GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is six months since the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the Tunisian government to stop violating human rights and to work in support of fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and the development of the civil society. And still the Tunisian regime is committing one violation after another and sinking deeper and deeper into generalised police repression. I personally attended a parody of a trial on 24 November, at which the accused, who had been on hunger strike for three months and were unable to move or speak, were sentenced to 17 years in prison. I stood in front of the prison in Tunis on 9 April and watched hundreds of policemen breaking up a demonstration of solidarity organised by democrats. I witnessed powers being handed over within the human rights league a week before it was placed in official receivership. Daily harassment and beatings of democrats are a standard occurrence. These people are hounded – such as Hamma Hammami, sentenced to 9 years in prison, or Moncef Marzouki who, as you have heard, is due to go on trial the day after tomorrow. Any meeting, any gathering, such as the national conference organised by the Tunisian National Council for Liberties on 10 December, is effectively banned due to police violence. Any free and independent expression is censored, as is illustrated by the seizure of the books of Taoufik Ben Brik. What can we say, what can we do to meet this challenge, our challenge, the challenge of our international commitments? The vote by the House on the demanding motion before us will show that, no, we have decided not to throw in the towel. The call for a meeting of the Association Council on the human rights situation in Tunisia should be followed by real action... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there have now been too many years of systematic violation of human rights by the military regime in Burma – the Parliament should be active but it is non-existent – although there have, without a doubt, been improvements in the sectors of political and social life, and progress has been made in the area of individual freedoms, the most important element of which is the release of a remarkable woman who is leading democratic, non-violent resistance with determination and dignity – Aung San Suu Kyi. She is not yet free, however, and cannot move about freely. In reality, however, Burma still continues to be afflicted by the repression of ethnic minorities, rape and violence against women. The elimination of political dissidents and summary executions have not stopped. Torture, detention and forced labour are common practice. Despite the government’s denials, I believe that children are still forced to join the army and also, I regret to say, the rebel military forces. There are thousands of people suffering who we do not hear about from the media as we did, I am glad to say, in the case of the 13 years of house arrests imposed on the Nobel Peace Prize-winner. Consider, for example, the tragic child-soldier system. ‘It is a good idea to conscript children because they do the same job as adults but they are difficult for the enemy army to see’, one official had the courage to say. Forced labour is still common practice: recent Amnesty International surveys have shown that approximately 90% of the population of the State of Shan are subject to forced labour. These people have no choice: either forced labour or prison. Their work, for which they are not paid, consists of building military infrastructure, roads, buildings and military camps and even performing military duties. They work without a break from morning until night, with no food except a small quantity of toasted rice. Despite the fact that the Burmese penal code has banned forced labour, the situation has not changed. It has not changed despite the presence of the International Labour Organisation. Even the recent endeavours of the Thai Government have been frustrated by the categorical opposition of the Burmese authorities, which have even refused to give members of the political opposition permission to leave the country in order to discuss its economic problems. Worst of all is the continued abuse of power by the Burmese army, the military intelligence services, the police and other security forces. I genuinely believe, as other Members have said too, that the European Union must both continue to use its influence to press for negotiations between the democratic groupings, the ethnic minorities and the State to resume as soon as possible, and put pressure on the Burmese authorities, continuing, that is, with the current trade policy on Burma and, if possible, taking even stronger measures to curb the scourge of forced labour, in particular. It must also undertake to pursue ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do not want to comment on yesterday’s Minutes, but would like to make an observation of a different kind; so I hope you will allow me to do that first. Indeed, I understand – and I am speaking as the coordinator for my group for the ACP Meeting – that none of the Commissioners will be attending the ACP-EU Meeting in Cape Town in four weeks’ time. Not one single Commissioner, not Mr Nielson, nor Mr Patten, nor Mr Lamy, nor Mr Fischler, for that matter. In order to avoid a huge disgrace, you could perhaps make an urgent appeal to the European Commission to ensure that a Commissioner attends this Meeting, for an entire programme of questions in writing and such like are on the agenda there. It is also a disgrace in respect of the 70 developing countries that the Commission is not making an effort to attend the ACP Meeting. This would be the first time that this has happened, and I have been attending ACP meetings for years. Hence my urgent request that an appeal be made to the European Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me a brief personal comment. My professional activities are entered in the presidents’ register in accordance with the rules of the European Parliament and I have conducted myself over the last eight years on that basis. I have never taken any parliamentary action on matters which bear directly on my corporate interests and have refrained from voting on such matters, despite the fact that I am not obliged to do so. For the rest, there has been no occasion on which my voting conduct might be interpreted as representing indirect interests or on which I have departed from the opinion of my group. I therefore refute what Mr Seppänen has said. (Applause) *** President. – Mr Korakas on a point of order.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with everyone who has spoken tonight. This is a substantial and very important proposal. When fully implemented it will bring about a transformation in the culture of recycling in many Member States. The rapporteur can be truly proud of his work and he is to be congratulated on it. The requirements in these two proposals: firstly, to ensure recycling of substantial quantities of waste electronic and electrical goods, and, secondly, to ensure substantial reductions in the amount of hazardous substances in these products will be technically and financially very difficult to achieve for many people. Patience must be shown with some Member States that are starting from scratch and have very little infrastructure for recycling. In particular we cannot expect the new accession states to achieve easily or quickly the high levels of recycling of these products that already exist in some more advanced Member States. We can be pleased that individual consumers can expect to return their waste appliances free of charge, and that the primary responsibility for collection and disposal of waste electrical and electronic goods will be with the producer. However, we may see the unfortunate situation of local authorities – and consequently local taxpayers – dealing with orphan and some historic waste. In that situation, the governments that have agreed to this proposal have a responsibility to support financially this necessary work. Despite all the difficulties that I foresee in implementing this proposal in parts of the Union, we are taking a very important step tonight and tomorrow when we vote on it – it brings us all a very practical step forward towards a sustainable future for the European economy and a sustainable future for all.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the history of a nation, there are moments when citizens are faced with a fundamental choice. It is as if they were halfway across a ford. They can carry on towards the far bank or turn back. In front of them lies the path to reunification, reconciliation and civil peace, drawing a line under the past. This is the path which the European Parliament has always favoured. We put our hopes and trust in the negotiating and mediating skills of the Secretary General of the United Nations. We are not about to abandon him with the end in sight. Since the resumption of negotiations, the European Parliament has also set out some fundamental conditions: the ability to speak with one voice, a single legal status and no permanent derogation from the Treaty. The Commission has assured us today that these conditions have been met in the final version of the Annan plan. Consequently, there is no reason to doubt that the plan conforms with the Treaty. The second path open to the Cypriot electors is to reject what Mr de Soto has called the culmination of thirty years of striving for a political solution. This means turning back. If the plan is rejected, the island will be divided indefinitely. It is actually an illusion to believe that the final document will be opened up for renegotiation in three months or in three years. Who with? Under whose auspices? With what international support? It is also an illusion to hope that, if the plan is rejected, the difficult problems surrounding the return of refugees, property, Turkish troops, etc. will be able to be solved. The opposite is the case. The present situation will be frozen. Not a single refugee from either side will return to his or her home village and not a single Turkish soldier will leave the occupied zone. (Applause) Our draft resolution delivers a clear message. We hope the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot electors will have the courage to go forward right now. Before you join the European Union, we say to you: Leave nationalism behind you, (Applause) the European Union will help you overcome any difficulties arising during the construction of a united Republic of Cyprus. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is, of course, unacceptable for breaches of our trade agreement with Israel to be concealed or tolerated. By giving de facto preferential treatment to products from the occupied settlements under the trade agreement with Israel, the EU is contravening two important principles of international law. It is contravening both the fourth Geneva Convention from 1949 and international norms in force concerning the unilateral incorporation of occupied territories. Because the world’s and the EU’s respect for these two international principles forms the basis for the peace process which has been instituted, violations of these principles undermine the very basis of the peace process. The EU must now choose between basing its relations with Israel and Palestine on the standards of international law, thereby strengthening the basis of the peace process, and showing disdain for international law. The choice ought to be simple. International law prescribes that trade agreements should be established with countries and regions which we recognise and not with disputed territories. Customs duties must be claimed back, and the EU’s Member States and Israel must respect the trade agreement’s rules concerning strict monitoring of the way in which products are labelled to show their country of origin. The Commission must guarantee that these things will be done. Commissioner Vitorino’s contribution offered some hope that they would be. The peace process in the Middle East must be given a chance. It can only be founded upon international law. It is the EU’s responsibility to contribute to this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the new WTO round is sending out its subliminal signals. For example, even America and China have come closer together over the WTO question. It is precisely a rapprochement of this kind that we in the EU-China Delegation have spent long years trying to achieve. So the wheel of history, for whose fashioning we are partly responsible, does turn constructively and progressively provided that traders’ concepts and ideas, stamina and charisma have the power to convince. That applies across the board but also to particular sectors of industry and, naturally and quite specifically, to the maritime sector, therefore. Waterways bind routes and continents on our planet, and they are rich in as yet unexhausted natural resources. Through new technological developments, shipping and shipbuilding can again be sectors of the economy which are aiming high. Who would have thought so just a short time ago? We are fighting for a similarly positive status for the fisheries sector, too. In spite of the basically different methods of management, I am therefore appealing, for example, to Mr Cunha, as agricultural rapporteur, to also consider the fisheries sector, particularly since Mr Cunha is also my coordinator on the Committee on Fisheries. Who would want to dispute the fact? In spite of the tiny budget allocated to it, an efficient fisheries sector forms a not insignificant part of any dynamic trade and budget policy for the EU and should be seen as a sector of the economy in its own right and as a significant branch of the food industry. There are also a large number of jobs concentrated there – in the EU, in third countries and worldwide. If we lose this sector, we weaken those regions which are already structurally weak anyway, and all in a quite irresponsible way. Let us beware, therefore, of regarding the WTO as a panacea for our problems. Only if we start from a healthy position at home will we make a convincing case to competitors on our planet. Even a totally liberalised market may possibly mean the exploitation of fish stocks beyond their ability to replenish themselves. I therefore want us to have a responsible and sustainable fisheries sector characterised by partnership, and I wish Mr Schwaiger and his team every success in the negotiations, not least for our own benefit. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for ten days the region of Kabylia was the scene of a series of very serious incidents. Following the death, on 18 April, of the young high school student, Guermah Massinissa in the police station at Beni Douala, impressive peaceful demonstrations were held at several locations, demanding that the persons responsible for this ‘mistake’ be brought to justice. In addition, thousands of demonstrators, often very young, turned out to demand important social measures in this region, which has been hard hit by unemployment, poverty and even a housing shortage. Without doubt, the roots of this discontent lie in the serious social crisis which has affected the whole of Algeria. One rightly wonders if speeding up the process of liberalisation and privatisation already under way risks exacerbating the situation. There is also a strong cultural demand in this region for the Amazigh language and culture to be respected, especially since the Berber Spring in 1980. Provocation and other abuses of authority by the police with respect to the population also seem to be at the root of this positive outburst of anger. So these were peaceful demonstrations calling for more social progress and greater freedom and democracy. The marches turned into clashes which were put down by the security forces with a great deal of violence over a period of several days, leaving dozens dead and hundreds wounded. Numerous eye witness accounts printed in the newspapers talk of outright brutality. President Bouteflika and the national assembly announced that committees of inquiry would be set up. We can only hope that they will be set up as quickly as possible and will have the means needed to work efficiently – and, more importantly, transparently – so that sanctions can be imposed on those responsible for the repression. In another indication of the seriousness of the situation, the Rally for Culture and Democracy Party said that it was ‘impossible for it to stay in a government which fires on young people’ and withdrew from the coalition. I am positive that the future of Algeria, whose people have courageously resisted barbaric pressure from Muslim fundamentalist terrorist groups, lies not in repression but in heeding the people's social demands and the often very courageous action of the various associations acting to defend women's rights, secure the repeal of the family code, care for traumatised children, keep solidarity alive in the face of serious social difficulties or defend human rights. Nor does the future reside in the worrying restrictions on the freedom of the press which will result if the planned amendments to the penal code are adopted. The European Parliament delegation travelling to Algiers tomorrow will certainly help us to gain an insight into the Algerian situation from our various contacts and listen in return to their expectations of the European Union. In the same spirit, it will inspire the Commission to continue negotiations with a view to an Association Agreement, while taking better account of the opinion of political, trades union and community organisations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not everything that is legal is also legitimate. Not everything that is illegal is also illegitimate. We have spoken a great deal here today about crime. In my opinion, however, it is not a crime to help needy people who wish to enter the EU actually to do so, simply because this is illegal; the crime is the closed-doors policy of the EU. This is acknowledged even by the UNHCR. In a study of those who traffic in human beings, the UNHCR found that the problem lies with the fortress policy of the EU and that the only way to change this situation is to open the borders further, not to introduce measures against the so-called smugglers. There is a second problem that I would like to raise in connection with this report, which wants to call the carriers to account to a greater extent. In Germany this has led to racist behaviour, and has even led the authorities to call upon taxi drivers to behave in a racist manner. They have said that you can tell if someone is illegal or not when he is standing on the German-Polish border and wants you to provide him with transport; taxi drivers themselves have no powers to check these people’s papers. They have been told that these people are easy to recognise! No human being is illegal, and one cannot possibly tell whether or not a human being is in an illegal situation. A final point that has made me very sceptical is that, at the time when there were still two Germanies, the GDR and the FRG, in the 1970s, Germany’s supreme court reached a decision stating that people smuggling was legitimate, in other words exactly what I was talking about, and that it was even legitimate to demand money for this. Commercial assistance to refugees, therefore, which you are more or less criminalising here, was at that time highly commended. This makes me fear that the whole issue is being exploited, that we do not dare to take action against the refugees and those who have been made illegal, and therefore need new victims. This is why you are seeking out those who assist refugees, irrespective of whether or not they are being paid. It is they who need our support so that more people are able to cross the border cheaply.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We believe that what is termed the Eurostat affair has revealed that reforms are required within the Commission regarding the control and monitoring of the EU authorities’ activities. We believe, however, that to demand Commissioner Solbes’ resignation would be too far-reaching and not very constructive. The Commission has acknowledged that mistakes have been made and, in our opinion, it is now up to the Commission, together with other institutions, to find models for a more effective and more transparent system of internal control. If the Commission does not present a better system, a debate can begin about not granting discharge for 2002.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that reform of the own resources system is necessary if we are to strengthen the principles of transparency, fairness, solidarity and cohesion, with the corresponding extension to the area of Community revenue. And, in the same context, we reject concepts such as fair return or the false issue of net financial contributions. I understand that such a reform will have to target national contributions that correspond effectively to the respective economic development, so the GNP will have to be strengthened as an essential indicator for such contributions. This is what we have always maintained, in clear opposition to the repeated but inconsequential proposals for creating new jobs as a source of own resources. This is why, on this matter, we agree with the Commission’s current proposal. We want to emphasise, though, that what is particularly relevant at the moment is the obvious shortfall in resources, a situation which is entirely due to the lack of political will and not to a need to reform the system of own resources.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I believe it is important not to lose sight of the objectives pursued in the course of this debate. In my opinion, there are two: Firstly, to guarantee more effective, coherent and visible external action on the part of the European Union. What would be the point of having more than 40 000 officials in more than 1 500 diplomatic missions between the Commission and the Member States – twice the number the United States has – if our activity really is not sufficiently efficient, coherent or visible? I believe that Mr Patten expressed this very well in his intervention when he demonstrated that he had at least read the joint motion for a resolution which we have negotiated in Parliament. Secondly, to take note of the fact that the days when the European Parliament simply rubber-stamped the priorities established by other Community institutions have finally been assigned to history. Mr Moscovici, in the coming months we will have to make important decisions in the field of the nascent, embryonic defence policy. During the Balkan crisis the inadequacies of the European Union were made blatantly clear. In the United States there is currently a great debate taking place concerning defence expenditure. We will soon have to hold this debate here in Europe. We in Europe will not only have to consider this expenditure but also the structure of this spending. The incompatibility and heterogeneity of the Member States’ investments in this field – the national views – make this such a difficult debate that we will have to consider other added problems such as interinstitutional disputes. This Parliament would clearly have preferred the figure of the High Representative to be answerable to the Commission. Instead, it has been answerable to the Council , and this is something we have to accept, as we also have to accept that the Commission must play a role. Mr Patten is right when he says that we have to clarify and resolve a series of tensions between the intergovernmental realm and the Community realm. This dispute between the institutions must be resolved, and the European Parliament must not simply be serving at the table, but it also wishes to take its place in the kitchen.

Political group: PPE-DE