Mr President, human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated and interwoven. This well-known phrase, which is taken from the conclusions of the UN World Conference on human rights of 1993, is known off by heart by many. That is positive. But what about the human rights policy within the EU itself? Does it reflect this vision of coherence? In fact, does the European Union have a human rights policy? This question does not challenge the efforts made by the Member States who wish to bring their viewpoints on foreign policy into line and to display a united front against violations of human rights elsewhere, for example in China. No, Mr President, I am talking about the lack of human rights policy within the European Union itself. A new government has come into power in Austria, comprising a political party which has sent out a message of racism and intolerance vis-à-vis minorities. Human rights, which the EU embraces, are thus under threat, but the reactions to these events have brought to light the fact that there is no coherent framework in which an appropriate reaction can be formulated. The widely quoted Article 7 of the Treaty, which provides for the repeal of membership rights from a Member State where serious and continuous violations against human rights have been established, is, of course, only a kill or cure remedy, an ultimum remedium, which, in the case of Austria, can only be quoted in the absence of anything more effective, and by way of warning. There is, therefore a need for a fully-fledged human rights policy for and by the European Union, a policy which promotes and enforces human rights within the EU itself. Such policy should comprise various components. Firstly: a regulatory framework is needed, which spells out very clearly the rights which the EU intends to secure for its citizens. A start is now being made on the drafting of such a charter, but we can no longer put off the question of legal status and the strategic significance of this document or pass it on to learned professional jurists. This is a political question which, in the short term, requires an answer from the IGC and this Parliament. Secondly: a range of instruments has to be developed which allow for a flexible response and which do not force us into a situation where we need to choose between a kill or cure remedy or a complete stab in the dark. The following spring to mind in this respect: the systematic collation of documentation and information, professional forms of observation, the development of information campaigns, the use of cash to support democratic forces in the country concerned, a more creative deployment of the resources which are available through multilateral diplomacy, such as organised dialogue and fact finding missions and such like. Thirdly: it will need to be made clear for each of the EU institutions where the responsibility for human rights policy lies within the European Union and what the tasks and competences are that this entails. The Commission and the Council will each have to decide for themselves what these might be. This Parliament is excluded from this, for our Rules of Procedure stipulate that the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs carries this responsibility. But I am somewhat surprised that the resolution which should bring this debate on human rights to a conclusion has been prepared in the foreign sector of this Parliament and that the aforementioned Committee, of which I form part, has not been involved in this. Mr President, this Parliament is fragmented and divided. For the sake of our credibility, we will have to speak with one voice when it comes to human rights and not act as if human rights within the EU are different from human rights elsewhere in the world. I think that this will benefit our credibility in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Political group: PSE