Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.7.3-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this great opportunity to address you as President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union, and I am particularly happy that it has come in the context of a debate on human rights.
What strategy should the European Union pursue in relations with these regimes? The report states: ‘The … political … dialogues which the EU undertakes with third countries have so far not led to many results.’ Should we, therefore, see them as an instrument which is not effective, admit that the policy of human rights dialogue with third countries has not, in many cases, led to appreciable results and give up on them?
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr van den Bos’s report contains the answers to this question, and I endorse them. We have a duty to condemn publicly the unacceptable practices perpetrated by certain regimes, for, in this way, the perpetrators are placed in a position where they are forced to justify themselves at the very least, to face the judgment of the international community. With regard to the approach of structured human rights dialogue with third countries, the line proposed in the report is precisely that which the Council intended to take on this instrument. In my view, this is not permissive dialogue which is an alternative to forms of political condemnation, but it fully involves civil society, including NGOs and figures from the academic world who are active in the field of human rights, and it is based on the pursuit of precise goals whose implementation is monitored carefully and regularly.
I also endorse the point contained in the report on the need for political dialogue and condemnation to go hand in hand with proactive programmes and measures in the field of combating poverty, support for institution building and education. Monitoring, resolutions, dialogues, human rights clauses and cooperation and technical assistance programmes in the field are all instruments for achieving a single objective – the unceasing defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the world. The Union’s human rights dialogue underway with China and Iran does not mean that it cannot condemn violations and abuse through
resolutions too, where it considers that to be necessary, in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights or the UN General Assembly, nor does it mean that it cannot provide them with technical assistance in the field intended to consolidate respect for human rights.
The same applies to the part of the report which levels severe criticism at the Council for failing to publicly condemn the regimes responsible for repeated, serious human rights abuses in its work. I would not presume to reject these criticisms point blank, but I do, however, feel that some clarification is necessary. It is certainly limiting to assess the Union’s activity on the basis of the number of resolutions per country that it presents to the Commission on Human Rights or to the General Assembly, or even on the basis of the resolutions which achieve sufficient consensus. In any case, the part played by the European Union in the field of human rights within international fora is fully recognised. In actual fact, as has already been pointed out, the Union’s activity in this field covers a very wide range of different initiatives, from the measures contained in the reports of the Heads of Mission to public statements. This European activity targets a large number of countries.
There is another aspect I would like to focus on which is dealt with in particular depth in the report: intercultural and inter-faith dialogue. The report specifically highlights the key nature of this issue for the wider framework of the protection of human rights. I represent a country which, because of its location, culture and traditions, has always been particularly sensitive to this issue and which has now acquired influence and importance which it has never known in the past. What might at one time have been considered an opportunity to be seized has now become absolutely vital. Ideological opposition to and political exploitation of human rights and fundamental freedoms are, I am afraid, a fact, however much we might condemn them.
The atmosphere of antagonism that increasingly marks dialogue in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is also dealt with at length in the report, is an issue on which the Greek Presidency has already launched a debate, which we intend to pursue and develop. The action of the Union and the western countries, in general, in the field of human rights is clearly perceived by part of the international community, particularly the southern hemisphere, it would appear, as a manipulative attempt to pursue political and cultural abuses of power. The very principle of the universality of human rights and the conviction that they cannot be constrained or limited by any social, economic or cultural group are challenged. Fundamentalism, whatever its origin or nature, is, in part, the result of an inability to communicate, to search for common values based on mutual respect and tolerance.
I do not believe it is enough, in this regard, for the Union to limit itself to firmly rejecting the accusations of using double standards which are often levelled at it. Rather, there needs to be a discussion on these matters, to which the European Parliament could contribute. In this connection, I would inform you that, at the initiative of Italy, a convention on the universality of human rights and intercultural dialogue is to be held in March 2004 in Milan.
In drawing up the guidelines for our six-month term of office in the field of human rights, one of the essential points we considered it necessary to highlight, as I said before, is mainstreaming. It must be our objective to integrate, harmoniously and coherently, the issue of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms into all the Union’s policies on third countries. I am therefore particularly pleased to note that this concept is expressed clearly and forcibly by Parliament in the report.
In this connection, I fully support the idea that the human rights clause contained in association and cooperation agreements should be implemented unfailingly whenever the conditions for its application arise. I also feel that a relationship of cooperation with a country at all levels – political, economic, scientific and cultural – must, of necessity, include open, constructive dialogue on matters of protecting fundamental rights and freedoms. The report contains interesting, practical proposals on which I have already ordered studies and technical analyses to be carried out.
I would, moreover, like to say that there may be different ways of achieving the same goals and objectives. Experience has taught us that setting up committees or working groups may often be the most immediate, obvious solution but it sometimes proves not to be the most effective way of proceeding in practice.
Before I proceed, I must offer my condolences and the condolences of the Italian Presidency for the death of Sérgio Vieira de Mello, who, in his capacity as United Nations High Commissioner, had already established himself as a valiant champion of the promotion and defence of human rights at international level.
Another theme of the report which is worthy of mention is transparency. It is right to pay tribute to the Danish Presidency for encouraging and promoting the practice of regular, unfailing consultation with civil society, which has undoubtedly contributed to raising the profile of the European Union’s work. This practice was taken up by the Greek Presidency and will continue to be a firm reference point for the Italian Presidency in its work. I feel that, ultimately, it represents proper, appropriate recognition of the essential, indispensable role played in this field by NGOs, which are and will continue to be the European Union’s necessary, privileged consultative partners.
Lastly, I would like to focus on a criticism made in the document, relating to institutional relations between the Council and the European Parliament in the area of human rights. We will analyse in more depth the opinion expressed by the rapporteur to the effect that there needs to be an improvement in relations between the Council and Parliament, and I hereby commit the Italian Presidency to continuing the work started by the Greek Presidency in this area. The invitation extended by the Greek Presidency to the rapporteur to take part in a meeting of the Human Rights Committee is representative of an approach which seeks to involve the European Parliament more closely in the Council’s work.
The Italian Presidency is fully in favour of this, and I confirm that we intend to continue along the path already marked out, identifying appropriate solutions to the problems and inadequacies highlighted in the report. In this sense, I hope that I will be able to report to the House at the end of the six months on the measures taken by the Council in the area of human rights. The governments of the Member States of the Union now recognise the imperative need to guarantee the European Parliament’s role as a driving force in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to foster forms of closer cooperation. There will therefore have to be a proper debate on the constructive proposals put forward by the rapporteur.
I am happy to end by noting – and this is the point of most political significance – that the Council and Parliament agree on the importance and central nature of the issue of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Union’s policy and external relations. It is an important fact which reflects our constantly-evolving approach to these issues, which are no longer confined to ethical statements and declarations of principle but are increasingly going to influence political decisions in relations with third countries. The statement that international peace, security and stability are founded on full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms is not just empty rhetoric but reflects the reality that human rights are increasingly going to influence governments’ decisions in the area of foreign policy and the strategies of international organisations at all levels.
The protection and promotion of human rights is one of the fundamental pillars of the European Union’s foreign policy and it is a constant reference point for its activities on the world stage. The Union adheres to the fundamental principle of the universal nature of human rights, which cannot be challenged or distorted by any cultural influence. Human rights are one of the key factors in addressing the major challenges of our time: I do not need to mention the close connection between peace, security and stability, on the one hand, and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, on the other.
Similarly, there is a close connection between the fight against extreme poverty and underdevelopment and measures seeking to secure fundamental human rights, starting with the right of every human being to life, integrity and dignity. In this context, we therefore believe that it is of key importance during this six-month term to set the north-south dialogue on a more constructive basis, for it has deteriorated considerably
in recent months, particularly as regards the subject of human rights, which must continue to be an essential part of the dialogue.
The Italian Presidency’s human rights programme has been made public and so I do not need to illustrate it at length. I will confine myself to mentioning a few key points. They include mainstreaming human rights into the widest possible external projection of the Union and taking concentrated measures worldwide to promote a moratorium on and the abolition of the death penalty. They also include a range of constructive political initiatives to eliminate the use of torture and to promote an agreement on the human rights of people with disabilities.
A particular boost needs to be given to the structured dialogue with Iran and China, and a thorough debate needs to be launched on the work of the Commission on Human Rights. Then the Italian Presidency attaches great importance to the tragic phenomenon of child soldiers. I would mention, lastly, the initiatives that the Union is going to take in the General Assembly third committee and the provision of the European Union’s annual report on human rights, as well as the annual meeting with non-governmental organisations, which we want to make more constructive this year.
I would now like to congratulate Mr Bob van den Bos on drafting the European Parliament’s annual report, which is full of ideas, analyses, proposals and recommendations. It is a document that warrants extremely thorough analysis, which, of course, is impossible to achieve in this sitting. However, it will be analysed in a careful assessment by the other elements and bodies of the European Union.
On this occasion, therefore, I will, if I may, focus on just a few of the report’s ideas which I feel deserve particular attention. I will start with a general point made in the report with which I, personally, agree: despite the prodigious efforts of the Union and other countries, the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the world is, still today, marked by serious abuses and violations. The causes of this can be traced back to a number of factors. The report focuses on some of them, such as the prevailing of political and economic interests over human rights and the need to achieve compromise positions in international fora to the detriment of positions of principle.
Indeed, if we are now convinced that the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms lie at the very heart of democracy and civilised coexistence, we cannot, at the same time, fail to be of the opinion that the pursuit of legitimate political and economic goals demands the consolidation of democratic institutions and the principles of freedom and justice. It is well known that dictatorships, which are based on terror and violence, reject the democratic ideal, denying fundamental rights and freedoms, seeking to abuse their power with regard to other peoples and, ultimately, proving to be unreliable consultative partners."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples