Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.7.4-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The decision on which country will stage the 2008 Olympics will be decided by the International Olympic Committee when it meets in Moscow on 13 July. I have some knowledge of the way the International Olympic Committee does its work. I appeared in front of it in 1990 in support of the magnificent bid by Manchester to host the Olympic games. It was one of the examples in my life of tilting at windmills, but I know a little about how the IOC works. The European Union, as a whole and the Commission do not take a position on whether the games should be held in China or elsewhere. The decision is one for the International Olympic Committee, though I understand why honourable Members have such strong views on the subject.
I share Parliament's concerns for the environment in Beijing and in China more widely and for the effects which preparation for the games could have on the city. During my visit in May, I met some of the handful of genuine Chinese non-governmental organisations working on environmental issues. I was left with the strong impression that China will find it impossible to meet the objectives it has set itself for environmental protection without the assistance of a civil society, which has mobilised itself voluntarily. A relaxation of the rules governing the establishment and operation of genuine grassroots NGOs is essential, so as to harness the energy and commitment of a population of over a billion. The same is true for any country or city which hosts the Olympic Games.
Sydney's success derived from the whole-hearted commitment of its citizens to hosting the games and making them a success in the eyes of the world. Any country which hosts the Olympic Games will have a problem if it does not enlist the support of its citizens. I do not believe that I am being naive. I know the appalling problems that exist, but it seems to me at the very least inconceivable that any country like China, although there is no country really like China, but any country with the sort of authoritarian repressive government that China has, would find it impossible to host the Olympic Games without that having a considerable impact on the development of civil society within that country.
I do not have to explain to Parliament that I share the concerns which have been expressed about the human rights situation in China – and I will return to that in a moment. Just as I have always been doubtful about mixing the pursuit of trade objectives and the pursuit of human rights objectives, however, so I have doubts about mixing up sport and human rights. My worry on both scores is that very often you do not achieve your objective, you simply muddle your objectives. When I was the Governor of Hong Kong, much involved in the debate and the argument about human rights and democratisation, I still every year went to Washington to plead for China to have most-favoured-nation status and I certainly did not criticise the earlier bid by China to host the Olympic games.
I concede that at the margins, it can be helpful occasionally to take measures in regard to sport. For example, one could not argue that taking those measures in relation to South Africa during the years of apartheid was anything other than helpful, largely because of the emphasis which the white community in South Africa placed on sporting links.
If you take the issue of the Olympics, while I accept that there are some horrendous examples of the Olympic spirit being abused – and one speaker mentioned the 1936 Olympics in which my late father-in-law ran – one should also take account of the Olympic Games in Seoul. You would not find many democrats in Seoul who argued that holding the Olympic Games there had set back the pursuit of democracy and human rights, rather the reverse, so the argument is perhaps a little more complex than some honourable Members suggested. While these are matters of rather subjective judgment, when I argue this case, I am not doing so out of – to borrow a phrase from the honourable Member – supine complicity. I am doing so out of moderate, but not complete, conviction.
If Beijing is selected to host the games, it will require certainly both welcome and necessary steps on the part of the Chinese authorities if they are to have any chance at all of matching the outstanding performance as host, of Sydney last year. For example, it would be inconceivable that a country hosting the Olympics would or could prevent both its citizens and its visitors from having access to the news on the Internet about the games themselves. On a visit I paid to China a few weeks ago, an extremely interesting visit, it was curious that both the BBC and CNN Website were inaccessible. I do not think that would be possible at the time of an Olympic Games.
I have spoken on many occasions to this Parliament about the European Union/China human rights dialogue. I accept what the honourable Member said, that we have to be very careful that the dialogue actually produces some progress and it does not turn into, as he said, an act of complicity with the abuse of human rights. Our dialogue with China is undoubtedly the most complex and multi-faceted dialogue on human rights which we have with any country, as befits discussions with a country in which so many abuses continue, alas, to occur.
The European Union is constantly seeking to work with China to make it more effective and to have more tangible impact on the human rights situation on the ground. We are encouraging and supporting China in early ratification and implementation of the UN covenants and we continue to urge cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for human rights. We welcome the Memorandum of Understanding, which China has signed with Mary Robinson, but we hope that they will now implement it.
Within this dialogue, we will continue to press for action in the areas of most concern to us, such as the repression of political dissidents, the suppression of religious freedom, the appalling and excessive use of the death penalty under the strike-hard campaign, the treatment of ethnic minorities, including those in Tibet, and the arbitrary detention conditions. I also raised during my last visit to China, the reports of torture and ill-treatment of the followers of the Falun Gong movement and there are other issues which we must address. There is increasing concern about the abuse of psychiatry in dealing with dissidents and members of religious groups in China.
I commend to the House's attention an article written recently in the
which summarised the academic research of Robin Monroe, a very distinguished China-watcher, the author of probably the best book on Tiananmen
. I recommend it to the House."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Asian Wall Street Journal"1
"Black Hands of Beijing"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples