Mr President, the discussion of this report has in many ways shown the intolerably lightweight attitude to human rights amid the daily pressures of serious politics. Nevertheless, human rights, which have even been called the last temporal religion of our time, go deeper than the politics of the day. Politics is necessary in order for us not to have to look history in the eye. But, at the same time, it may seem less obvious that human rights are not just a convenient tool for driving political objectives, or, at worst, a pretext for action or inaction as dictated by common sense politics. Human rights are thematic, systematic and, above all, normative. They are the result of our cultural evolution and they represent those values to which historical change, including the development of the European Union, is anchored. They must not nor cannot be sacrificed on the altar of mere political expediency or rhetorical commitment. So that one day the EU might have a genuine common foreign and security policy, it must be founded on a common human rights strategy. Right now I think we are headed in the right direction. Internally, the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and, externally, both the EU’s annual report on human rights and, in particular, the latest Commission communication contain valuable points of view to consider in making human rights work more effective. Belgium, the country to hold the presidency, whose Foreign minister, Mr Michel, is, I am pleased to say, here participating in this debate, has stressed the need for increased coherence and consistency, which will hopefully go further than the requirements of mere political correctness, as well as greater penetration, transparency and clear priorities regarding human rights, which the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 25 June 2001 also reinforce. The annual report placed emphasis on the importance of dialogue and cooperation between governments and civil society. As Commissioner Patten said during the Finnish presidency at the EU’s first human rights forum in 1999, it would be intellectual vandalism to ignore the opinions of NGOs as the knowledge and experience of the European human rights community is unparalleled in all the world. But we must begin by improving our own approach. If there is no strategy, then tactics will beget a strategy, which means that ad hoc political action will disregard the basic, intrinsic principles of human rights and the rule of law. We are ready to lecture others on these, but we can easily bypass them for compelling political reasons, as was the case just last week in connection with Slobodan Milosevic’s rushed extradition. It may indeed have been an important legal and political milestone that reflected a new doctrine in the making, where state sovereignty may have to step aside to make way for universal human rights. We must also be consistent in the way we judge non-member countries and especially certain EU candidate countries, including Turkey. For harsh criticism to be justified it must be based on fair play and impartial treatment. Otherwise, EU enlargement may become more and more like a Potemkin village, in which the applicants implement cosmetic changes in order to comply with the EU’s demands issued from behind a deceptive façade, one which even smacks of sanctimoniousness. This year’s human rights report, which the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy adopted unanimously, contains numerous proposals for making EU human rights policy more effective with regard to non-member countries. In the light of that, thematic, topical choices would seem to be the best way to proceed, as now is the case with EU guidelines and common attitudes regarding the death penalty and torture. It is vital to have more dialogue between the EU’s own experts and greater transparency, but we should also be able to make bolder use of existing remedies to prevent conflicts and promote observance of human rights, such as the human rights clauses contained in agreements with non-member countries, when they refer to Russia, for example. The report’s key theme is freedom of speech, not just because both traditional and very new dangers threaten it, but because it has a strategic importance in improving the human rights of all – first, second and third generation human rights – and in exposing violations. It would be naïve to play down the importance of human rights. It is high time we put principles into practice and we took determined, pragmatic action to create an integrated human rights strategy for the EU as a whole.

Political group: Verts-ALE