Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by thanking Mr Wuori very warmly for producing such a good and comprehensive report. As the shadow rapporteur of the Group, I would like to express my sincere thanks to him for our cooperation. The European Parliament quite rightly views itself as the European institution which, time and again, intervenes most resolutely in the internal affairs of third countries, in particular, in the interests of individuals in these states. Yes, we intervene, for we believe that protecting human rights is not an internal matter at all. In protecting human rights, however, individual events are often of great relevance too. Since last week, President Milosevic is now facing justice in The Hague – a fact which is now giving many other dictators and autocrats sleepless nights. These legal proceedings against a former head of government are classical preventive human rights policy. I can only advise certain despots to be on their guard in future. Their time will come! Earthly justice will prevail. Yet does this type of report have any real impact? This is a frequently asked question. Let me state the case quite clearly: once you have seen how those affected, or the governments which believe they are affected, redouble their efforts, even before the report is produced, in order to prevent what they perceive as embarrassing statements from being made, it is clear that these reports must have an impact, an impact which extends into the civil society of the countries concerned. Indeed, in some cases, the criticism is very convenient for these governments too. Among the candidate countries, for example, they offer an opportunity, based on the failings identified in our reports, to take appropriate remedial action. Let me take the recent example of Romania: here, Baroness Nicholson has painstakingly revealed the appalling conditions in orphanages, trafficking in children, and abuses in the field of adoption. In this case, the government is genuinely taking the initiative in a positive sense and addressing the problems identified. However, we must continue our efforts. This is a task for the Commission’s local delegation and our 15 ambassadors as well, so that we can monitor how the measures are implemented in practice. India is another example: I fully endorse Mr Haarder’s proposed amendments on the issues of caste-discrimination and untouchability. The Indian Government opposes these practices in principle as well, but I have the impression that it must do more in this area. Perhaps it needs us to call openly for action. Human rights are not an opportunistic issue. In specific cases, we are justified in repeatedly reprimanding all our governments. Anyone who applies double standards, for pragmatic political reasons, to China, Russia or, indeed, one of the parties involved in the Middle East conflict ultimately does nothing to help the situation. No double standards: this was Commissioner Patten’s call to the foreign ministers in Sweden as well. I hope that the governments will heed this warning. I do not want to see any more tortured looks on our side when, in delegation talks with China for example, we raise the issues of the death penalty, Falun Gong or Tibet. These tortured looks are due to fears, perhaps, that taking a stance could jeopardise good business. Anyone who goes sleigh-riding with Mr Putin but does not find the strength to protest about Russia’s latest methods of bringing the press into line through financial takeovers does no favours to our relations with Russia or help strengthen civil society in the country. Let us ensure that human rights become an integral and pro-active element of every minister’s speaking notes and the ensuing press conference whenever this is necessary. Then we will have real political credibility, both internally and externally. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE