Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.7.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
First of all, I apologise for appearing in front of the House for yet another farewell appearance. I am starting to know what Frank Sinatra must have felt like, as he staggered on making farewell appearances until he was into his seventies. I hope this really is the last afternoon that the House will have to endure me, but that is in Parliament's hands.
I commend the rapporteur for putting together a substantial document which merits very careful attention. It challenges Member States to attain more stringent standards on the control of arms exports. Amongst other things, it asks for more transparency, not something that is normally immediately associated with the arms trade. It also seeks further controls and limitations on such trade, inherently difficult areas for those Member States with significant arms industries.
Whilst the report focuses primarily on improvement in European practice, its scope is global. Recognising the European Union’s potential to promote best practice around the world, it advocates, among other things, an international arms trade treaty.
We should not forget – and I am sure Parliament has not – the sobering fact that around half a million people die each year as a result of violence linked to small arms and light weapons. As you are well aware, the Commission is regularly involved, with other international organisations and NGOs, in dealing with the consequences of inappropriate or illegal arms sales. We are also implementing some specific projects to reduce destabilising accumulations of weapons around the world. A pilot project initiated by the European Parliament is under way to see what else can be done. More certainly needs to be done. I particularly support the idea of an international agreement to strengthen the control of conventional arms sales. That is why the Commission has, as part of wider EU efforts, strongly supported the adoption of an international Code of Conduct on arms exports based on the European Union’s initiative.
Member States are currently considering how to improve the Code of Conduct and we are encouraging these efforts to strengthen EU controls on conventional arms sales. The success of this endeavour will be a factor in the ongoing China arms embargo debate.
We all know the importance of China as an economic partner and a political player in the world in the coming decades. China is, to a considerable extent, regaining the position that it had in the world until the middle of the 19th century, when it was still responsible for probably 30% of global GDP. The historic recovery we are witnessing is, on the whole, extraordinarily beneficial to the rest of the world. China's integration as an open economy into the world economy is good for all of us.
It is not in any way demeaning to us or the Chinese if we regularly make it clear that there are other issues that concern us, such as issues of human rights. I am sure we shall in due course see an improvement as the political situation in China matches the economic one. It is impossible these days for any country to remain completely self-contained. It is impossible for a country to open up its economy whilst keeping politics under absolutely rigid control.
I look forward to a more intimate relationship with China in the years ahead. I hope China will continue to play a positive role in the international community. I look forward to a serious dialogue with China about human rights, leading to improvements of which I am sure Mr Sun Yat-Sen would have approved.
As Members know, given the way in which the common foreign and security policy operates, this is not an issue on which the Commission takes a lead. Nevertheless, we have an obvious interest in the overall development of our relations with China, which by and large are excellent, and the arms embargo naturally operates in that context. As Parliament knows, the embargo was imposed by the European Council in 1989, following the events in Tiananmen Square, the early stages of which I was able to witness at first hand as the then vice-chairman of the Asia Development Bank.
This year, China has intensified its campaign to have the ban lifted. That campaign continues in the run-up to the summit between the European Union and China next month. The Chinese authorities consider the embargo to be evidence of discrimination against them; they argue that the ban is obsolete. They claim that it severely hinders the further development of bilateral relations.
Whilst we have acknowledged that positive change has occurred and that the political situation in China has moved on since Tiananmen, China's observance of some basic human rights, notably in the area of political and civil rights, continues to fall well short of international norms. Without making any direct link we have, therefore, consistently told the Chinese authorities at the highest level that the lifting of the embargo would be greatly assisted if they could take the sort of concrete steps in the field of human rights that would convince the European public that that was an appropriate course of action.
I know that a number of Member States are favourably disposed towards lifting the embargo and have made that view public. Others believe that it is premature, citing concerns about human rights. Human rights were an issue that figured prominently in the resolution passed by this House last year against lifting the ban.
Those Member States arguing for lifting the ban use the rationale that the controls introduced in the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on arms sales render it nugatory. I acknowledge that this argument is not without substance.
I am very keen to move forward with our important strategic partnership with China, a country that is rapidly emerging as a global player across the board, and is now, amongst other things, our second largest trading partner. That is one of our top foreign policy goals in the years to come.
That said, given the underlying logic of the embargo and the significant political and symbolic issues involved for both sides, it is understandable that some Member States argue that the lifting of the ban should take place against a background of positive and tangible steps by China to improve its human rights situation.
I should also like to say a few words on the European Parliament’s report on the operation of the EU’s Code of Conduct on arms exports. The strength of the Code of Conduct is closely related to the China embargo debate, since it will guide Member States' export practice if the ban is lifted. Responsibility for the arms trade currently rests with Member States, but the Commission is fully associated with its consideration under the common foreign and security policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples