Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we are fully aware of the way in which women’s rights are violated around the world. When they are, it is on the basis of a number of values, including tradition, social cohesion or the honour of the male members of a family. Genital mutilation of women is seen as upholding this tradition. Murder or mutilation for reasons of honour are seen as a way of maintaining peace within society, and the public stoning or chastising of women is condoned in the context of maintaining the social order. Fortunately, the international community is increasingly showing its dissatisfaction with this situation, as is illustrated by the reaction to the stoning of Amina Lawal, the admittedly late reaction to the Taliban regime and the persistent questions about the death of photo journalist Zahra Kazemi in Iran. At the same time, campaigns for women’s rights are receiving recognition. The award of the Nobel Prize to Shirin Ebadi, the women’s and children’s activist in Iran, is also an extremely important signal, as was this afternoon’s statement of Senegal’s President Wade in this Chamber. President Wade made express reference to his fight against the genital mutilation of women. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether Europe, via the various channels that the EU has at its disposal, is indeed adopting a structured policy with regard to serious violations of women’s rights. In any event, the beginnings of a policy are in place. The Cotonou Agreement with the ACP countries makes specific mention of genital mutilation. In addition, the express reference in the Budget that failure to take measures to prevent serious violence against women – and it specifies stoning, public castigation, burning, and rape – justifies the suspension of EU aid. This EU policy, though, shows too little in the way of structure. This is why Parliament is asking for some sort of system to be adopted. What could constitute such a system? A number of sanctioning elements, for example, the inclusion in trade and cooperation agreements of a specific clause in which it is made explicit that the serious and repeated violation of women’s rights may ultimately entail suspension of cooperation, is one such sanctioning element. Secondly, these sanctions and suspensions must be imposed when governments systematically fail to take measures in the legislative, administrative and judicial fields. There could, of course, also be positive aspects, though. There is, for example, the systematic inclusion in development aid programmes of projects aimed at fighting violence against women or pressing for, and taking account of, the fact that partner countries ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), as well as the additional protocol. One example of this might be the talks, or negotiations, that are going on with Iran. We are very much looking forward to the document that will eventually be on the table. This document must, in our view, make express reference to actions to counter violence against women, to women’s rights and also to the CEDAW. Another possibility is for the Commission to provide staff trained to examine agreements with third countries from the gender perspective, in which local women’s organisations in the developing countries must also be involved. The EU Member States, and Europe too, could demand legislation against genital mutilation. In addition, when refugee status is granted, consideration should be given to the fact that some women flee the violence in their countries. The European Union has taken as one of its watchwords the protection of human rights, which includes the rights of women. More than any other region, the EU is expected to act, in some sense, as the world’s conscience in this respect. I should like to ask the Commission to what extent it is prepared to adopt a far more structured approach to policy in connection with this problem. I have received a positive response to a number of questions I have raised, but they are all ad hoc actions. There is, in fact, little structure in current policy.

Political group: PPE-DE