3. Common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (
(DE) Mr President, given the hundreds of votes that we now have, perhaps you could just announce 'adopted' or 'rejected' rather than reading out the individual figures.
Yes, Mr Gahler, I would like very much to do as you wish, and I have in fact done that in the past. I am not doing it today because the Association of European Journalists has asked that we detail the votes. If we do not, the result cannot be duly recorded, and they rightly state that if they do not know the result of the vote, they cannot make a political assessment as to the position of the House.


3. Situation in Syria (


Welcome
Ladies and gentlemen, It is my great pleasure to welcome to the gallery a group of former members of the first freely elected parliament of the GDR.
This Parliament entered the history books when it resolved to reunify Germany, and then dissolved itself shortly afterwards. The delegation is headed by the President of the Volkskammer at that time, Dr Sabine Bergmann-Pohl. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament.
(Applause)


2. Humanitarian situation of refugees from Iraq (vote)
- Before the vote on Amendment No 5:
Mr President, we propose in paragraph 5, line 4, to delete the words 'the European Parliament' on the grounds that it is a little linguistically untidy and perhaps a little illogical for Parliament to call on 'the Parliament' to take part in this international conference.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)
-Before the vote on Amendment No 7:
Mr President, on this amendment to paragraph 7, we would in no way limit our praise of the Swedish Government, but the figure listed in paragraph 7 - 8951 - is just factually incorrect. We would propose that the words 'which granted asylum to 8951 Iraqis in 2006,' be deleted. That will help the flow of the paragraph, while still praising the Swedish Government's efforts.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


Verification of credentials: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting


Welcome
Today we have great pleasure in welcoming to our Parliament a delegation from the parliament of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This delegation visited our Parliament last December in Strasbourg, and we are delighted to welcome them in Brussels too.
(Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express our deep and sincere condolences to your Assembly and to the Afghan people for the terrorist attack of 6 November 2007 in which six members of your parliament and about 100 Afghan citizens lost their lives. Among the victims was Sayed Mustafa Kazemi, who had been a member of the Afghan delegation on its visit to Strasbourg last year.
The purpose of your visit is to start a regular dialogue which will enable us to arrive more quickly at a better understanding of the political and social situation in Afghanistan, and which will give us the opportunity to discuss the assistance your country needs.
I am confident that you all regard this visit as a symbol of our joint efforts to promote democratic values and full respect for human rights throughout the world.
I would like to express our satisfaction at your visit, and our commitment to strengthening the cooperation between our governments.
From what I know, you already have fruitful contacts with the European Parliament, and I wish you a constructive continuation of your mission, an enjoyable stay, and a good journey back to your country.
Madam President, my point of order is under Rule 9(2), concerning the smooth conduct of parliamentary business.
We have been informed about the presence of asbestos in the Winston Churchill and SDM buildings in Strasbourg. The latest report 'has confirmed a more widespread presence of asbestos' than was initially believed in our places of work there. Asbestos is one of the most dangerous carcinogens, and can endanger human life. We should therefore request proper information on the risk assessment and detailed information on the removal of asbestos from Parliament's buildings, including the schedule and safety measures for this. The health and safety of MEPs, employees and visitors to Parliament should be an absolute priority.
Mr Hegyi, this is essentially not a procedural matter, but since you have raised such a vital issue, I would like to say that an announcement has already been made by the Secretary-General regarding the possible presence of asbestos in our buildings.


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes


EU/China summit - EU/China human rights dialogue (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the EU-China summit.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I welcome today's debate about the EU-China human rights dialogue. As you know, the human rights issue was raised and discussed at the very recent summit meeting in Beijing and the joint statement also explicitly refers to it.
I think it is fair to recognise that, although serious concerns remain and need to be addressed, China has also made remarkable progress in the human rights field over the last year. This is particularly true in the field of social and economic rights but also in some other areas.
There are moves afoot to reform the 're-education through labour' system. In this respect we welcome the new legislative initiative that is under consideration and we also hope that concrete reforms will be put in place soon. It is a fundamental principle of human rights not to deprive an individual of his or her liberty without due justice and a fair trial.
China is also working to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. For example, the Ministry of Justice has recently directed courts not to rely on confessions on their own as sufficient evidence of guilt, as such confessions can sometimes be made as a result of torture by police or detention personnel. Similarly, China is initiating specific training measures targeted at these groups of public order personnel.
We are also pleased to note the progress made with respect to the Supreme People's Court now exercising full review power over death penalty sentences issued by lower courts. And we understand that the result is a reduction in the number of effective death sentences and executions. This is gratifying for the European Union. As you know, it has long been a priority area of intervention.
Nevertheless - and now of course I also have to say a few negative things - the Commission remains concerned by the situation of human rights in China in general and more specifically in the field of civil and political rights. We particularly have in mind here freedom of expression, religion and association and the protection of the rights of minorities, for instance in Tibet and in the province of Xinjiang.
In this context, the repression of human rights defenders remains a key concern. Exercising the right to speak freely often leads to beatings, to house arrest or even to terms of imprisonment. Access to the internet - the right to information - is closely monitored and restricted and those, for instance, who speak up in favour of greater autonomy for Tibet receive disproportionately long terms of imprisonment. The use of state secrecy legislation as well as other loosely defined criminal provisions facilitates the prosecution of those who speak or publish freely.
The Commission therefore urges the Chinese Government to permit expressions of all forms of opinion. This is also, we think, a very important factor for how the international public views China, particularly next year in the run-up to the Olympics, when all eyes will be on China. History shows that allowing freedom of expression leads, in the long term, to a far more stable society. We all know that.
All these issues are regularly addressed in the EU-China human rights dialogue. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the most recent dialogue which was held in October in Beijing allowed a sincere and an in-depth exchange of views on all topics of our concern, with several of the discussions leading to follow-up activity. It is important to recognise that this dialogue provides an important forum where both parties can openly speak about their genuine concerns while contributing to a better understanding of our differences - and our differences remain notable.
In this context we regret the Chinese decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Seminar in Berlin over the participation of two NGOs and that, for similar reasons, the Seminar could not be held in Beijing recently. We consider that civil society has a very important role to play and the Seminar provides the appropriate forum for NGOs to make their valuable contributions. I trust we are able to find a mutually agreed solution so that this important exercise will continue its successful path in the future, as underlined by the EU-China Summit.
Let me close by saying that there are two more important human rights issues which we regularly raise with the Chinese side as a matter of high priority. One is the ratification by China of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other one is the release of those who were imprisoned at the time of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations or who later commemorated the 1989 events. Decisive action on both sides would send a clear positive signal and would be highly welcome.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I should like to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner for that statement.
I think it is very important, following the EU-China summit - and particularly the EU-China human rights dialogue - that there should be an opportunity for Members of this House to examine the outcome. I do not want to spend time on the EU-China summit. I want to talk about the human rights dialogue, because that was what took me to Beijing last May when, jointly with Ms Flautre, I was preparing a report on the reform of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.
I want this afternoon to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That, of course, is the vast majority of people in China, who want change and reform. But that movement is led by, among others, Gao Zhisheng, a Christian lawyer who has disappeared from his home in Beijing, where he was being held under house arrest following his conviction for 'subversion' this time last year.
While I know that his name was among those raised in the dialogue, I think that one of the problems that we find in this House is in relation to the dialogue. While I note that the Commissioner says that it was a sincere and in-depth exchange of views - and I am sure that was true on the side of the Europeans - I am not convinced that would be the case on the side of the Chinese. In my experience - since the time when I was EU-China rapporteur back in 1997, 10 years ago when this process began - there has been absolutely no product in human rights terms from China in the sense that people's lives have been improved or prisoners have been released or torture has stopped or the massive imprisonment reported by Harry Wu from the Laogai Foundation has ended. He estimates that there are 6.8 million people in one form of detention or other in China today, many of them there for religious convictions - and we think especially here of the Falun Gong practitioners, who are blameless but who are tortured for their beliefs and, in many cases, are dying.
I would like also to reflect on the imminence of the Olympic Games. One should not forget that Article 1 of the Olympic Charter states that countries should enjoin 'universal fundamental ethical principles'. That means only one thing: that China cannot be held to be an appropriate host for these Games, especially since nothing has fundamentally changed since 2001. I hope all Groups will support the joint motion, which calls for an assessment by the IOC of China's compliance with the terms which were agreed back in 2001. I fear they will be found wanting. My view is that the Olympics should be transferred forthwith to Athens and remain there forever.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Madam President, to come straight to the point, I believe the Olympic Games should go ahead in China, because we have a good opportunity to use these very games to step up our dialogue with China. That is in the joint statement too, Mr McMillan-Scott, and if you hold the opinion you have been expressing, you are against the joint statement.
Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, one of your former opposite numbers, Madeleine Albright, observed when she was US Secretary of State that it was naturally far more difficult to raise human rights issues in China than in Burma, because in China geopolitical factors were part of the equation. It is a fact that we need China as a partner in the quest for a solution to many global problems. That, however, must not prevent us from raising the question of human rights and discussing it in great depth, though not necessarily in the tone of schoolmasters or schoolmistresses who know it all. I am very pleased that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been signed today, because many speakers have made the point that we have no right to speak about human rights issues unless we ourselves have a very good record of respecting human rights. We, indeed, are firmly convinced that it is in China's interests not to trample human rights underfoot but to respect them properly.
China wants stability. How is China to remain stable if the question of human rights is not raised more emphatically? We do not want China to crumble. It makes no sense to build up Europe while seeking to destroy China, but failure to respect human rights puts China's stability at risk. We want China to be governed in accordance with the principles of social justice. In the context of a monumental growth process, to which Mr Barroso also referred, the only way to safeguard stability is to take full account of social factors. It is impossible, however, to strive for social justice if human rights are not respected, if people cannot form trade unions or launch popular initiatives.
We want China to focus more sharply on environmental matters, because the environment is a major common global asset. We know that many initiatives are taking shape in China for the purpose of mass protest against the violation of minimum environmental standards. It would be a good thing for China if the nation listened to those voices. It would be a step forward for China.
For these reasons I believe it is not a matter of European arrogance but of protecting our common interests. In the interests of China we shall raise the question of human rights, and enlightened representatives of the Chinese political system would do well to listen to us and to this resolution, which is in China's interests and which would help China to advance, something it cannot do unless it respects human rights.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I much admire the contribution of China to the development of world civilisation. In terms of technology, in terms of society and in terms of culture, China has probably contributed more than any other country to the development of humankind.
I regret that China's growing economic maturity is not accompanied by a growing political maturity. But I regret, too, that the European Union is not doing more to push China in the right direction.
Two days ago, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Union proclaimed its commitment to the 'promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world as a cornerstone of our external action policy'.
And yet, two weeks ago, Messrs Barroso and Socrates left the summit early, having secured Europe's economic interests, leaving officials to negotiate the conclusions - conclusions which, unsurprisingly, made little mention of human rights, supported the lifting of the arms embargo and opposed Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations. They did much to undermine Mr Solana's carefully crafted words the previous month.
I wonder what the world is coming to when the European Union, the self-styled protector of universal, interdependent and indivisible human rights, fails to speak out clearly against one of the world's worst human rights abusers.
I suspect that both the Chinese and others may come to regret the decision to host the Olympic Games in Beijing. The Chinese authorities themselves promised that they would bring a greater climate of freedom and openness. And yet figures from Human Rights Watch suggest that abuses have increased in the last seven years. Not only does China continue to execute more people than the rest of the world combined but it has clamped down dramatically on internal dissent and media freedom in advance of the Games.
These developments violate the spirit of the Olympic Charter. They are in direct contravention of commitments made by the Beijing authorities themselves in the Host City Contract which they signed with the International Olympic Committee.
That contract has not been made public. Why? Because, if the world saw the complete and total disjunction between Chinese promises and Chinese practices, we would have no choice but to boycott Beijing in the same way that we boycotted apartheid South Africa.
I do not believe in boycotts. I have also maintained that engaging with a China committed to reform and opening would bring greater fruits than empty threats. But President Hu Jintao has to accept that a deal is a deal. The Host City Contract, the human rights clause in the Chinese Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - these are promises made to China's citizens. If China wants the Olympics to prove its legitimacy and credibility to the world, then in return it must prove that it is willing to honour its human rights commitments: by improving media freedom in line with the Olympic pledges, by suspending the death penalty in line with United Nations demands, by ceasing its support for military dictators from Burma to Darfur and by allowing elections by universal suffrage in Hong Kong. That is how China can win its place at the heart of the international community.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, the People's Republic of China is a country to be found on every list of infringements of human rights, whether it is a matter of freedom of speech and association, compulsory abortion, disappearances, torture, religious freedom or threats of aggression against Taiwan.
China continues to persecute followers of the Catholic Church. A report by David Kilgour, the Canadian Government's former secretary of state for Asia, shows that one of the most persecuted groups since 1999 is Falun Gong, whose members have organs forcibly removed in Chinese work camps. People whose only crime was to meet with a vice-president of this Parliament, Mr McMillan-Scott, have recently disappeared without trace.
Meanwhile, our trade relations are blooming. China is extending its influence in Africa and will soon be inviting millions of guests to the Olympic Games. I cannot understand the absence so far of the most obvious response: the free world must boycott the 2008 Olympics.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Madam President, we are talking today to Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, and that is welcome. However, at the 10th EU-China summit in Beijing on 28 November, the European Union was represented by its President, by the Trade Commissioner and by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner.
It is true that, since 2000, trade between the European Union and China has increased by 150%; it is also true that it has become much harder to produce statistics on the deteriorating human rights situation in China. There is nothing taboo about discussing human rights issues at the same time as trade issues. There is an obvious link between them, for example in relation to the freedom to join a trade union, and the ability of workers in China to mobilise and demand better working conditions. The general attitude we encounter is deplorable, all the more so because its effect is to make us waste time: the decision taken in 2001 promised a new openness in China and progress on human rights and democracy; the Chinese people are waiting for that promise to be kept and they are looking to us.
They have been disappointed in their hope that openness would result from China's staging the Olympic Games, and the sense of disappointment is bitter. Not only has the run-up to the Games so far brought harsher repression but - even more regrettably - the organisation of the Games has itself had unforeseen effects and has been used as a pretext for serious human rights violations. I am thinking here of the cases of forced expropriation and of the exploitation of migrant labour. All this may not be surprising, for the dissident Hu Jia informs us that the head of security in Beijing is also the person in charge of organising the Olympic Games there.
Perhaps we shall get round to expressing surprise or even dismay about that state of affairs when the intimidation and repression of foreign journalists - which has already begun - becomes even more drastic, for they are already being prevented from working. The arrest of two Agence France-Presse journalists on 12 September, for example, shows that the rules introduced in January 2007 are being applied only patchily and only insofar as the persons concerned cause no embarrassment to the regime. The undertakings given by China are a dead letter; indeed, it is falling so far short of its commitments that it has resorted to compiling blacklists. There is currently a blacklist of 42 categories of people regarded as persona non grata during the Olympic Games, ranging from the Dalaï Lama to followers of Falun Gong and including dissidents.
In January this year, negotiations began on a new EU-China framework agreement. That is welcome because a new agreement also means a new 'human rights and democracy' clause. It creates fresh scope for discussing human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities. However, 2007 was also the year that saw the cancellation of a legal seminar to prepare for the human rights dialogue because the Chinese authorities refused to allow two particular NGOs to participate - one of them the well-known organisation represented by human rights campaigner Sharon Hom. It was certainly salutary to find the Union taking a firm stand on that occasion. At the same time, of course, we have to ask whether seminars like this can continue. Our position is that the two things must not be mutually exclusive. It is very important to go on holding legal seminars. Equally, however, we cannot permit the Chinese authorities to dictate who may take part in them.
(NL) Ladies and gentlemen, in past decades this Chamber has been the scene of many ringing declarations on human rights. The proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has once again made us focus on what the essence of Europe really is. We are a community of values, based on solidarity, tolerance and respect for human rights.
At least, that is the theory, but the reality is rather different. And the European Union's watchword on human rights should really be rather different. In the last few weeks it has been abundantly clear that those who are sick of hearing about human rights are often the same people who apply that other principle of Realpolitik, namely erst das Fressen, dann die Moral, or 'food first, then morality', as Bertolt Brecht put it.
In Paris Nicolas Sarkozy, in exchange for lucrative contracts, is rolling out the red carpet for a mass murderer who just a few days ago sought to legitimise terrorism, boasting that he did not waste words talking about human rights in his country. In Lisbon a bloodthirsty tyrant like Mugabe is received with full honours, because in Africa too we have to look after our commercial interests.
In China we are pursuing the same course. Last year Amnesty International reported that Beijing was lagging behind on crucial issues such as the death penalty, judicial procedures, press freedom and freedom of movement for human rights activists. In the meantime the Chinese capital is undergoing a slick clean-up, says Amnesty International. Re-education by forced labour and imprisonment without charge are now being used to punish offences like the unauthorised posting of bills, driving an unlicensed taxi and begging, to name just a few.
The human rights activists will be silenced, but the stadia will gleam and sparkle next year, ladies and gentlemen. A lot of European worthies will be jockeying for front seats at the opening of the Games. And when they get home they will doubtless continue the fight against extremism in Europe. It is enough to make you sick.
(LT) It is impossible to deny that since 1998, when we saw the start of the summit meetings between China and Europe, relations between the EU and China - at political, economic, trade and scientific research level - have been developing intensely and have grown into a strategic partnership. However, strategic partnerships, as we understand them, are based on common values, respect for democracy and human rights.
Respect for human rights has always been and continues to be the foundation on which the EU is built. It is not a short-lived declaration, as the EU's history over more than half a century has undoubtedly proved. It is time that all the countries, the EU partners, understood that there are some things that the EU would never give up and would never abandon. I would therefore like to point out that several hours ago in this very room a historic document - the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - was signed.
At this point I would like to mention the fact that certain issues have a negative impact on the development of EU-China relations and the key to resolving these problems is in most cases in the hands of the Chinese authorities.
During our talks with the Chinese representatives, even during negotiations on trade and economic cooperation agreements, we have always remembered and will never forget the fact that people in China are continuing to suffer in prison for their political views, for their religion or for belonging to ethnic minority groups, and for economic crimes, such as tax evasion, they receive the death penalty.
In recent years, with the approaching Olympic Games in Beijing, we have learned of other 'developments' such as the fact that people's accommodation is being demolished without compensation being awarded, in order to make way for the construction of Olympic structures, and the existence of a list of 42 categories of people not to be allowed to attend the Olympic games, including the Dalai Lama, his followers and human rights defenders.
I can say only one thing: this is absolutely out of line with the traditions and spirit of the Olympic Games. My suggestion would therefore be to cancel these lists, which do China no credit at all, and ensure that in honour of the Olympic Games all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are released and a death penalty moratorium is declared.
I regret the fact that the EU-China summit meeting in Beijing has failed to become a historical event and that the participants were not the sort of politicians capable of taking EU-China relations to a new level. Just one thing was missing: greater consideration and respect for people and their rights.
Madam President, I speak in this debate on the EU-China summit and the EU-China human rights dialogue, although from some of the resolutions tabled by political groups in this House you would not have known that the first half of this debate existed.
It is quite right that we raise with the Chinese the issue of human rights. The human rights situation in China is far from adequate. China continues to use the death penalty, as Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner stated in her opening statement. They repress campaigning organisations for Tibetan autonomy, religious groups outside a very narrow range of officially permitted groups, as well as others who promote their regions, promote press freedom and try and organise trade unions. We also have the insurmountable barrier with respect to the hundreds of millions of migrant workers in China who try to organise themselves to end exploitation and to promote decent labour standards.
Yet there is a complete refusal on the part of many in this House to acknowledge any of the progress that China has made over the past two decades. The human rights situation in China in my view, although far from adequate, is far better than it was back in the days of Tiananmen Square. As the Commissioner stated, the death penalty, for example, now requires confirmation by the Chinese Supreme Court. My own experience is that in China now there is a large degree of freedom of thought but not freedom to organise, because that still is the sine qua non in terms of what China and the Chinese authorities actually forbid.
We must continue to press China on these issues, but a refusal to recognise any progress positively discourages those progressive and liberal forces within the regime who are trying to push further, because they get no recognition for what they have done already.
China is now a global economic, industrial and political power. The EU needs to have a critical engagement that rightly criticises China where it has gone wrong, where it must go further, at the same time as we engage in a dialogue on tackling global warming, the negative impacts of globalisation, African development and the fight against terrorism.
(NL) Madam President, I very much welcome a strategic partnership with China. I am very glad that we now have more than just economic ties alone and that cultural exchanges between us, for example, have grown enormously in recent years. I am very happy to see so much attention being given to the political dimension, and I will cite one example.
Africa: we must keep up our liaison with China on its Africa policy and we now have a forum in which to do so. I am pleased that Mr Michel is shortly going to Beijing to discuss that and other matters. And I find it a very good thing that we are increasingly working together on economic issues. But I am very concerned by imbalances in our economic relationship.
For example I find no hint of the fact that we should do more to pass on our experience of our Single Market to the Chinese who, in this regard, might improve their own market considerably. The same goes for regional policy, for the elimination of regional differences. We have experience in these areas. We have learnt a few lessons. But I do not think the Chinese are so keen to play ball here.
Mr Mandelson has said that there is a fair bit of uncertainty about investing in China, and that this damages our exports to China, and Chinese economic growth too. He is right, I think. You need the rule of law, certainty, in order for the economy to prosper. On matters of intellectual property, product safety or capital management. But you also need the rule of law when it comes to individual human rights, of course. That is just as important, if not far more so.
I am glad we are to have a report on the human rights dialogue. I think we should have one every time. Like you, Commissioner, I see a number of hopeful signs, but the European Parliament must maintain the focus on one or two things which have not yet been resolved: freedom of expression, policy on minorities, forced labour which regrettably still continues, abuse of power of which regrettably there is too much, and the death penalty which still exists. We as the European Parliament must continue to emphasise these things, and it is something we must do day in, day out.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are faced time and again with the question of the right way to proceed in our political dealings with China. Mr Sterckx has just spoken again of strategic partnership, and rightly so. I find that an absolutely desirable aim. But we must be realistic, and we are clearly not yet on that level at the present time, because we do not have a foundation of shared values - human rights, fair treatment of minorities, rejection of the death penalty - on which a genuine strategic partnership could be built.
I believe it was absolutely right - and I say this advisedly as a Green German MEP - for Angela Merkel to meet the Dalai Lama, because it shows that we mean what we say about respect for human rights.
On the other hand, there is something I do not find at all right. President Sarkozy, when he recently spoke here, told us that human rights must be the hallmark of the European Union, only to travel to China three weeks later and not make an issue of human rights there. These are European double standards, and they are something we must not tolerate.
I fervently believe that our dialogue with China, which I support and which we must have the political will to pursue, cannot be all fawning sweet talk but must also include confrontation. If we combine these and negotiate with China in a self-assured manner, we must also express unveiled criticism. In the context of the Olympic Games too, the Chinese have to achieve the goals they set for themselves, and we Europeans should be bold and frank and confront the Chinese with our criticism when the need arises.
Madam President, a few hours ago the President of the European Parliament signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights and declared that 'we have a moral and political obligation to defend human dignity. This applies to each human being in this world.' And the Portuguese Prime Minister stated that 'the Charter is part of the EU foreign policy'.
Let me turn to China. We understand that, by becoming the host of the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese Government committed itself to fully respect both the Olympic ideal of human dignity and internationally guaranteed human rights.
The European Parliament now has to conclude that there has been a recent increase in political persecutions related directly to the Olympics. In addition, more people are being executed in China than in the rest of the world combined - up to 10 000 a year.
Defenders of human dignity are being arrested, and up to seven million people are being tortured in the notorious Laogai camps.
What should we do? I think the answer was provided here yesterday by the Sakharov Prize Winner Osman, who told us to put more pressure on the respective governments: to do something concrete. There is an understanding of the sin of omission - responsibility for what we could and might have done but failed to do. It is not enough to voice our concerns; it is time to apply the principle of conditionality and to declare, as our colleague, Mr Watson, told us: a deal is a deal.
The only way to make the Communist dictators in China respect their citizens more is to send a signal that we take our own values of solidarity and human dignity seriously enough to make dictators feel real pain for their abuses and arrogance.
(PL) Madam President, the European Parliament has stressed the infringement of human rights in China, and the lack of democracy in that country, on many occasions. These are obvious matters. Only yesterday, in discussing the European Union's human rights report for the past year, we spoke of the lack of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in China.
On the other hand, it does not seem right to me to ignore the changes for the better that are taking place in China. In particular, the coming year of the Olympic Games should be used by the European Union to pressurise the Chinese authorities towards liberalisation, democratisation, the rule of law and the release of all political prisoners.
On 20 November a delegation of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights to the United Nations Organisation in New York met with Liu Zhenmin, China's representative to the UN. I consider it to have been a constructive meeting. The Chinese side showed signs of openness and sensitivity to pressure on human rights and democracy - a fact that was also emphasised by representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in talks with the Subcommittee's delegation.
(HU) Madam President, Commissioner, billions of people are awaiting 8 August 2008, the opening of the Olympic Games, with great interest. Not only sports lovers will be watching, but also those who are expecting progress from China in the area of human rights. Unfortunately, we cannot be satisfied with the results to date. The Chinese Communist Party can rejoice, since it must have achieved a lot of success for the legitimisation of power. But we also have the opportunity to make the most of the period running up to the Olympics and sternly to demand an explanation for the unlawfulness appearing in the area of human rights. The European Union-China dialogue on human rights has been going on for 24 years. Unfortunately, its balance is not at all favourable. There is some progress, for example in the area of application of the death penalty, but in many areas there is a strong sense of backing out, such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of the Internet. In order for us to be able to bring about change, we must also bring about change in the dialogue on human rights.
Firstly, we must say that the dialogue on human rights is not the only forum for raising such problems. Every Member State is also obliged to act strictly and firmly on these matters in bilateral relations.
Secondly, the presence of civil organisations and transparency of negotiations must be ensured. Transparency is very important for us to monitor what is happening there. Since dialogue is not a goal in itself, it is only meaningful if it makes a good contribution to improving the human rights situation in China.
Finally, I would like to speak about the situation of the Uyghur minority. Little is said about them and they are a forgotten minority. They are not only afflicted by the general oppression in China, but they are also the victims of ethnic, religious and linguistic discrimination. I urge you to act in their interests too. Thank you.
(ES) Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to issue a couple of reminders to European governments.
The first has to do with the lifting of the arms embargo on China, to which reference has been made on several occasions. I would like to point out that this House has frequently insisted that the lifting of that ban could only occur when there was genuine and meaningful progress in relation to those apprehended following the Tiananmen Square events of 1989, not progress in general terms, but specifically in relation to that matter, because that is what we are waiting for from the Chinese authorities at this point in time: some meaningful progress which would enable such action to be taken.
Until that time I believe that it would not only be premature, but would convey entirely the wrong message and give Europe a very bad image to lift an embargo which, I repeat, was imposed at the time for very specific reasons which have certainly not been clarified.
The second message, endorsing the opinion of my colleague Mrs Trüpel, is that it is unacceptable for certain European countries to submit, and sometimes succumb, to pressure from the Chinese authorities aimed at preventing them from holding official meetings with important Chinese personalities, in some cases dissidents, or representatives such as the Dalai Lama, in return for assured trade relations with China.
Especially today, when we have signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this is something which is completely at odds with the basic ethos which we seek to impose on the European Union.
(PT) At the Summit, Europe spoke clearly about how China is perverting WTO rules, failing to respect workers' rights, exporting products that are harmful to health, pirating technology and impeding European access to the Chinese market. The Chinese leaders were not used to hearing the EU speak so frankly and they retaliated by holding up the joint declaration for a few days, but the European leadership regrettably failed to keep up the pressure: not only did it make unacceptable concessions on the referendum in Taiwan, it did not contradict the 'One China Policy' and it did not confront Peking on the subject of serious human rights problems. Because there was not time, President José Sócrates told Portuguese journalists, sometimes these things are discussed over dinner.
The death penalty and the release of prisoners held since the Tiananmen Square massacre: these are among the reasons why this Parliament is in favour of maintaining the embargo on arms to China. Arbitrary detention and trial, corruption and forced evictions, persecution and repression of journalists and Internet users, repression of Tibetans and minorities, responsibility for the tragedies in Darfur and Burma: none of these fundamental issues was on the Summit's agenda. Clearly the EU is not alone in having a duty to call Beijing to account before it holds the 2008 Olympic Games. If the International Olympic Committee mediates about the quality of the air, why not judge Beijing on respect for the Olympic ideal in its relations with its own citizens and those of other countries? No one, least of all the EU Council and Commission, can continue to neglect the fight for freedoms and human rights in China. This is a marathon that will only gain impetus in the context of the 2008 Olympics. Not only does it affect millions and millions of Chinese, it will have consequences for the whole of humanity.
(DE) Madam President, the human rights dialogue between the EU and China has been taking place twice a year behind closed doors for the last eleven years, and yet it has done nothing to improve the human rights situation in China. Reports of executions, torture in prisons and labour camps and the oppression of the Tibetans plainly show that we Europeans are not shouldering our responsibility.
The Olympic Games are coming up, and they give China good reason to furnish proof of genuine reforming zeal. At the same time, we must not practise double standards either. It is very gratifying that Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel received the Dalai Lama in spite of heavy criticism. It would only be logical if leaders in Belgium, France and other countries were to do likewise. The EU is accepted worldwide as the voice of human rights, and it is high time we acted consistently in every context, including that of our dialogue with China.
Madam President, today we are having a debate on the EU-China summit, which took place 10 days ago, and on the 24th Round of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, which took place two months ago.
Especially today, let me start with the second one. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is a core principle of the EU and its policies and it is something that we all strongly care about and support. But I am one of those who believe that the EU should follow a result-oriented approach in promotion of respect for human rights rather than a purely principled one and, most importantly, we have to accept that the improvements will only come step-by-step. That does not mean that the EU should hesitate in voicing its criticism and using its power to insist upon democratic reforms.
I am also one of those who care about the high-level product safety that affects 550 million European citizens; who care about trade imbalance, effective market access, intellectual property rights and international competition policies that affect thousands of European companies and millions of European employees; and who care about cooperation on environment protection, international environment governance and climate change that affects the whole population of the Earth.
Because we care about all the above, we strongly support the Commission and Council and its Presidency for addressing, negotiating and stressing continuously each one of the issues in regular dialogue with the Chinese side. A simple reading of the 18-page joint statement of the last EU-China summit is enough to understand that the complexity, sensitivity and importance in the EU-China cooperation...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this debate again shows that societal change takes time, and I think we always have to remember where China has come from. I think we also have to acknowledge a certain progress, as I said at the beginning. But, at the same time, it is true that we are not yet where we would like to see China.
Therefore, I think the Human Rights Dialogue - also accompanied by the NGO seminar - remains the cornerstone for addressing our human rights concerns with China.
However, I think we need to be determined but also realistic. Determined to convince China that it is in its own best interest to establish full respect for human rights across the board. Realistic, because we need to recognise that only through engagement and long-term effort can we really hope to achieve genuine reforms in China. In this context, I would also like to say that the continued holding of the NGO seminar is in the mutual interest of both China and the European Union. This has also just been confirmed by the summit.
I think, therefore, there is a good chance that, back-to-back with the next human rights dialogue under the Slovenian Presidency, we will be able to resume this civil society seminar.
On a few other questions, let me just say that human rights were also mentioned in the joint statement that is there, and I will just read out the first few lines. 'The two sides emphasised their commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and continued to place a high value on the EU-China human rights dialogue, including the accompanying legal seminar.' You see: there it is. They underline the importance of concrete steps in the fields of human rights and affirm their commitment to further strengthening dialogue and so on.
I would also like to say that there are a few concrete points that were highlighted in this discussion on which we want to see progress, such as the Falun Gong. The situation of Falun Gong followers who have been subject to repression because of their beliefs remains a matter of concern for us. We raised this issue several times, and more particularly on the occasion of the sessions of the Human Rights Dialogue. We asked, and will continue to ask, the Chinese authorities to put an end to the harsh treatment imposed on Falun Gong followers.
Concerning the death penalty, I have said before that this issue is high on our agenda, and in this framework we have been urging China - and will continue along these lines - to reduce the scope of capital crimes, with a view to ultimately abolishing the death penalty.
A first step would be to impose a moratorium on implementation. Then, as I said in my introductory remarks, would come a review of death penalty sentences by the Supreme Court as a first step which would be continuously monitored.
I think the debate has shown very clearly that there is a mixed picture: there is progress, but there is still a lot to be done, and I can only say we will further engage with China in order to encourage China to make progress. I think the Olympic Games will be a good opportunity for China to show that more progress has been made by then.
I have received six motions for resolutions, tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 December 2007.


2. EU guarantee to the EIB against losses under loans and guarantees for projects outside the EU (
- Before the vote on Amendment 1:
rapporteur. - Mr President, in the light of the recent developments in the countries of the Mediterranean and North Africa, the democratic changes and the consequences of those developments, including the migration flow towards the European Union, I would like to suggest an oral amendment to the report, with some figures.
The amendment is as follows: in annex 1 the new figure for item B 'Neighbourhood and Partnership Countries' should read 13 664 000 000, with the figure for the sub-ceiling for 'Mediterranean countries' 9 700 000 000. The result of these changes would be a correction to the figures in Article 2(1)(1). The correct figure for the 'maximum ceiling' is now 29 567 000 000 and the correct 'General Mandate' figure is 27 567 000 000.


14. HIV/AIDS: early diagnosis and early care (vote)


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)


Palestinian prisoners in Israel (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Council on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails - B6-0166/2008);
the oral question to the Commission on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails - B6-0167/2008);
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we put a simple question to 47 Members from different political groups: what are the Council and the Commission intending to do about the violations of international conventions by the Israeli authorities as regards Palestinian prisoners? The vast majority of prisoners are detained in Israeli territory, violating Article 76 of the Geneva Convention: arbitrary arrests, house-to-house searches, administrative detention, torture and abuse during interrogations in detention centres. Men, women, teenagers, students, MPs and mayors, some 10 000 people imprisoned out of a population of three and a half million; there is a ban on visits for those aged between 16 and 35, with the result that prisoners have not been able to see brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers for years.
All this has been documented by international organisations including Amnesty International, the United Nations and admirable Israeli organisations such as B'Tselem and Hamoked, and by Palestinian organisations such as Addameer and Defence for Children International. However, no pressure is being exerted on the Israeli authorities to respect the conventions and the rules that they are themselves ratifying and that we are also ratifying.
I should like to read an account, an appeal from a mother: 'I am the mother of the prisoner Said Al Atabeh, of Nablus. My son has been in jail since 1977, and I am 78 and suffer from high blood pressure and diabetes; I am losing my sight and cannot really get around my own home any more. Perhaps you will be surprised but my only desire in this life is to see my son and give him a loving embrace before I die. All my children, sons and daughters, are now grown up, married and have left my home. Said has lost everything and I cannot see him, not because I am old and ill, but because the Israeli authorities will not let me have a permit to visit him, on security grounds, they say. I have only been able to visit Said once, when I was taken by an Israeli ambulance in cooperation with the Red Cross, and that was eight years ago after he had been in prison for 29 years. That was the first and last time that I embraced my beloved son. He took me in his arms and said "Mama, it is as though I am being born into this life again”. Those minutes were the most precious for me and for him, but the moment when we were separated from one another was the hardest and most painful'. This mother makes an appeal: 'I should like to see him once again'.
Can we allow this? Can a man who has been in prison for 32 years be prevented from seeing his mother? Where are the international rules? Where is the humanity, I ask myself? I believe that as the Council, as the Commission, as Parliament, we have to stand our ground and say as forcefully as we can that the international rules have to be respected, that Palestinian prisoners, and as I have said there are 10 000 of them, must be freed to pave the way for peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Madam Vice-President, Mrs Morgantini, ladies and gentlemen, you have raised the subjects of Israel's imprisonment and administrative detention of Palestinians, including minors, and of their treatment in the occupied territories and in Israel.
The Council believes that penal policies and practices must, in all circumstances, respect the fundamental principles of human rights as enshrined in international law, in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
All detention that could be described as arbitrary should be proscribed, particularly in view of the fact that the person detained has not been advised of the charges against him. The principle of the right to a fair and public trial by an impartial and independent court is fundamental in a state governed by the rule of law, and we note that special courts may be put in place only in very limited and clearly defined cases.
It is also essential to respect the obligation to treat detained persons properly and, of course, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners must be strictly prohibited and prevented.
The Council recognises that the human rights situation in the Middle East is a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the Council is very pleased that the dialogue between the European Union and Israel is addressing all these issues, including the situation in the Palestinian territories. The human rights issue is a topic that continues to be discussed at all levels on an ongoing basis in political contacts between the EU and Israel.
Thus in its declaration of 16 June 2008, published at the end of the EU-Israel Association Council, the European Union called for the informal group discussing the human rights issue to be transformed into a standing subcommittee.
The Council is aware of the facts set out by honourable Members in Parliament, especially the Vice-President, and raised in particular in the last report by Mr John Dugard, special United Nations rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, and by various non-governmental organisations.
The Council has had the opportunity to register its concern, and has called several times for Palestinian prisoners to be released in greater numbers. Moreover, it reaffirms its position that the political process begun in Annapolis in November 2007, which must be accompanied by measures of trust on the ground, constitutes the only means of reaching a solution negotiated between the parties, based on the coexistence of two states, namely an independent Palestinian state that is democratic and viable, living peacefully alongside an Israel with secure, recognised borders.
In this context, and with a view to rebuilding trust between the parties and involving the civil populations in the current political process, the Council invites Israel to make significant gestures, in particular by releasing, as a priority, the Palestinian children, women and elected representatives who are in prison or in administrative detention.
(Applause)
With regard to invocation of the instruments of international law, as mentioned by Mrs Morgantini, the Council maintains its position, that international law is to be defended and developed, as stipulated in the European Security Strategy adopted by the Council in December 2003.
I would emphasise that the Presidency, on behalf of the European Union, is very pleased about the signature of the exchange agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, which we learned of on Monday. This agreement provides for the return of the bodies of Hezbollah fighters and the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the return of the bodies of the Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, captured in 2006.
We hope that this exchange will be effected as agreed, but this issue also reveals, for the future, just how complex the 'prisoners' issue in the Middle East is, and how important it is to resolve it.
The Council points out that the political process, as defined in the road map, represents the only means of reaching a solution negotiated between the parties, and, as I have indicated and on the terms that I have indicated, the coexistence of two states.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all to Mrs Morgantini I would like to say that I am very sensitive to the question that you have put to us today. Last February I, too, met with the Palestinian Minister for Prisoners' Affairs in the company of Mrs Fadwa Barghouti, the wife of Marwan Barghouti, who is in prison. I listened very attentively to them. Their account of the situation of prisoners corresponds to those of the reports the honourable Members, and you personally, quote in their question.
I would like to stress therefore that I am very concerned about human rights violations and I have great sympathy for the suffering of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
The Commission is very mindful of Israel's responsibility as an occupying power, and of conflicts with international law these conditions illustrate. We therefore regularly raise, for example, the issue of administrative detentions with our Israeli counterparts, both in informal and in formal settings. The single case that you mentioned today touches me very much and if I could have the documentation I will personally try to do what I can. Maybe there is a chance of getting this mother to see her son again.
The European Union has also called many times for the immediate release of Palestinian legislators detained by Israel. The Commission is also aware of the Palestinian children who are held in Israeli prisons and detention centres. This contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that sets the minimum age to 18 years for minors, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention that requires prisoners to be held within the Occupied Territory. These detained children are particularly vulnerable. We know that. Their treatment must be brought into compliance with international law.
We need to give increased attention to the situation of children affected by this conflict situation. This is why the European Union has added Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the list of the priority countries for the implementation of the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed conflict.
In line with these guidelines, the European Union also integrates all aspects of the rights and well-being of children affected by the conflict into the political dialogue with Israel. In addition, the European Union also cooperates closely with UN agencies, as well as Israeli and Palestinian NGOs, actively involved in monitoring, reporting and advocating the rights of the child.
The respect for human rights and compliance with international law is one of the fundamental values of the European Union. It is an essential element of our foreign policy. Consequently, protecting human rights is of great importance in our relations with Israel. Our human rights dialogue with the Israeli authorities at different levels bears witness to this.
The Commission, in its meetings with the Israeli authorities, and I personally in my meetings with Israeli decision-makers, will certainly continue to urge Israel to comply fully with international law and conventions. The European Union stated at the last Association Council with Israel very recently its desire to set up a formal subcommittee on human rights. This would then be an important step forward to further formalise a dialogue on these issues.
Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement will continue to remind both the European Union and Israel that respect for human rights and democratic principles are the basis of our bilateral relations. We believe that dialogue is the most promising means to exert a positive influence on Israel. We do not shy away from raising difficult issues, such as the one the honourable Members have inquired about.
I completely agree with the Presidency when it says that all this has to be seen in the context of the Middle East conflict, and therefore I think a solution to this conflict would in the end also mitigate or even solve the problem of the prisoners.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, yet again the anti-Israel forces in this Parliament are seeking any opportunity to attack the Jewish State and yet again those of us who seek a balanced debate and a genuine peace in the Middle East are compelled to come to Israel's defence. After all, Israel is a democratic country, which faces an existential threat from Jihadi terrorists and their cheerleaders, who are the very individuals currently held under administrative detention by Israel.
Concerning the issue of children, sadly children have been dragged into and recruited into the Intifada and even as potential suicide bombers by the terrorists.
I particularly question the need for this motion for a resolution at a time of a truce with Hamas, which has just stopped firing its rockets from Gaza at civilians, and also a prisoner exchange taking place between Israel and Hizbollah, whereby five terrorist prisoners were returned to their homes and families, whereas two Israeli soldiers will be returned in body bags. One of these terrorists - Samir Kuntar - murdered a young Israeli man by drowning him and then took the man's daughter, smashing her on rocks and beating her skull with a rifle butt. He also killed a policeman. The Palestinian terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro - during which time they murdered an elderly Jewish man, throwing his body overboard - demanded Kuntar's release.
Doing deals with terrorists brings with it a heavy price to pay for any democracy, but this is doubly so in Israel's case. Samir Kuntar has vowed to resume Jihad against Israel now that he is set free.
I therefore applaud Israel's courageous decision. I hope that it will ultimately bring positive results, but I fear not, because it is quite apparent that those who wish to destroy Israel as a state are gaining strength from politicians like Mrs Morgantini who table resolutions like this one at this moment in time.
While she is on the topic, she might also wish to examine an allegation in the British press of the torture routinely carried out in Palestinian jails against their own people both by Hamas in Gaza and, perhaps more surprisingly, by the Palestinian Authority itself.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, I recently attended the Berlin Conference, where the key issue was that of restoring the rule of law in the occupied territories. What applies to Palestine, a constantly evolving state, is all the more applicable to Israel. And on this point, the fate of the Palestinian prisoners is a genuine paradigm, for what this is about is the fate of more than 8 500 Palestinian prisoners, and the reasons for and conditions of their detention.
I would point out that 48 elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are currently in prison. This is unacceptable. That the overwhelming majority of the detainees have been transported to Israeli prisons, contrary to the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of detainees from occupied territories to the occupier; this is unacceptable. That the penal code applied in the occupied territories applies only to Palestinians, and not to the colonists. To put it plainly, what is criminal for one group is no longer criminal for the other group. This is unacceptable. That around 100 women have been imprisoned, and that those women who are pregnant or breastfeeding are not receiving the care their condition requires; this is unacceptable. That 310 minors are being detained under the same conditions as the adults, although Israel is a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And let nobody try to tell me what I have already heard, namely that at the age of 15, these little Arabs are already adults, and capable of anything.
What is to blame for this, Mr Tannock, if not the occupation that has deprived them of their childhood? And the list continues: torture, mistreatment, non-existent rights of defence, lack of a judgment, and so on. I would remind you that these facts have been documented by both Israeli and international sources. Of course the European Parliament cannot wave a magic wand and bring this conflict to an end, but I assure you that it will put human rights at the heart of the review of Israel's status, which will be debated throughout this year. Article 2 of this Agreement puts it clearly: 'Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.'
Naturally the exchange needs to be made. The exchange and release of prisoners, for example, such as Gilad Shalit on the one hand and Salah Hamouri on the other, must be negotiated. And I am certainly very pleased that the exchange agreement has been signed with Hezbollah. However, I should like to remind our Israeli partners that for the European Parliament, human rights are non-negotiable. And therefore, I am delighted, and I congratulate you, Minister, as a representative of the Council, and you, Commissioner, for the firmness of your words, which reassure us that we three institutions do indeed make up one European Union.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I am speaking on a personal basis on this issue.
Successive governments in Israel are pursuing a policy of trying to suppress the Palestinian people's wish to live freely on their land by using the iron fist and the bullet and by arbitrarily arresting, imprisoning, torturing and murdering civilians, including women and children. This they do most unwisely, not realising that the genuine problems of security that Israel is admittedly facing cannot be solved by this type of inhuman response. On the contrary, such brutality can only bring about more violence and can only slowly erode away any international support they might have enjoyed in the past.
The time is long overdue for the EU leadership to boldly warn the governing Jewish politicians that, if they continue to act as Nazi-style military commanders and if they continue to think that the support of the US leadership and those they influence in Europe - not excluding MEPs - will be there for ever, they will sadly but inevitably and with mathematical precision lead their state into non-existence.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Obeida Assida is a Palestinian student. He was arrested in 2003, at the age of 17, and is being held in administrative detention in Israel, without charges and without a trial. Saed Yassine is a Palestinian champion of human rights. He is 34. He has been held in administrative detention in Israel since 2006. He has not been charged and nothing is known against him, and his wife and children have only been able to visit him three times. Noura al Hashlamoun is a 36-year-old housewife and the mother of six children. She has been held in administrative detention in Israel since September 2006, without charges and without a trial. Marwan Barghouti, the instigator and writer of the prisoners' document, has been held in Israel since April 2002. Moreover, I would draw my fellow MEPs' attention to the fact that an appeal for his release is still circulating, and you are welcome to sign it at any time.
Everybody knows that if I were to go through the long list of thousands of Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli prisons, in total violation of international and human rights law, I should need a great deal of speaking time. Yet each of them, each of their families deserves a lengthy speech. For they have been spared nothing - brutal interrogation that may last up to 188 days and is known to include torture, confessions and judgments to be signed in Hebrew, detention without foundation in Israel, outside their own territory, arbitrarily renewable every six months, submission to an ad hoc and discriminatory military jurisdiction that has absolutely no legal justification, no access to a lawyer for the first 90 days of their detention, and virtually non-existent visiting rights.
Mrs De Keyser is right to say that it is precisely this that the EU cannot accept. This is all totally unacceptable. And you tell us that you are going to use this new dialogue. Why should we believe that tomorrow the European Union, you, the Commission and the Council, will be more capable of imposing respect for the clauses already included in the agreement that we have, tomorrow, with the ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, during our previous plenary session on 16 June in Strasbourg, you made a statement regarding the situation in Palestine. This statement reflected the disappointing findings of the ad hoc committee that, on your initiative, visited the Palestinian territories in early June and observed the Palestinians' squalid living conditions imposed by the Israeli occupation.
It is now time for the Council and the Commission to give answers regarding the actions they intend to take to ensure that the occupying forces, the State of Israel, observes international law with regard to the state of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.
Today, we, the Members of the European Parliament, demand that the Council and the Commission provide an explanation for the fact that on 16 June they upgraded relations between the European Union and Israel, at a time when 11 000 detainees, including 376 children, 118 women and 44 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as well as 800 administrative detainees, are being held in Israeli prisons, in breach of international law.
We will be revisiting Palestine in two months' time. In the meantime, we would ask that you demand, on behalf of the entire Parliament, that the Israeli authorities immediately release all the children held in Israel's prisons, as well as those in the case of whom normal legal procedures were not observed...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, I believe that this House, together with the Commission and the Council and every politician in Europe, is convinced that the protection of an individual's human rights is much more a fundamental duty in times of war and terrorism than it is in times of peace and security. I believe we share this understanding.
This is the understanding that is also shared by the Israeli Supreme Court. In a number of decisions the Israeli Supreme Court has upheld the rights of both Palestinian prisoners and petitioners against the actions of the Israeli defence forces or Government.
Let me remind you that in 1991, as Israel was expecting an attack with chemical and biological weapons, its Supreme Court upheld a petition that literally said that the power of society to stand up against its enemies is based on its recognition that it is fighting for values that deserve protection. The best partner in defending the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israel is the Israeli Supreme Court. I believe that this legal system in a democratic country like Israel should be addressed with all concerns that Members here have.
But I ask the Members of this House: Which convention protects the rights of those who have been kidnapped or terrorised or killed in the last number of years? Under what court was Alan Johnson allowed to appeal his kidnapping? What visitation rights were given to Gilad Shalit? What rights did Ophir Rakhum, aged 16, have? What legal protection was he granted?
I urge the Members of this House, I urge them in all honesty and with all my heart, to stand up and support the Commission and the Council in their balanced approach towards this conflict and towards protecting the rights of those whose rights have been infringed. We should not take a side which will undermine the ability of the European Union to stand up and support the peace process in the Middle East as it is now doing.
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying to the President-in-Office that Amnesty International has stated that 8 500 Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories being detained in Israeli prisons are being held contrary to Article 76 of the Geneva Convention, and for many of these prisoners family visits are impossible due to the restricted travel permits. For those visits that are allowed, even though under international human rights standards Israel is responsible for ensuring that the Palestinian detainees receive these visits, it is the international community, via the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has being shouldering the cost. That is why it is right for us in the European Parliament to ask the European Council to act.
Like Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, I have met Mrs Barghouti and I thank the Commissioner too for her specific reference to our parliamentary colleagues from the Palestinian Legislative Council who are amongst the imprisoned.
Although I agree with Mr Mladenov and Mr Tannock that the abduction and failure to allow family visits of Israeli nationals is an equal breach of international law, I regret that Mr Tannock sought to portray my co-author, Mrs Morgantini, as someone who is committed to the destruction of Israel, when she and I support human rights and upholding international humanitarian law.
(FR) Mr President, it is the extremely difficult question of maintaining our democratic values in the struggle against terrorism that is the actual thrust of our debate today. Unfortunately I do not have time to address the points raised in the texts submitted by our fellow Members, even those raised in writing, and I shall not repeat the comments made by my colleague, Mr Mladenov, on the Israeli Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, I shall address the issue of minors. Yes, there are minors in prison, for the most part adolescents, whom Hamas manipulates and sends to their deaths, armed with grenades or belts filled with explosives. You and my fellow Members have mentioned international law. This also condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Every young person in prison constitutes a failure for any society. Israel is duty-bound to confront this challenge in compliance with international law, but the real tragedy is the loss to peace of an entire generation in Palestine.
Just a word about Gilad Shalit. I think I am right in saying that he is a prisoner who is both an Israeli and a French citizen. He deserves more than the culpable neglect to which he is condemned by the inconsistent indignation of some of my fellow Members. Not to mention the global political context cited by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner.
Mr President, I will end with the very fragile, but real, truces that are taking hold on several fronts. I just wanted to say that, more generally, what I would criticise is that some people here are obsessed with talking at every sitting about how a democratic state should be organised.
Mr President, I am losing count of the number of times we stand up in this Chamber to condemn the Israeli authorities for their systematic abuse of the human rights of the Palestinian people.
The occupation, the separation wall, the siege of Gaza - the list goes on. Today we focus on the terrible situation of Palestinian prisoners, including 44 members of the Legislative Council. These are our counterparts, our partners, who still languish in prison without charge and without trial.
My question is this: When is the European Council going to act? How many more violations of international law does it take? How many more Palestinians have to be arrested, imprisoned and tortured before the EU stops just talking about human rights and starts taking action to defend them?
To consider upgrading EU-Israel relations at a time like this demonstrates the most breathtaking disregard for our responsibility to the Palestinian people. To fail to invoke Article 2 of the Association Agreement demonstrates the most deplorable political cowardice.
Our argument is not with the Israeli people, many of whom join us in our condemnation of the Israeli authorities. My argument is right now not even with Israel. It is with the European Council and its grotesque failure of political leadership.
Mr President, I agree completely with Caroline Lucas. It is ironic that our next debate is on Zimbabwe. Mugabe did not like the result of an election and has since fixed it; he now arrests parliamentarians to try and achieve a new balance, and does worse. We are going to condemn him utterly.
The comparisons are of course far apart, but two and a half years ago we paid for elections in Palestine. Israel did not like the result, so we refused to recognise the new government. Since then, Israel has arrested more than 40 parliamentarians, people who belong to the wrong party, people who had not used a bullet but who had resorted to the ballot box.
We are not going to apply sanctions. Instead we are seeking closer partnership with Israel. So, Commissioner and Minister, the contradictions are surely evident. You say you have a balanced approach - but where is the evidence that our approach is achieving anything?
Mr President, I do not let Israel off the hook but it is extremely unhelpful for the European Parliament to single out one party - Israel - in a complex conflict where human rights abuses demand a balanced approach. A debate only on Israeli actions is also very bad timing.
Are we forgetting that our overriding aim is to encourage the parties to achieve a peaceful two-state solution? Only if our criticism is accurate and constructive and non-partisan will we be heard by both parties and have a brighter prospect of influence.
I think Human Rights Watch and the UN's Martin Scheinin achieved such a standard. The latter points out the significance of decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court - entirely absent from the oral questions. Even John Dugard's report said he was deeply concerned and condemned violations of human rights by Palestinians upon Palestinians and by Palestinians upon Israelis. No mention of that.
I regret that Israel still relies on emergency regulations of 1945 inherited from the British colonial power but it is worth noting that they have been applied to Jewish terrorists in Hebron as well as to Palestinian people.
Mr President, this is not a question of terrorists arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned; it is simply a question of individuals seized and held. And it is a question, in particular, of children, not child soldiers - some children have thrown stones and so on, it is true, but children.
Imagine this Chamber full of children. Take half of them, put sacks over their heads, tie their hands behind their backs, take them away without telling their parents where you are taking them, put them into jails, put them into 1.5 m2 rooms with no windows, put on the light, keep them away from medical attention, keep them away from any outside visits and so forth, do not allow them to have changes of clothes. That is what we are talking about. That is what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should be about.
My plea to Israel is: For goodness' sake, you are not winning friends by doing this. Please, Israel, my cry to you is: Set the children free!
Mr President, it is precisely because some of us believe that Israel is a democracy - a democratic state - and because the European Union treats it as such, that we hold it accountable to the rule of law. If it was not a democratic state, we would not be trying to hold it accountable to the rule of law.
There is no supreme court for those who are out of the whole judicial system. We know what the Supreme Court says, but that applies only to those who can reach the Supreme Court. When you are under administrative detention and you have no access to court whatsoever, there is no Supreme Court ruling which will protect you.
The conflict cannot be used as an argument for such violations. It is not a balanced approach to remain neutral and to treat these individuals as if they did not exist. These individuals are under arrest without any guarantee whatsoever, without any procedure; their families are beside themselves, and their houses and families in many cases are being destroyed and punished for what they have done or what they are accused of, and that deserves a reaction from the European Union.
(NL) I would remind Mr Tannock that this question was tabled not by Mrs Morgantini alone, but also by two EPP-ED Group vice-presidents of Parliament, Mr McMillan-Scott and Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, and by Mr Bowis, Mr Kasoulides and myself. Just to clarify that to start with. As a member of Parliament's Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council I have experienced first-hand on several occasions what it means to be unable to meet your democratically elected colleagues because they are in gaol.
What indeed can one say of the many women and children scattered amongst various prisons outside the Palestinian Territories, something that makes it well-nigh impossible for their lawyers and families to visit them? Everyone has talked about the everyday living conditions and the lack of medical care. How long are the international community and the European Union going to go on tolerating this? I urge the Commission and Council to get this unacceptable situation brought under control.
(FR) Mr President, I would just like to make two comments.
The first is that in this Parliament, certain problems are apprehended in rather curious fashion; it is always the same people who are condemned, and it is always the same people who are discussed. Try to have Cuba condemned here for the presence of political prisoners in its jails, and you will talk to me about the way in which human rights are dealt with in the European Parliament.
My second point is that there is a solution to ensure that Israel finally releases those who must be released - stop the attacks, stop bombarding Israeli villages, stop killing children, stop the attacks with mechanical diggers, and stop sending in children with pockets full of dynamite. Then Israel will release its prisoners!
(ES) Mr President, Mrs Morgantini's words are very moving and we cannot help but show our solidarity with these duly documented cases of alleged violation of the human rights of Palestinian prisoners. I say duly documented advisedly, because some fellow Members of the Left have directed very serious and intolerable accusations at the State of Israel. Have they ever been accused of murdering women and children or of acting like Nazis? Is this the way to further the peace process?
Mrs Morgantini, I know that your initiative is based on a specific and moving case and that your intentions are worthy. However, some of your Leftist colleagues have used this opportunity once again to try to crush and humiliate the people of Israel.
We clearly still need to stamp out the Soviet anti-Semitism which still marks the mentality of some of your colleagues here in Parliament.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be brief, since I made the essential points in my opening speech. However, the debate we have had has been very moving in some respects, and I wanted to assure you that the Council is aware of the facts mentioned, and that it will continue to register its concern and to invoke the instruments of international law.
The Presidency will continue to raise this issue in the political contacts that take place between the European Union and Israel during our term. We note also that the political process under way can develop only if measures of confidence on the ground increase. The pursuit of the colonisation process, the persistence of terrorism and violence, and the fate of Palestinian detainees are obstacles to efforts to bring about peace, as is the situation of Israeli hostages held by terrorist groups; I am thinking of Gilad Shalit in particular.
To end on a hopeful note, what I wanted to point out to Parliament is that the European Union has a key part to play in this process, owing to its position as a member of the Quartet, its status as the main source of funding and its actions in support of the Palestinian Authority, and also in its position as a major partner of Israel. The European Union has always recognised that Israel has the right to feel secure within recognised borders, coexisting with Palestine, as I said in my introduction.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place during the next sitting in September 2008.


Cleanup in Europe and Let's do it World 2012 (written declaration)
Ladies and gentlemen, written declaration 0003/2011 submitted by Mrs Jordan Cizelj, Mrs Gomes, Mrs Lepage, Mrs Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienand Mr Tarand on Cleanup in Europe and Let's do it World 2012 has been signed by the majority of Parliament's component Members. In accordance with Rule 123, it will be forwarded to its addressees and published in the Texts Adopted of this sitting, together with the names of the signatories. As far as I know, Mrs Jordan Cizelj wanted to say something about this. Mrs Jordan Cizelj, you have the floor.
(SL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I want to thank you for the support you have given to this written declaration. With this declaration, we have shown our commitment to a clean environment in this year's European Year of Volunteering. However, I would invite you not to stop at just this signature, but to help ensure that next year, in 2012, this action, that is, the one-day action to clean up our environment, becomes a success in as many countries as possible, in even more countries than has been the case so far, and, in that way, to support environmental groups in your countries.
Mr President, I want to thank everybody for supporting this initiative. I will be very brief. It has been a pleasure to work under the surveillance of Ms Jordan Cizelj and in cooperation with Ms Gomes, Ms Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienand Ms Lepage. This is a genuine citizen's initiative, and will show how citizens can guide Europe to a better future.
However, knowing the controversy around written declarations, and the differing opinions about their usefulness, I would like to apologise to those Members who felt offended by our campaign, and to repeat the promise I made to the chair of my subcommittee, Mr Danjean: I promise not to start a written declaration again during this parliamentary term.
I hope you will help me to keep my promise, and I hope we will all meet again on the Action Day in 2012.


Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes


21. The role of culture in the development of European regions (vote)


6. 2008 discharge: EU general budget, Council (
After the vote:
It might be said we are in a significantly better position than last year, because then we did not grant discharge until November. This time, we have the opportunity to do this six months earlier, although it should be said very clearly that Parliament finally has to convince the Council, firstly, to submit documents earlier, and secondly, to submit full documentation which really does cover the reporting period in question. We have been given, for example, documents from the year before.
I think this situation - one of a certain crisis in relations between Parliament and the Council - points to the need for the European Parliament to put greater pressure on the Council concerning greater transparency over budgetary expenditure. In view of the Treaty of Lisbon in particular, which increases the role of the European Parliament, this is simply indispensable.