis bandas. No mencionamos el hecho de que la preocupación de China por el santuario de Yasukuni está reflejada en el hecho revelado hace poco de que el Emperador japonés se negó a visitarlo cuando se incluyó en él a criminales de guerra de clase A. Por último, como ha dicho la Comisaria, queremos compromiso y asociación, no confrontación y contención. Me temo que este informe envía el mensaje equivocado."@es²⁰ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, jäsen Belderin mietinnössä on paljon sellaista, josta voimme olla samaa mieltä. Olemme samaa mieltä siitä, että Kiinan on turvallisuusneuvoston pysyvänä jäsenenä ja maailman neljänneksi suurimpana talousmahtina kannettava enemmän kansainvälistä vastuuta. Olemme yhtä mieltä Kiinan roolin tärkeydestä Afrikassa ja Lähi-idässä. Meidän on käytävä Kiinan kanssa vuoropuhelua Pohjois-Korean tilanteesta, jossa sillä on ollut tärkeä asema kuuden osapuolen keskustelujen johtajana, Iranin tilanteesta, jossa Kiina voi pyrkiä osaltaan löytämään ratkaisun ydinkriisiin, ja Darfurista, jonka osalta Kiina on öljyintressiensä vuoksi toistaiseksi vastustanut YK-joukkojen lähettämistä alueelle. Odotamme EU:n ja Kiinan välisen strategisen kumppanuuden luomista ja katsomme tietysti, että Kiinan on poistettava kuolemanrangaistus, mihin kehotamme kaikkia muitakin maita, myös Japania, Korean tasavaltaa ja Yhdysvaltoja. Ihmisoikeustilannetta on pyrittävä parantamaan jatkuvasti. Kokonaisuutena tarkasteltaessa mietinnölle ovat kuitenkin valitettavasti tunnusomaisia sekä epätasapainoisuus että laiminlyönnit. Luulin niitä laiminlyönneiksi, mutta avauspuheenvuorossaan jäsen Belder on tehnyt selväksi, ettei syynä yhden Kiinan politiikan jättämiseen pois mietinnöstä ole esittelijän unohdus vaan se, että hän itse asiassa kannattaa tämän politiikan muuttamista. Toivon, että ne kristillisdemokraatit, jotka edelleen tukevat yhden Kiinan politiikkaa, eivät yhdy tähän päätöslauselmaesityksen kohtaan vaan tukevat tarkistustamme. Mietinnössä mainitaan kahdella rivillä niiden 150 miljoonan siirtotyöläisen erittäin vaikea tilanne, joiden osuus Kiinan väestöstä on yli 10 prosenttia, ja ammattiyhdistykset mainitaan yhdessä virkkeessä. Uskonnollista vähemmistöä, joka on sata kertaa pienempi, käsitellään kuitenkin peräti viidessä kohdassa. Ongelmana on, ettei jäsen Belder näe metsää puilta. Kyllä, meidän on tietysti puolustettava kaikkia sorrettuja ryhmiä, mutta missä on esittelijän suhteellisuudentaju? On myös oikein uskoa joitakin niistä ikävistä asioista, joita Kiinasta kerrotaan, mutta on väärin uskoa ne vailla tarvittavia todisteita. EU:n ja Kiinan suhteisiin liittyy aloja, jotka kuuluvat selkeästi kansainvälisen kaupan valiokunnan toimivaltaan, mutta mietinnössä otetaan paljon protektionistisempi linja kuin kansainvälisen kaupan valiokunnan äskettäisessä mietinnössä. Kysymys markkinatalousasemasta sivuutetaan mietinnössä hyvin kevyesti, vaikka 40 maata maailmassa on jo myöntänyt Kiinalle markkinatalousaseman, viimeisimpänä Korean tasavalta marraskuussa 2005. Kunnioitan Euroopan parlamentin näkemystä asevientikiellosta, mutta vaadimme kaikkia kumppanimaitamme noudattamaan saartoa, joka asettaa Kiinan samaan asemaan kuin Burman ja Zimbabwen, joita pidän henkilökohtaisesti pahempina sortajina ja syrjijöinä. Samanaikaisesti pyydämme kuitenkin kiinalaisia auttamaan meitä näiden kahden maan painostamisessa, joiden sanomme olevan aivan samanlaisia kuin Kiina. Päätöslauselmaesityksen 4 kohdassa toteamme, että Kiinan käytettävissä on vuoden 2006 lopussa miljardi Yhdysvaltain dollaria ulkomaanvaluuttaa. Mietinnön tarkkuus on todellakin ihailtavaa, sillä virhe on ainoastaan tuhatkertainen. Kyseessä on nimittäin todellisuudessa biljoona eikä miljardi, mitä kukaan ei kuitenkaan ole huomannut. Käsiteltävänähän on erinomaisen tarkka mietintö, jota kaikki kannattavat. Mietinnössä ei valiteta missään kohdassa sitä, että Kiinalla on käytettävissään liian vähän euroja – dollareiden sijasta – tai todeta, että Kiinan pitäisi jatkaa yhteistyötä Euroopan unionin kanssa kuuden osapuolen keskusteluissa. Jätämme mainitsematta sen, että Kiinan huolta Yasukuni Shrine -muistomerkistä kuvastaa se äskettäin julkitullut seikka, että Japanin keisari kieltäytyi vierailemasta muistomerkillä sen jälkeen, kun A-luokan sotarikolliset oli sisällytetty siellä oleviin luetteloihin. Kuten komission jäsen sanoi, haluamme sitoutumista ja kumppanuutta, emme vastakkainasettelua emmekä laajentumispyrkimysten tukahduttamista. Pelkään, että tästä mietinnöstä välittyy väärä viesti."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, nous pouvons accepter bon nombre des éléments du rapport de M. Belder. Nous sommes d’accord sur le fait que la Chine doit assumer une responsabilité internationale croissante étant donné son statut de membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité et, désormais, de quatrième plus grande économie du monde. Nous reconnaissons l’importance du rôle de la Chine en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Nous devons instaurer un dialogue avec la Chine sur la situation en Corée du Nord, où elle joue un rôle prépondérant en présidant les discussions du groupe des six, sur l’Iran, où la Chine peut contribuer à trouver une solution à la crise nucléaire, et sur le Darfour, où la Chine, étant donné ses intérêts pétroliers, a résisté jusqu’à présent au déploiement de forces onusiennes. Nous sommes impatients que soit établi un partenariat stratégique UE-Chine et sommes sans aucun doute favorables à l’abolition de la peine capitale - décision que nous appelons de nos vœux dans tous les pays, dont le Japon, la république de Corée et les États-Unis. Nous devons poursuivre nos efforts visant à améliorer la situation des droits de l’homme. Malheureusement, en fin de compte le rapport semble néanmoins déséquilibré et pèche par omission. Je pensais qu’il s’agissait d’omissions, mais dans son intervention, M. Belder a clairement dit que l’absence de la politique «d’une Chine» dans le rapport n’était pas due à un oubli, mais qu’il acceptait de modifier ce point. J’espère que les membres du groupe des chrétiens-démocrates qui soutiennent toujours cette absence changeront d’avis et soutiendront notre amendement. Nous avons deux lignes sur les conditions critiques de 150 millions de travailleurs migrants - plus de 10% de la population de la Chine, une phrase sur la liberté syndicale, mais cinq paragraphes sur une minorité religieuse cent fois plus petite. Le problème est que M. Belder ne parvient à voir que l’arbre qui cache la forêt. Oui, bien sûr, nous devons défendre tous les groupes opprimés, mais où est le sens des proportions du rapporteur? De même, il est juste de croire certaines des mauvaises choses qui nous sont rapportées sur la Chine, mais il n’est pas bon de les croire toutes, sans les preuves nécessaires. Il existe des domaines où nous empiétons largement sur le pré carré de la commission du commerce international, mais le rapport adopte une approche bien plus protectionniste que le rapport récent de cette commission. La question du statut d’économie de marché est très rapidement écartée, alors que 40 pays dans le monde ont déjà reconnu ce statut d’économie de marché à la Chine - dont, plus récemment, la république de Corée en novembre 2005. Je respecte la position du Parlement européen sur l’embargo, mais nous insistons ici pour que tous nos pays partenaires observent un embargo mettant la Chine dans une situation similaire à celle de la Birmanie et du Zimbabwe - où la situation, selon moi, est pire en termes d’oppression et de discrimination - alors que, simultanément, nous demandons aux Chinois de nous aider à faire pression sur ces deux pays que nous traitons de la même manière que la Chine. Au paragraphe 4, nous constatons, dans la version anglaise du rapport, que la Chine aura à sa disposition 1 milliard de dollars de réserves en devises d’ici la fin de 2006. Le niveau de précision du rapport est satisfaisant, mais le chiffre est mille fois erroné: il s’agit en fait de mille milliards et non d’un milliard, mais personne ne semble l’avoir remarqué. Ce rapport est néanmoins une merveille de précision que tout le monde soutient. Nulle part, nous ne nous plaignons que la Chine détient trop peu d’euros - au lieu de dollars - ou déclarons que la Chine devrait continuer de travailler avec l’Union européenne sur les discussions du groupe des six. Nous ne mentionnons pas le fait que les préoccupations de la Chine concernant le sanctuaire de Yasukuni se reflètent dans la nouvelle récente du refus de l’empereur japonais de le visiter à cause de la présence de criminels de guerre de classe A. Enfin, comme la commissaire l’a dit, nous voulons un engagement et un partenariat, et non de la confusion et de l’endiguement. Je crains que ce rapport n’envoie un mauvais message."@fr⁸ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, sono molti i punti della relazione dell’onorevole Belder su cui possiamo essere d’accordo. Siamo d’accordo che la Cina deve assumersi una crescente responsabilità internazionale in virtù del suo di membro permanente del Consiglio di sicurezza e ora di quarta economia del mondo. Siamo d’accordo sull’importanza del ruolo della Cina in Africa e nel Medio Oriente. Dobbiamo avere un dialogo con la Cina sulla situazione nella Corea del Nord, dove sta svolgendo un importante ruolo presiedendo i colloqui a sei, sull’Iran, dove la Cina può essere determinante nella ricerca di una soluzione alla crisi nucleare, e sul Darfur, in merito al quale la Cina, a causa dei suoi interessi per il petrolio, si è opposta sinora allo spiegamento di forze dell’ONU. Attendiamo con ansia l’istituzione di un partenariato strategico UE-Cina e certamente sosteniamo l’abolizione della pena di morte – cosa che sollecitiamo in tutti i paesi, incluso il Giappone, la Repubblica di Corea e gli Stati Uniti. Il miglioramento nel campo dei diritti umani deve essere costante. La relazione, però, nel complesso presenta purtroppo sia una mancanza di equilibrio sia peccati di omissione. Pensavo che si trattasse di peccati di omissione, ma nel suo intervento iniziale l’onorevole Belder ha chiarito che la ragione per cui la politica di una sola Cina ( non compare nella relazione non è frutto di una dimenticanza, ma della sua intenzione di cambiarla. Spero che coloro che ancora la sostengono nel gruppo dei democratici cristiani non vi si adeguino, ma sostengano il nostro emendamento. Abbiamo due righe sulla situazione drammatica di 150 milioni di lavoratori migranti – oltre il 10 per cento della popolazione della Cina – una sola frase sulla libertà di associazione sindacale, mentre vi sono cinque paragrafi su una minoranza religiosa che è cento volte più piccola. Il guaio è che l’onorevole Belder si perde nei dettagli. Sì, naturalmente dobbiamo difendere tutti i gruppi oppressi, ma dove è il senso delle proporzioni del relatore? Analogamente, è giusto credere ad alcune delle informazioni negative che ci vengono dette sulla Cina, ma non è giusto crederle senza le necessarie prove. Vi sono aree nelle quali invadiamo molto il territorio della commissione per il commercio internazionale, ma la relazione adotta una linea molto più protezionistica della recente relazione di quella commissione. La questione dello di economia di mercato viene liquidata con grande facilità, eppure 40 paesi nel mondo hanno già accordato alla Cina lo di economia di mercato – da ultima la Repubblica di Corea nel novembre 2005. Io rispetto il parere del Parlamento europeo sull’ ma qui stiamo insistendo che tutti i nostri paesi seguano un che mette la Cina nella stessa situazione della Birmania e dello Zimbabwe – che personalmente considero di gran lunga peggiori in quanto a oppressione e discriminazione – mentre, al tempo stesso, chiediamo ai cinesi di aiutarci a esercitare pressione su questi due paesi che definiamo esattamente come la Cina. Al paragrafo 4 indichiamo che alla fine del 2006 la Cina disporrà di un miliardo di euro in riserve. La relazione è precisa; è soltanto sbagliata di mille volte: si tratta di mille miliardi e non di un miliardo, eppure nessuno se n’è accorto, benché questa sia una relazione splendidamente accurata che tutti appoggiano. In nessun punto lamentiamo il fatto che la Cina detiene troppo pochi euro – piuttosto che dollari – né diciamo che la Cina dovrebbe continuare a lavorare con l’Unione europea nei colloqui a sei. Non menzioniamo che l’interesse della Cina per il Sacrario di Yasukuni va ricercato nel fatto, emerso di recente, che l’imperatore giapponese si è rifiutato di visitarlo dopo che vi sono stati deposti i resti criminali di guerra di primo grado. Infine, come ha detto il Commissario, vogliamo impegno e partenariato, non scontro e contenimento. Temo che da questa relazione emerga un messaggio sbagliato."@it¹² "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@lv¹³ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, het verslag van de heer Belder bevat veel waarmee we het eens kunnen zijn. We zijn het ermee eens dat China een grotere internationale verantwoordelijkheid moet dragen op grond van zijn status als permanent lid van de Veiligheidsraad en nu ook als 's werelds vierde economie. We zijn het eens met de stelling dat China een belangrijke speler is in Afrika en het Midden-Oosten. We moeten een dialoog met China aangaan over de situatie in Noord-Korea, waar China een belangrijke rol speelt als voorzitter van het zespartijenoverleg; over Iran, waar China een rol kan spelen bij het vinden van een oplossing voor de nucleaire crisis; en over Darfur, waar China vanwege zijn oliebelangen tot op heden de inzet van een VN-macht heeft tegengehouden. We zien uit naar het moment dat de EU en China een strategisch partnerschap zullen aangaan en we staan zeker achter de eis dat de doodstraf moet worden afgeschaft – iets waar we bij alle landen op aandringen, met inbegrip van Japan, de Republiek Korea en de Verenigde Staten. We moeten voortdurend verbeteringen in de mensenrechtensituatie blijven zien. Helaas lijdt het verslag in zijn geheel echter aan een gebrek aan evenwicht en zijn er te veel lacunes. Ik dacht dat het om lacunes ging, maar in zijn openingstoespraak heeft de heer Belder duidelijk gemaakt dat de reden dat het één-China-beleid in het verslag ontbreekt niet is dat hij het is vergeten, maar dat hij voorstander is van een verandering van dit beleid. Ik hoop dat de collega's van de PPE-DE-Fractie die het verslag nog steeds steunen daar niet in meegaan, maar dat ze ons amendement zullen steunen. We hebben twee regels over de belabberde situatie van 150 miljoen gemigreerde werknemers – meer dan 10 procent van de Chinese bevolking – en één zin over vrije vakbonden, maar er zijn vijf paragrafen over een religieuze minderheid die honderd keer zo klein is. Het probleem is dat de heer Belder door de bomen het bos niet meer ziet. Natuurlijk moeten we opkomen voor alle onderdrukte groeperingen, maar waar is het gevoel voor verhoudingen van de rapporteur? Evenzeer is het goed om een aantal slechte dingen die we over China horen te geloven, maar het is niet goed om alles maar te geloven zonder over de benodigde bewijzen te beschikken. Er zijn punten waarop we ons erg op het terrein van de Commissie internationale handel begeven, maar in het verslag wordt voor een veel protectionistischer opstelling gekozen dan in het verslag dat die commissie onlangs heeft uitgebracht. De kwestie van de markteconomiestatus wordt wel erg makkelijk afgedaan, terwijl toch al veertig landen de markteconomiestatus hebben verleend aan China – meest recentelijk, in november 2005, de Republiek Korea. Ik respecteer de opvatting van het Europees Parlement over het embargo, maar in dit verslag wordt erop aangedrongen dat alle landen waarmee we een partnerschapsovereenkomst hebben of willen sluiten zich aansluiten bij een embargo dat China in dezelfde situatie plaatst als Birma en Zimbabwe – landen die ik persoonlijk nog wel als behoorlijk veel erger beschouw als het gaat om onderdrukking en discriminatie – terwijl tegelijkertijd aan de Chinezen wordt gevraagd ons te helpen bij het uitoefenen van druk op die twee landen waarvan wij zeggen dat ze van hetzelfde laken een pak zijn als China. In paragraaf 4 lezen we dat China aan het eind van 2006 over een miljard euro aan valutareserves zal beschikken. Er is niets mis met de accuratesse van de Engelse versie van het verslag; alleen zit het er een factor duizend naast: het is in werkelijkheid een biljoen en niet een miljard, maar niemand heeft dat opgemerkt en toch is dit een prachtig en accuraat verslag dat door iedereen onderschreven wordt. Nergens beklagen we ons erover dat China te weinig euro's – in plaats van dollars – aanhoudt of zeggen we dat China moet blijven samenwerken met de Europese Unie bij het zespartijenoverleg. Er wordt geen melding gemaakt van het feit dat de zorgen van China over de Yasukuni-tempel weerspiegeld worden in het onlangs geopenbaarde feit dat de Japanse keizer de tempel niet meer bezoekt sinds de namen van oorlogsmisdadigers uit de hoogste categorie er zijn bijgeschreven. Tot slot willen we, zoals de commissaris heeft gezegd, betrokkenheid en partnerschap, in plaats van confrontatie en beheersing. Ik ben bang dat we met dit verslag een verkeerde boodschap doen uitgaan."@nl³ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, há muitíssimos aspectos no relatório do senhor deputado Belder que merecem a nossa concordância. Concordamos que a China precisa de assumir uma crescente responsabilidade internacional, devido ao seu estatuto de membro permanente do Conselho de Segurança e, neste momento, como quarta maior economia mundial. Concordamos com a importância do papel da China na África e no Médio Oriente. Precisamos de um diálogo com a China relativamente à situação na Coreia do Norte, onde tem desempenhado um importante papel ao presidir às chamadas “Conversações a Seis” (conversações envolvendo os EUA, a China, o Japão, a Rússia, a Coreis do Sul e a Coreia do Norte), relativamente ao Irão, onde a China pode desempenhar um papel na procura de uma solução para a crise nuclear, e relativamente a Darfur, onde a China, devido aos seus interesses petrolíferos, tem, até à data, resistido ao envio de forças das Nações Unidas. Aguardamos com expectativa o estabelecimento de uma parceria estratégica UE-China e, sem dúvida, apoiamos a necessidade da abolição da pena de morte – algo a que exortamos em todos os países, incluindo o Japão, a República da Coreia e os Estados Unidos. É preciso que haja uma contínua melhoria da situação em matéria de direitos humanos. No entanto, lamentavelmente, o relatório enferma de um modo geral de falta de equilíbrio e de pecados de omissão. Pensei tratar-se de pecados de omissão, mas na sua intervenção inicial, o senhor deputado Belder deixou claro que a razão pela qual não incluiu a política de “uma China única” no seu relatório não foi o esquecimento, mas que está, efectivamente, a favor da sua alteração. Espero que os colegas do Grupo Democrata-Cristão, que ainda são a favor, não dêem o seu apoio a esta situação e subscrevam a nossa alteração. Temos duas linhas acerca da triste saga de 150 milhões de trabalhadores migrantes – mais de 10% da população chinesa – e uma frase sobre sindicatos livres, mas temos cinco parágrafos sobre uma minoria religiosa que é cinco vezes mais pequena. O problema é que o senhor deputado Belder confunde a árvore com a floresta. É claro e evidente que temos defender todos os grupos de pessoas oprimidas, mas onde ficou o sentido de proporções do relator? De igual modo, é correcto acreditar em algumas das coisas más que nos dizem sobre a China, mas não é correcto acreditar em sem que haja provas suficientes. Existem áreas em que nos movemos bastante no território da Comissão do Comércio Internacional, mas o relatório adopta uma linha muito mais proteccionista do que o relatório mais recente desta comissão. A questão do estatuto de economia de mercado é descartada com demasiada facilidade, mas a verdade é que 40 países do mundo já atribuíram esse estatuto à China – mais recentemente foi a República da Coreia a fazê-lo, em Novembro de 2005. Respeito a posição do Parlamento Europeu sobre o embargo, mas, deste modo, estamos a insistir para que os nossos parceiros adoptem um embargo que coloca a China em pé de igualdade com a Birmânia e o Zimbabué – os quais considero bastante piores em termos de opressão e discriminação – ao mesmo tempo que pedimos aos chineses que nos ajudem a exercer pressão sobre esses dois países que achamos serem exactamente iguais à China. No número 4, assinalamos que a China poderá deter um montante de mil milhões de dólares em reservas cambiais no final de 2006. O grau de precisão do relatório é algo de extraordinário; pena é que tenha errado e o valor seja mil vezes superior: estas reservas ascendem, na verdade, a 1 000 000 milhões. Só que ninguém se apercebeu e o relatório passa assim por ser extraordinariamente preciso e exacto e toda a gente lhe dá o seu apoio. Em lado algum nos queixamos de que a China possui euros a menos – em vez de dólares – ou referimos que a China devia continuar a trabalhar com a União Europeia nas Conversações a Seis. Não mencionamos o facto de a preocupação da China com o templo Yasukuni estar reflectida no facto, recentemente revelado, de o Imperador japonês se ter recusado a visitá-lo devido a nele estarem incluídos criminosos de guerra de alto gabarito. Por último, tal como foi referido pela Senhora Comissária, pretendemos empenhamento e parceria e não confrontação e contenção. Nesta perspectiva, receio bem que este relatório esteja a produzir uma mensagem incorrecta."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, there is much we can agree with in Mr Belder’s report. We agree that China needs to shoulder a growing international responsibility because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and now as the world’s fourth largest economy. We agree with the importance of China’s role in Africa and the Middle East. We need to have a dialogue with China over the situation in North Korea, where it has been playing an important role chairing the six-party talks; over Iran, where China can play a role in trying to find a solution to the nuclear crisis; and over Darfur, where China, because of its oil interests, has to date been resisting the deployment of UN forces. We look forward to the establishment of an EU-China strategic partnership and we certainly support the need for the abolition of the death penalty – something we urge in all countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. We need to see continued improvement in human rights. However, unfortunately, in total, the report suffers from both a lack of balance and the sins of omission. I thought they were sins of omission, but in his opening speech Mr Belder has made it clear that the reason that the one-China policy is not in the report is not because he has forgotten, but he is actually in favour of changing it. I hope that those in the Christian Democrat Group who still support it will not go along with that, but will support our amendment. We have two lines on the plight of 150 million migrant workers – more than 10% of China’s population, one sentence on free trade unions and yet there are five paragraphs on a religious minority that is a hundred times smaller. The trouble is that Mr Belder cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes, of course, we need to stand up for all the oppressed groups, but where is the rapporteur’s sense of proportion? Equally, it is right to believe some of the bad things we are told about China, but it is not right to believe of them, without the evidence necessary. There are areas in which we tread very much on the Committee on International Trade’s territory, but the report takes a much more protectionist line than that committee’s recent report. The question of market economy status is dismissed very easily, yet 40 countries in the world have already granted market economy status to China – most recently the Republic of Korea in November 2005. I respect the European Parliament’s view on the embargo, but here we are insisting that all our partnership countries follow an embargo that puts China in the same situation as Burma and Zimbabwe – which I consider personally to be rather worse in terms of their oppression and discrimination – while, at the same time, asking the Chinese to assist us in putting pressure on those two countries that we say are exactly the same as China. In paragraph 4, we note that China will have at its disposal EUR 1 billion in farm reserves by the end of 2006. The accuracy of the report is fine; it is only one thousand times wrong: it is actually a trillion and not a billion and yet nobody has noticed; yet this is a wonderfully accurate report that everybody is endorsing. Nowhere do we complain that China holds too few euros – rather than dollars – or say that China should continue to work with the European Union on the six-party talks. We do not mention the fact that China’s concern about the Yasukuni Shrine is reflected in the recently revealed fact that the Japanese Emperor refused to visit it once class-A war criminals were included there. Finally, as the Commissioner said, we want engagement and partnership, not confrontation and containment. I am afraid the wrong message comes from this report."@sl^19,19 "Herr talman! Det finns mycket som vi kan hålla med om i Bastiaan Belders betänkande. Vi håller med om att Kina måste ta ett större internationellt ansvar på grundval av landets status som ständig medlem av FN:s säkerhetsråd och som världens nu fjärde största ekonomi. Vi håller med om vikten av Kinas roll i Afrika och Mellanöstern. Vi måste ha en dialog med Kina om situationen i Nordkorea, där landet har haft en viktig roll som ledare för sexpartssamtalen, om Iran, där Kina kan spela en roll för att försöka nå en lösning på kärnvapenkrisen, och om Darfur, där Kina genom sina oljeintressen fram till i dag har varit emot utplaceringen av FN-trupper. Vi ser fram emot etableringen av ett strategiskt partnerskap mellan EU och Kina och vi stödjer verkligen behovet av att man avskaffar dödsstraffet, vilket vi kräver i alla länder, inklusive Japan, Sydkorea och Förenta staterna. Vi måste få en fortsatt förbättring för de mänskliga rättigheterna. Men tyvärr innehåller betänkandet totalt sett både bristande balans och beklagliga utelämnanden. Jag trodde att detta var beklagligt slarv, men i sitt öppningsanförande gjorde Bastiaan Belder klart att anledningen till att politiken för ett enat Kina saknas i betänkandet inte är att den glömts bort, utan att han egentligen är för att ändra den. Jag hoppas att de i den kristdemokratiska gruppen som fortfarande stödjer betänkandet inte kommer att gå med på det, utan kommer att stödja ändringsförslaget. Det finns bara två rader om Kinas 150 miljoner migrerande arbetare, som utgör mer än 10 procent av Kinas befolkning, och en enda mening om de fria fackförbunden, men samtidigt finns det fem punkter om en religiös minoritet som är hundra gånger mindre. Problemet är att Bastiaan Belder inte kan se skogen för alla träd. Ja, självklart måste vi stå upp för de förtryckta grupperna, men var är föredragandens känsla för proportioner? Likaså är det rätt att tro på vissa av de dåliga saker som vi får höra om Kina, men det är inte rätt att tro på om de nödvändiga bevisen saknas. Det finns områden där vi i stor utsträckning rör oss på utskottet för internationell handels område, men betänkandet har en mycket mer protektionistisk linje än det utskottets senaste betänkande. Frågan om status som marknadsekonomi avfärdas väldigt lätt, ändå har 40 av världens länder redan gett Kina status som marknadsekonomi. Senast var det Sydkorea i november 2005. Jag respekterar Europaparlamentets syn på embargot, men här står vi och insisterar på att alla våra partnerskapsländer ska följa ett embargo som försätter Kina i samma situation som Burma och Zimbabwe, som jag personligen anser är ganska mycket värre när det gäller deras förtryck och diskriminering, och samtidigt ber vi Kina att bistå oss för att sätta mer tryck på de två länder som vi menar är exakt likadana som Kina. Under punkt 4 kan vi se att Kina kommer att ha en miljard euro i utländska reserver i slutet av 2006. Exaktheten i betänkandet är bra: den är bara ett tusen gånger fel, eftersom det egentligen är en biljon och inte en miljard, och ändå har ingen lagt märke till det. Trots det är det ett fullkomligt korrekt betänkande som alla stödjer. Ingenstans klagar vi på att Kina har för få euro, snarare än dollar, eller säger att Kina bör fortsätta att arbeta med EU i sexpartssamtalen. Vi nämner inte att Kinas problem med Yasukuni-templet speglas i de nyligen avslöjade uppgifterna om att den japanske kejsaren vägrade besöka det efter att man inkluderat krigsförbrytare där. Slutligen, som kommissionsledamoten sa, så vill vi se engagemang och partnerskap, inte konfrontation och instängning. Jag är rädd att det här betänkandet skickar ut fel signaler."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Glyn Ford,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "One China policy)"¹² "all"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "alle"² "alles"⁹ "allt"²¹ "embargo"¹² "kaikki"⁷ "on behalf of the PSE Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "partner"¹² "status"¹² "todas"¹⁷ "tutte"¹² "όλα"¹⁰