Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr van den Bos for his excellent report and for his willingness to cooperate with the other groups. The degree of consensus in this House also shows that all the political families continue to view the commitment to human rights throughout the world as a core element in achieving democracy, social progress and the peaceful coexistence of nations. I would also like to extend my thanks to the human rights organisations, with which the cooperation is always very good. The Group of the European People’s Party considers that the focus of this year’s report – freedom of thought, conscience and religion – is a good benchmark by which to measure the state of democracy and human rights in every country and in every society. This includes the freedom to practise one’s religion just as much as it includes a religion’s duty to show tolerance towards the other faiths which exist alongside it. The freedom to change one’s religion or religious denomination must also include the right not to profess any faith. Democratic thought and action should also preclude any situation in which it is only the members of a specific religion or denomination who are viewed, in effect, as full or fully accepted citizens of a state. I also do not know of any world religion which is fundamentally intolerant or hostile to other religions or, indeed, towards its own believers. Criticism of religious intolerance therefore cannot be directed towards a religion as a whole, but must be directed towards those who practise or interpret their own religions in a truly inhuman way, generally out of a desire to achieve or remain in power. Such criticism of those who are responsible for human rights violations is something which we must also demand, over and over again, from the Council and the Commission. Does the Council think that stability in the world is enhanced if the issue of human rights is confined solely to nicely phrased human rights clauses? Why do we find it so difficult to enforce these clauses – such as those contained in the Cotonou Agreement? What are the advantages that some governments think they have wangled for themselves if they delay or circumvent sanctions, for example against Zimbabwe? Do you think we are serving the interests of people in China, or our relations with that country, if we pigeon-hole human rights issues as an element of a dialogue on the rule of law which takes place behind closed doors? This approach gives carte blanche to anyone visiting the country, be they politicians or businesspeople, to point to this scenario and absolve themselves of any further responsibility for human rights. After all, raising the issue might adversely affect the climate in which business is done. The same applies to relations with Russia and other major countries. Yet we all know that countries which do not respect human rights at home are structurally weak, whereas respect for human rights has a stabilising effect at home and abroad. Pressure from the EU to enforce human rights is ultimately a better method of achieving domestic and external stability than policies which I would describe as a slavish adherence to the status quo, which give preference to short-term superficial stability and only change when conflicts actually spill over to other countries. This Parliament will continue to demand statements on unpleasant issues, and it will continue to demand compliance with the content of our resolutions, for we believe that words and deeds must go hand in hand in human rights as well, and that without a pro-active human rights policy towards the states in question, it will be impossible to reduce the conflict potential in the world.

Political group: PPE-DE