Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-06-Speech-3-326"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-China relations (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060906.23.3-326"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-06-Speech-3-3272
lpv:speaker	lp:Willy Meyer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)3 substitute; DEVE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Izquierda Unida (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; PETI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2007-02-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left is going to vote against this report because, if its intention is to exert an influence in such a sensitive area as human rights, the direction it takes is a mistake. This mistake is made explicit in its point 75, which proposes that the European Union and the Member States be urged to establish a policy based on a consensus with the United States with a view to establishing a strategic relationship with China. I would put the question: in what areas can a consensus be established with the United States? The death penalty? Respect for international law? The demilitarisation of security? Climate change? In other words, are we going to go hand in hand with the United States in establishing that consensual relationship – the European Union and the United States – so that we can tell the Chinese what to do in those areas? I believe that that would be a terrible mistake and moves in completely the wrong direction. Furthermore, the report also proposes telling the Chinese – the Chinese Government, the Chinese authorities – what policy they must implement in their region, with which countries – with North Korea, with Iran – and on the basis of what principles. As if the People’s Republic of China can be told what to do and as if they will accept being told what to do. As if the People’s Republic of China could tell the European Union what kind of relations and what kind of policy we should implement here. That cannot be taken seriously. We must bear in mind which country we are talking about. We are talking about a country with 1.2 billion inhabitants, of 9.5 million square kilometres, and one which in 1910 was still a feudal society. Unless we consider this report within the correct context, we will be lashing out in the dark. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I also believe that this report oozes purely economic interests. Nothing more. The rest is nothing but fine words. Our group is therefore going to vote against this report tomorrow, because I believe that it moves in the wrong direction. When trying to influence the People’s Republic of China, we must do so on the basis of a clearly autonomous European Union, not on the basis of a link between the European Union and the United States."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph