Situation in Guinea (debate)
The next item is the Council statement on the situation in Guinea.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, we move from one item to the next. This is a very serious and important subject which the honourable Members have raised and chosen to put on the agenda.
On Monday, 28 September, more than 100 people were killed in Conakry, Guinea, when members of the Guinean security forces shot into crowds of demonstrators. Guinean citizens had gathered in a stadium in the capital to demonstrate against the presumed intention of the Guinean military interim leader, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, to run for President. The final death toll is still unknown, as the soldiers also collected the bodies rather than allow them to be counted at public morgues. At this stage, we do not know the real dimension of these tragic events. The number of injured people is said to be at least 1 200, and eye witnesses have reported that soldiers raped women on the streets of Conakry.
During the violent repression, several opposition leaders were wounded and temporarily arrested. The number of protestors still under detention is also unknown; the houses of opposition leaders were ransacked and shops looted by uniformed men. In a TV statement the following day, Captain Camara expressed his condolences with the families of those killed and visited some of the injured. He proclaimed two days of national mourning and pledged to investigate the violence. He distanced himself from the killings by saying that he was not in control of the elements of the military responsible for the atrocities.
The European Union immediately and forcefully condemned these brutal and shocking events. A Presidency declaration, a statement by High Representative Solana and a statement by EU Commissioner De Gucht were issued the following day. We will have to insist on the liberation of the arrested prisoners and a thorough investigation of the events.
The violence in Guinea received worldwide condemnation. The UN Security Council was briefed last Wednesday on the situation in the country. The African Union condemned the events and decided to prepare a report on possible measures to be taken. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) called for a full international inquiry into the matter. Parliament, as you know, condemned the unconstitutional change of power, and in its resolution of 15 January 2009, called for respect for human rights and a rapid return to constitutional order. The EU decided to open consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, and EU development aid - apart from humanitarian aid and support for democratic transition - was frozen.
We have not been alone. Our international partners have acted in line with us. The African Union and ECOWAS decided to suspend Guinea until it established a democratically elected parliament or government. An international contact group on Guinea co-chaired by the African Union and ECOWAS, and with participation by the European Union, was put into place. In March, the military junta agreed with the opposition to have elections before the end of 2009, which gave reasonable hope for a peaceful and democratic transition. Captain Camara gave his assurances that none of the coup leaders would stand for political office. A national transitional council was to guide the transition process and prepare the necessary modification of the constitution in order to help elections.
What can we do, then, to prevent further violence, and how can we help the people of Guinea in their legitimate desire for democracy, the rule of law, peace and development? Well, there are three main areas of action. First of all, we should maintain and reinforce political pressure on the regime in Conakry, notably in the context of the international group. Captain Camara's decision not to run could allow calm to return. The nomination of the President of Burkina Faso, Mr Blaise Compaoré, as facilitator in the crisis on behalf of ECOWAS and the International Contact Group, is a very positive sign, and the European Union has welcomed this appointment via the Presidency. We hope that his mediation will contribute to a secure, peaceful and lasting solution to the situation in Guinea.
Secondly, the option of targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for violence could be further explored. We will need to coordinate this approach with the African Union and other international and bilateral partners. The upcoming EU-African Ministerial Troika in Addis Ababa and the meeting on Guinea on 12 October in Abuja will be important in this respect.
Thirdly, we should continue to provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population and support the democratic transition process. The latter will nevertheless depend on the credible willingness of the transitional authorities of Guinea to re-engage in a peaceful and constructive dialogue with a clear commitment to refraining from further violence and to respecting the human rights and political freedoms of its citizens. We will spare no efforts to help the people of Guinea in this critical moment and we are determined to support a return to civilian, constitutional and democratic government through free and transparent elections. We encourage all stakeholders in Guinea to refrain from violence and to make a peaceful and democratic transition.
Mr President, Mrs Malmström, the crisis in Guinea is, in my opinion, symptomatic of a wider problem which occurs, unfortunately, in many African countries. That problem is the weakness of democratic institutions and the underdevelopment and sometimes even the lack of mechanisms characteristic of mature civil societies. This is important for Europe not only because we are bound to our values - it is also important for purely pragmatic reasons.
We discuss the effectiveness of development cooperation fairly often. This is not unusual, because we are the largest donor of this aid, and we must be interested in its effective use. However, we do have to face the fact that we will not achieve progress in effectiveness if the countries which make use of this development cooperation are not in a position to give minimum guarantees on the good use of this aid. Yet it so happens that it is hard to build such guarantees without democracy and civil society.
Yesterday, Mr Camara accused France of humiliating Africans by breaking off relations with Guinea. This is not true. France has not humiliated Africans. It is Mr Camara himself who has humiliated his compatriots and Africans. He has humiliated them, because he has allowed killings, he has allowed rapes. The reaction of France and the French Government was justified and proper, and our position should be equally resolute and severe.
It is a paradox, but the situation is fairly simple. We cannot fail to react to the brutal action which has been seen in Guinea. We must demand a halt to the use of violence. With Mrs Malmström, I think the mission of the President of Burkina Faso is a very good thing, and I wish him success. Let us hope that it will be effective. We should also support the African Union, which has announced the imposition of sanctions if civilian rule is not restored.
We know about the commitment of Sweden to the process of building democracy. We know that just this is a real priority of the Presidency in the area of development policy. We know, too, that the Swedish Government has both experience and a record of success in this area. I want, therefore, to hope and believe that this commitment, in a case so difficult and extreme as Guinea, will be effective and will produce good fruit.
Mr President, the worrying developments concerning the political situation and security in Guinea require a firm response by the European Union. Indeed, as you know, on 28 September 2009, troops under the Guinean Government carried out the bloody repression of a peaceful demonstration uniting all of the opposition parties, causing 157 deaths and injuring more than a thousand people, some of whom suffered particularly vile instances of rape and mutilation. The Republic of Guinea is a country that has experienced only two dictatorial regimes since its independence in 1958. It is time for this infernal spiral to come to an end.
The European Union, its Member States and its institutions had already condemned Moussa Dadis Camara's coup d'état on 28 December 2008. As is procedure, the Council then applied Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement to establish a road map with the Guinean authorities, to be used as a framework for democratic transition. This list of measures included, in particular, the organisation of free and transparent elections within a year and the commitment that members of the CNDD, notably Moussa Dadis Camara, would not stand in these elections.
Captain Camara's decision to postpone the organisation of elections until spring 2010 and his refusal to raise the issue of whether he would stand for the Guinean Presidency were a sign of what was to come, with the current escalation. Thus, the demonstration that was bloodily repressed on 28 September was aimed precisely at calling on the junta to honour its commitments. The reaction of the government in office in Conakry shows its true intentions quite clearly: to eliminate all forms of democratic opposition in order to remain in power.
In response, the international community has unanimously condemned these violent actions and the Guinean regime. Outraged by these massacres, our Parliament's Committee on Fisheries recently refused, quite rightly, to vote for the Fisheries Agreement between the European Union and Guinea.
Today, and in light of the latest events, the European Parliament would like to know the decisions the Council intends to take to address this situation. First of all, does the Council intend to push for the creation of an international commission of inquiry on the events of 28 September? How does the Council intend to act to ensure that the CNDD respects its commitments, namely to organise free and transparent elections as soon as possible, without the participation of Moussa Dadis Camara or another member of the CNDD? With regard to Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, what measures does the Council intend to take against the Guinean junta? Finally, what concrete commitments has the Council made to support the different initiatives run by ECOWAS, the African Union and the International Contact Group on Guinea?
Mr President, Mrs Malmström, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I wish to extend every sympathy to the Conakry victims on behalf of both the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the 30 African parliamentarians in the ACP-EU Liberal Democrat Network whom we met last week to discuss, among other things, the situation in Guinea, together with the chairman of Guinea's liberal party, a party which, unfortunately, has been directly affected by the violence.
As for what needs to be done, with regard to certain areas already mentioned by the Swedish Presidency, our requests are as follows: firstly, that together with our African Union partners, we demand the release of the prisoners and political leaders still being detained. Secondly, we must demand that free and democratic elections are held, without the participation of members of the National Council for Democracy and Development. Thirdly, I call for targeted sanctions to be adopted without too much pussyfooting around, since we must, in any case, send out a very clear message, in view of the atrocities which have been committed. Fourthly, we too wish to raise the issue of the fisheries agreement: we in the ALDE Group voted against it in the Committee on Fisheries, thereby helping secure the majority necessary to block the agreement, as far as possible. We believe that this is another important decision that the Council must take.
The fifth point is that we must establish targeted programmes to assist the victims, especially the women who were raped and who certainly need special dedicated help. Lastly, there is the question of justice. For us, it is vital to have not only an international commission of inquiry, but also the full involvement of the International Criminal Court. We believe that if there is a lesson to be learnt from the Conakry victims, it is to confirm once again that justice must be done and that people who commit crimes of this nature in Africa or anywhere else cannot get off scot-free.
Presidents, Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot remain silent in the face of the tragic events which took place last week in Guinea. The violence that was used against the opponents and, in particular, women, is utterly appalling and unacceptable.
I wish to express my support for the victims as well as their families, some of whom are still waiting for the return of their loved ones' remains, which were taken away by the junta in order to cover up the traces of a true massacre.
In addition to the current measures being initiated by the Council and the Commission, the parliamentary situation today allows us to react to these violent acts and to send out a strong message to the Guinean Government by rejecting the Report on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Guinea, which we will vote on during the next plenary session.
The Committee on Development already unanimously rejected, in September, this fisheries agreement between the European Union and Guinea, expressing doubts over the use of the funds allocated by the European Union. Aside from the fact that it seems inappropriate to allocate funds on the basis of fish catches made by European boats without taking into account either fishery resources or the effects on the local population, the recent events make us fear that these funds will be used for military purposes against the Guinean population.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament cannot endorse the fisheries agreements with Guinea while the victims' wounds are still fresh. Doing so would send out the wrong message to the Guinean Government. It would be a scandal which I cannot bring myself to endorse.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, like many other new MEPs here, I was struck by the attention given to human rights in the debates held in this House, and particularly in those of our President Buzek. I subscribe to this completely because, if I am here, if I headed a list during the European elections in France, it is above all because I am a campaigner for associations and, specifically, a human rights campaigner.
As such, I cannot be indifferent to the events in Guinea, as these were human rights campaigners, and more generally representatives of civil society, who were arrested, raped, in the case of women, and massacred on 28 September: more than 150 people were killed and more than 1 250 people were injured - as you said, Minister - in a single day. The repression continued in the days that followed and is still continuing, despite the fact that these people - as has also been said - came peacefully to remind Mr Camara of his own commitments. There is no doubt, according to the witness statements flooding in, that, contrary to the declarations made by the captain, these violent acts were carried out by forces close to the government.
The situation there is confused, but having regrouped within the Guinean National Council of Civil Society Organisations, civil society organisations are appealing to the international community for help. In the last few months, this National Council has set an example in these countries of Africa by organising a major process for the Guinean people on the basis of the commitments made by Mr Camara.
The news reaching us from Guinea is alarming. We cannot just make do with speeches here, in the European Parliament. This debate is taking place at our request, at the request of the Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, but we must go further. We call for the explicit condemnation of the repression of the demonstration.
You have talked to us about targeted sanctions, Minister. Could you tell us more about this? On the matter of calling an immediate halt to persecution, of releasing all those arrested and of establishing an international commission of inquiry on these events, I believed, Minister, that we were moving in the right direction. However, could you give us some more information about this too?
You also told us that all aid had been frozen, except for humanitarian and food aid. To us, that seems a minimum, but in practical terms, how can we support the transition to democracy?
Mr President, we want a resolution to be voted on in the next Strasbourg part-session so that the European Parliament does not just limit itself to speeches, but acts by taking a decision, as it was able to do last January. I will say it once again: this is a matter of urgency. The organisations on the ground are warning us of the risk of ethnic conflict. We must not wait for a new Rwanda before we react; human rights must be defended in Africa just as they must be defended everywhere else in the world.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Malmström described the situation in Guinea perfectly. For several weeks, Guinea has been the scene of violent clashes during which free citizens demonstrating in the streets in the name of their political beliefs have been subjected to unprecedented violence. The Guinean Government is persecuting and killing anyone whose political beliefs differ from those of their leaders, thereby depriving the people of any kind of freedom which, as we well know, is obviously an inviolable right for every human being.
The umpteenth massacre is taking place and is in danger of turning into genocide if we do not urgently adopt immediate, tangible measures. Last week, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am Vice-Chairman, decided to adopt a resolution condemning the use of force by the Guinean authorities and demanding that the local government immediately complies with the rule of law and upholds fundamental rights.
Following the deaths of 157 people in street clashes, and the attempts of Moussa Dadis Camara to cover this up, members of the opposition turned to the international community in the hope of receiving help and greater protection. On 5 October, however, Captain Camara opposed the presence of a foreign peacekeeping force in the country, rejecting any kind of foreign interference in internal affairs.
I therefore feel that in addition to expressing our condemnation, we need to respond by taking immediate, concrete action, as my fellow Member Mr Rinaldi just said. In the face of violations and denials of the right to life - with women and children paying the price once again - we cannot fail to act and demand a return to the rule of law. Therefore, by calling upon you, my fellow Members and representatives of the institutions, I hope that we can reach unanimous agreement - and I stress unanimous - to adopt immediate measures enabling the people of Guinea to re-establish fundamental and inalienable rights, such as democracy and freedom, in their country. Naturally, I also wish to personally express my support for all the families affected by these tragic events.
(SV) Mr President, Mrs Malmström, ladies and gentlemen, I am a member of the Committee on Fisheries and I visited Guinea myself last December, so I have followed this matter very closely.
First of all, I find it remarkable that the European Union is maintaining its fisheries agreement with Guinea, as the agreement was entered into with the previous regime two weeks before the coup. We have, in fact, stuck to an agreement that we entered into with a lawful regime, but now there is a military dictatorship. We have stuck to this all year.
Yesterday, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, openly urged Moussa Dadis Camara and his regime to step down. I can only agree with this minimum demand and would also like to point out that it would be a disgrace for the European Parliament if, in two weeks' time, we were to vote in favour of a fisheries agreement with Guinea that would provide this regime with more than EUR 1 million at the end of November. The fisheries agreement relates to tuna fishing for 25 European boats. I believe that these boats will quite clearly have to look for other waters to fish in, because the EU cannot do business with dictatorships that slaughter their own people openly on the streets.
The argument put to the Committee on Development and the Committee on Fisheries by the Commission that the money from the fisheries agreement will benefit the people is completely wrong. It reflects the Commission's evaluation of the previous agreement. We have no idea where the money from these fisheries agreements will end up. They related to the previous regime. I hardly think it likely that the present regime will use the money better.
I wonder, therefore, what the Council is intending to do about the fisheries agreement. Does the EU intend to join with the US and demand that the regime steps down?
(RO) I also would like to say that I regard the acts of violence committed in Guinea as absolutely appalling. I see that two hours ago, the French Foreign Minister stated that Dadis Camara is assumed to have been involved in the decision to carry out the massacre, which is an extremely serious state of affairs.
The source of the tensions, quite apart from the acts of violence which are appalling, undoubtedly lies in the fact that Dadis Camara wishes to become Guinea's leader permanently and is reluctant to keep his promise not to have any involvement whatsoever in the country's political life. I believe, too, that the international pressure exerted in connection with this must be very clear. On the other hand, I welcome that the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré, who has a great deal of experience in conducting negotiations and mediation in African conflicts, has been appointed as a mediator in this case. I believe that he must be supported by our diplomatic efforts.
Mr President, I must correct Mrs Joly when she said that the Committee on Fisheries voted unanimously to reject this proposed partnership agreement with Guinea. In fact, it voted by just one vote to do so. Quite astonishingly, the PPE Group voted solidly to retain the agreement. This is an agreement which puts some hundreds of thousands of euros into the hands of this regime in order that we can take tuna from the coast. Like many of these agreements, it is a shabby deal at the best of times and, in the present circumstances, it is utterly unacceptable.
The Minister mentioned possible sanctions to be taken against Guinea. Will she now add this to her list and give us an undertaking that she will fight to try and ensure that this partnership agreement is suspended?
Mr President, as a human rights lawyer with almost a quarter of a century of experience internationally and at home in Hungary, I take every opportunity to emphasise the need for the European Union to defend human rights, preferably across the world. But it is extremely important to do it in a credible way and, in order to do so, we have to defend human rights within our borders as well, within the European Union system.
As I have mentioned to you several times during the last three months, Mrs Kinga Göncz, a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in this Parliament, used to be a member of a government which we call in Hungary the 'eye-shooter' government, who were shooting at people on the streets of Budapest on 23 October 2006. Ever since then, there has been a human rights crisis in Hungary, and this European Union does not do anything about it. We have a Vice-Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties who was a member of the government at that time. Until we look seriously into this matter, nobody will think that anything we do in the human rights fields is credible.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, again my thanks to the European Parliament for putting this on the agenda. It is a very serious subject and, as I hope you understood from my introduction, we share your concerns about the horrible breach of human rights that has happened in Conakry. There are concerns and worries about people still being detained, and we have asked for a complete investigation of what has happened and the release of the prisoners.
I think we can say that the European Union has been extremely clear. The events have been condemned by Mr Solana, Mr De Gucht, the Presidency and now, as I know, also by a declaration of the ACP Group in the European Parliament. It is very good that the European Union is unanimous, concrete and concise in its condemnation of these horrible events. We are also acting in very close cooperation with other actors in this, so that the international community can condemn and act in a very coherent way. That is the only way we can really exercise pressure.
We have the international contact group. There has been the appointment of the mediator, the President of Burkina Faso, which is very good, and he is a member of the contact group. Together with the contact group, of which the EU and the US are members, we have - in answer to your question, Mrs Lövin - called for Captain Camara's resignation. The whole world community has asked for that to happen.
We are also open to answering other questions and to discuss sanctions. We think it will have more effect if we do it together with the international community. There are different options on how you can target individuals and so on in this, and we need, in the coming days, to further discuss with international actors how we can coordinate those sanctions in order for them to have the maximum effect: with the African Union, with the contact group, with the US, etc.
We have also, as I said, opened consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, and we have frozen all EU development aid, apart from the humanitarian aid and the assistance to the democratic transition.
On fisheries - whether that can be part of it or not - I hear very clearly what you say. I can only encourage you to continue the discussions with the Commission. It is the Commission which is responsible for EU fishery policy. We are also discussing this with the Commission, and I am sorry they are not here right now. But you can be assured that we will keep on working with the international community to continue with the pressure and to push for a full investigation and, hopefully, also one day for free and fair elections in Guinea. My thanks to you and to the Members for this debate.
Thank you very much, Mrs Malmström. You have had so much patience spending the whole afternoon and part of the evening here. One can see that not so long ago, you were a Member of this House and so you like this environment very much!
The debate is closed.


Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes


Written statements (Rule 116): see Minutes


10. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 (vote)
- Report: Adamou


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Council position at first reading: see Minutes


12. EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 (
- Before the vote on Amendment 3:
rapporteur. - Mr President, in Amendment 3 I have been told that there is some confusion over the French text. The words 'as appropriate' have not been properly translated into French. I would just like to ask if this could be checked afterwards by experts.
That will be done.


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(FR) Mr President, an administrator's post in the European Parliament information office in Luxembourg has been vacant for more than two years. I should like to know the outcome of advertising the post; why was there one candidate whose application file was incomplete; and what was missing from the file? Why have we had no information on this matter? I should also like to know what the administration intends to do about filling this post that has been vacant for so long?
(ES) Mr President, many thanks for your words at the beginning of this plenary to the family of the murdered Guardia Civil officer, the Spanish Armed Forces and, of course, the Spanish people. Thank you, Mr President.
I believe that the only way to defeat ETA and the terrorists is for us to remain united against terrorism.
I think that all European democrats should show their unity and support for the governments of Spain and France in this collective task and we should put to one side the absurd divisions of the recent past. Let us show we are all united against terrorism.
(SL) On 28 April a plane belonging to Macedonian airline MAT, en route to Egypt with 76 passengers on board, was forced to land in Istanbul because the Greek authorities refused to allow it to cross Greek airspace.
In February, the Greek authorities had refused to grant MAT a permit for charter flights to Corfu, citing as grounds the airline's name, MAT (Macedonian Airlines). The aim of the European Common Aviation Area Agreement signed in June 2006 was to create an expanded common aviation area with neighbouring states, including the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Under the Treaty, the Greek authorities are obliged to grant MAT's request. The Greek blockade of MAT flights constitutes a breach of the law applicable, of the EU Treaties, and of international law on air traffic. Citing the airline's name as grounds for this decision is also contrary to common European values.
I should be interested to learn what action the European institutions and the Commission propose to take to put an end to this discriminatory practice, which is contrary to free movement of persons, goods and services, and is directed against states that are applying for European Union membership.
(HU) Mr President, in the eastern central European region we are also having to deal with Communism's harmful legacy for the environment. In no way can this be considered a purely domestic issue; it is a common European problem that affects us all. When the regime change came about, our countries, including Romania, were unprepared as regards environmental protection strategies.
I support the report by Mr Hartmut Nassauer of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats (PPE-DE Group) on protection of the environment through criminal law, and I want to see those who cause serious environmental harm being held liable for it under criminal law by tightening and ensuring compliance with European Union legislation.
Cyanide technology must be banned in Roşia Montană (Verespatak). The destruction of forests in the Szekler Land and other regions of Romania is also harming the environment. The motorway that is under construction in Transylvania could likewise cause serious environmental damage. Construction work on the Bystroye Canal in Ukraine continues. In Bulgaria a new nuclear power station is being built after this Member State was forced to shut down the Kozloduy plant. We should be paying greater attention to these issues.
(DE) Mr President, in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty in Germany, some left-wing groups are alleging, and invoking the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in support of their allegation, that the Treaty would reintroduce the death penalty, so that - as they claim - people could be executed for the purpose of quelling an uprising. This is essentially an outrageous slur on the EHRC, which represents the inalienable core of the European value system and hence the symbol of a Europe which is committed to peace, freedom and the rule of law.
I am appalled that people are being exposed to this kind of scaremongering about the EHRC, to which the EU is to accede under the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon. I also protest vehemently against the statements made by some adherents of the Left equating the Reform Treaty with Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933. These are not only utterly absurd; they also amount to a monstrous trivialisation of German fascism. That goes beyond the bounds of decency and morality.
Mr President, Britain is one of seven countries proposing legislation to adopt a Council framework decision for common rules on the enforcement of legal decisions rendered in absentia. It will mean that a British citizen can be tried, convicted and sentenced in a foreign country without their presence in a court of law, and then removed to that country for imprisonment. They will find themselves in a position not of defending themselves in a trial, but of proving themselves innocent after a conviction.
Whilst there is a provision for retrials, not all EU Member States recognise retrials under their legal systems. This will further destroy the principle of habeas corpus and the freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment traditionally enjoyed by British citizens and fundamental to English law and freedoms. Everything that was good about Britain is gradually being destroyed by membership of this malignant organisation known as the European Union.
(BG) Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, the actions of Bulgarian authorities over the past several weeks clearly indicate once again that they have no intention nor any will whatsoever to deal with the main problem our country faces: to reform the judicial system and home affairs. Instead of protecting the lives and rights of citizens, the president, the prime minister, the prosecurot's office, the Ministry of Interior and the Sofia mayor have merged into a symbiotic entity and are using the levers of power solely for political recketeering of those who disagree with them.
What is worse, most of the media in Bulgaria, which ought to be the staunchest safeguards ensuring the irreversibility of the democratic path of development of our country, have entered into a bond, through financial interest, with the criminal element, and with the powers that be, and have become their vehement protectors and accomplices.
Anyone who disagrees with the official line has their voice muffled and is deprived of access to the public stage. Unfortunately, all our efforts to raise these issues and discuss them in Bulgaria have met with vehement resistance by the corrupt authorities, which is why we have been forced to seek the involvement of the European Court of Justice in order to save statehood in our country.
(EL) Mr President, I should like to say something about the very critical and deeply worrying situation in Lebanon.
In Parliament we have been watching the situation and have on many occasions debated the consequences of a prolonged crisis caused by the breakdown in the operation of institutions, the inability to elect a President of the Republic, the economic impasse resulting from occupation of the commercial and administrative centre, and fear of terrorist attacks.
This situation has culminated in all kinds of violence at the hands of Hezbollah because of the government's decision to ban the former's uncontrolled telecommunications network from operating.
Mr President, let me remind you that a delicate national consultation is under way in Qatar. We must try however we can to encourage this national dialogue, which needs to be conducted with due regard to the general interests of the citizens of Lebanon and their desire for prosperity, security and national independence. Let us take advantage of all the opportunities offered to us by our Association Agreement with the country.
Mr President, I would invite you to join with me, on behalf of the European Parliament, in sending good wishes for success to all the troops from the European Union Member States serving in Chad. That high-risk EU mission, sanctioned by the United Nations, will have 4 000 Member State troops on the ground, seeking to protect and assist the 430 000 refugees and internally displaced people currently living in 42 camps. It includes many hundreds of Irish troops who are following in the proud tradition of the Irish army's peacekeeping and humanitarian role.
This mission is an example of what we in Europe can do now, and indeed an indication of what we could do even more effectively and in a more timely fashion as soon as we can implement the humanitarian aid, the Petersberg tasks and the common foreign and defence policy provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.
I would urge you, Mr President, to convey our good wishes to the troops on the ground.
Mr President, I rise on the situation of the Roma minority and citizens from new Member States in Italy. In recent days there have been police raids on Roma communities in Rome. 118 of those detained have been ordered to be expelled immediately and the new mayor has said that he will expel 20 000 people. There have been arson attacks on Roma camps in the suburbs of Naples, with the mob preventing fire services getting in to extinguish the fires. Hundreds of immigrant families have fled for their lives and there are reports of a number of children missing. My colleague, Viktória Mohácsi, has been in Rome. She has sent worrying reports and I hope she will have an opportunity to respond to the Council's statement tomorrow.
We know attacks in many of our Member States on immigrant communities are a problem, but the level of violence in Italy is unusual. The OSCE has accused Italy of stigmatising migrants and it seems to me that the nature of the recent election campaign has led to a culture of impunity for those carrying out these attacks. Even Commissioner Frattini, who was the first to lecture the new Member States on the integration of ethnic minorities, is now questioning the Schengen Agreements. This issue is of Europe-wide concern. It goes to the heart of the reasons for founding the European Union and I would urge the Commission and the Council urgently to discuss the matter to see what can be done to help.
(PL) Mr President, at the Lima Summit pro-abortion amendments to the resolution on poverty and social exclusion were tabled by a Member of the European Parliament. This is an issue beyond the decision-making powers of the European Union institutions. Such matters are decided by national law.
During the deliberations of the Committee on Social Affairs, Exchange Programmes, the Environment, Education and Culture, in a separate vote for representatives of the parliaments of the two continents, the representatives of the European Parliament rejected the amendment, which meant that the committee did not adopt it. Neither parliament found it worthy of adoption. Between the deliberations of the committee and the plenary proceedings, the voting procedure was changed to a joint vote of representatives of both parliaments. The amendments were then adopted thanks to the votes of the Latin-American parliamentarians. Acceptance of this practice would mean that each of us could introduce into international documents, on behalf of the European Union, provisions that exceed the EU's mandate and engage its responsibility. I protest against such practices.
- (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the relevant bodies and institutions of the Community need to deal urgently with a serious phenomenon of the emergence of nationalist paramilitary groups in some Member States, specifically the Czech Republic and Hungary. As you know, so-called National Guards have been formed in these countries and are tolerated by the State authorities. The aim of these extreme right-wing organisations is to support nationalism and racism, and intimidate non-nationals and anyone with left-wing opinions. This was clearly demonstrated in Prague a few days ago. While the Hungarian Guard concentrates mainly on destroying relations between Hungarians and neighbouring nations, the Czech Guard, while also bigoted, is now becoming an instrument for intimidation not just of the left but of all democratic-minded citizens. These organisations, which are incompatible with the idea of a Europe based on friendship between nations, are all the more dangerous as they recruit into their ranks both former and present members of the military forces of these countries. I would like to make you aware of these facts as a matter of urgency.
(DE) Mr President, the Conference of Presidents recently decided to curb the influence of the Intergroups. Our meetings can henceforth take place in Strasbourg on Thursdays only. On that day, human rights experts, for example, cannot attend Intergroup meetings, because they are on the speakers' list for debates on matters of urgent importance. Moreover, most Members set off for their constituencies on Thursday afternoons, and many have to travel for several hours before they reach home.
While I fully understand the need to devote sufficient time to legislative work, the Intergroups are indispensable. We have voluntarily joined forces to examine issues that there is not enough time to deal with in committee, such as Tibet, the family and child protection, the Fourth World, the Baltic region or animal welfare. We are visible, we are audible, and we are responsible for many of the initiatives that emanate from the European Parliament. Now these most active of MEPs are being singled out, muzzled, stopped in their tracks and presented with a fait accompli in the form of a decision that they must no longer meet on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. Please ensure, Mr President, that this unwise decision is reversed.
I do not wish to comment on the decision, but I have to say that the President of Parliament is not as powerful as you seem to assume. Nevertheless, I shall, of course, look into the matter.
(HU) Thank you, Mr President. In the Vatican last week the Pope welcomed members of the Hungarian Conference of Catholic Bishops. At this audience, the head of the Catholic Church expressed appreciation for the activities of the Hungarian church and criticised the secular state, which he said penalises families; he condemned the law allowing unmarried couples to register as legal partnerships on the grounds that it legalises cohabitation by unmarried couples and gives civic rights to gay partnerships. He asserted that this law not only runs counter to Church doctrines, but also violates the Hungarian Constitution.
In secular Europe the Member States do not intervene in religious matters and the church does not put ideological pressure on the state. The Lisbon Treaty guarantees fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion, and establishes institutional relations between the EU and the churches.
Cooperation can only be based on reciprocity, however, and for this reason we strongly urge the Commission President, Mr Barroso, to act on the basis of the mandate he has been given and initiate a dialogue with the Catholic Church to protect secular Europe and European values. Thank you very much.
Mr President, I would like to continue the topic raised by my colleague, Thomas Mann, about moving intergroup meetings to Thursday afternoons. If the point is to help MEPs to concentrate more on plenaries, I really doubt it. In a way it is our job to be Mädchen für alles, to divide our time between different activities, and such a step also cannot prevent most MEPs leaving Thursday afternoon, because they have to catch their planes to reach their homes, to meet their voters the next day, Friday. And I am afraid that in this way the intergroups will unfortunately be placed between the hammer of plenaries and the anvil of constituencies. I think it would deal a crippling blow to their vibrant activities.
Maybe the best way is to trust intergroups to find the most practical and flexible modus vivendi by themselves, and I am encouraged by your response to Thomas Mann, Mr President.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, it is somewhat worrying that the Commission should have to be reminded of its responsibility for the fair implementation of European policies within each national territory.
The fact is that the French Government has singled out the region of Auvergne and withdrawn responsibility for the management of European Social Fund resources there from Local Employment Plans. The Government's position is incomprehensible. The bodies concerned have an excellent administrative track record and this partisan decision jeopardises structures that have been working for years to integrate the poorest people in society.
The European Commission needs to remind the French Government of its duties to be consistent and to respect the rules on implementation of European funding. We cannot have agreements with the European Union being applied in a divisive, partisan manner in different parts of the same country.
Mr President, the opening of negotiations on a new EU partnership and cooperation agreement with the Russian Federation has experienced certain setbacks, owing to the behaviour of some Member States, that many might perceive as obstructionist. I am glad the EU Council Presidency, the Commission and Lithuania have reached a consensus that enables us to renew the old agreement, which expired last year.
In delaying negotiations with Russia we are sawing off the branch on which we are sitting. There are several topics, from the environment and energy to visa regimes, immigration, cross-border projects and unresolved issues relating to Georgia and Moldova, that require a comprehensive political agreement on common objectives and measures. I trust that the Commission will use its mandate in the negotiations to the best interests of all the Member States.
(HU) Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming Russia-European Union summit in Siberia may open up new opportunities. One potentially important outcome of the meeting will be the bilateral treaty, which could define relations between the two parties in the long term. Energy issues must be given a key place in this agreement, while at the same time keeping sight of the principle of reciprocity.
A major prerequisite for building reciprocity is ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty by Russia. This treaty creates transparent relationships in the energy market, contributes to security of supply, and stimulates investment. All of these are issues of vital importance for Russia too. After all, if capital investment in development is neglected, Russia could find itself suddenly unable to meet its commitments. Ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty by the Kremlin is therefore in both parties' interests.
The success of the forthcoming summit will depend on whether the Member States are able to step out of the shadow of short-term considerations and speak with one voice in order to protect the common interest. Thank you very much, Mr President.
(FR) Mr President, you did indicate earlier that you were not all-powerful: nonetheless, I am sure you are powerful enough to implement decisions by the Conference of Presidents.
On 24 April this year the Conference of Presidents decided, quite rightly, to ask the Quaestors to reconsider their decision of 26 September 2007, allocating facilities on the premises of the European Parliament for the European Business and Parliament Scheme.
During our last part-session we adopted the Stubb/Friedrich report on lobbyists. Quite frankly, for representatives of employers' organisations to set up shop within a parliamentary institution would seem to me to be a case of combining two things that should be separate and skewing our relations with the social partners - a step entirely alien to our parliamentary tradition in the European Union.
Furthermore, I do not understand why - following that decision by the Conference of Presidents - we have received invitations on your behalf from Mr Vidal-Quadras, Vice-President of Parliament, to a launching ceremony for the European Business and Parliament Scheme on 3 June.
I hope, Mr President, that you will bring your full authority to bear to restore order here and ensure that the decision by the Conference of Presidents is respected.
(BG) Mr. President, colleagues, the next Monitoring Report on Bulgaria is coming up. As a deputy chair of the Regional Development Committee and as a member of the Movement for Rights and Liberties, a party which is part of the ruling majority, I have been following closely the implementation of the Agreement on Bulgaria's accession to the EU. I am positive that in the past month the government of our country has once again rendered an unbiased analysis of problem areas and has declared its determination to deal with them.
An indicative fact is that in order to improve the absorption of European funds, a new deputy prime minister post was created, to oversee and coordinate operational programmes. This will improve communications with the European Commission and she will monitor the accurate and proper fulfilment of commitments made.
Structural changes are underway to streamline the functioning of administrations within ministries and state agencies. There have been changes of ministers in the government, the legal framework of home affairs and security is being amended, top officials are being replaced. The new Minister of Interior is taking measures to combat corruption and crime.
Bulgaria is proceeding on its way to cohesion with the Member States and I am confident that European institutions will make an objective assessment of our country's efforts.
(LT) I will take this opportunity to speak about the EU diplomatic mission in Belarus.
Quite recently a European Commission Office was opened in Minsk. A total of 14 Member States have their diplomatic missions in the Belarusian capital. Two more EU countries - the Netherlands and Finland - are covering Belarus from other EU countries. However, as many as 11 Member States are covering Belarus from Moscow. A few examples of these are Austria, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Spain and also, regretfully, the country currently holding the EU Presidency, Slovenia. In my opinion, the wrong signal is being sent to the people of Belarus, especially when they are struggling to resist the designs of the regime to sacrifice Belarus to Russia. I believe it is time to urge all the Member States to start covering Belarus from their own territory, not from Moscow.
That concludes this item.


2. Tibet - plans to make Chinese the main language of instruction
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Tibet - plans to make Chinese the main language of instruction.
Madam President, in October, we witnessed the peaceful protests of thousands of Tibetans against the Chinese authorities' plans to change education policy. The current bilingual model, which allows ethnic minorities to study in their own national languages alongside Chinese, is to be replaced by one in which Chinese is to be the basic language of instruction.
The Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in Qinghai province, Qiang Wei, said in a press article that standard Mandarin will be the main language of instruction in primary schools by 2015. Due to the need for Tibetans and representatives of other ethnic groups to function effectively in the Chinese labour market, they should be able to study Chinese, but not at the cost of not being able to have an appropriate education in their own language.
It should be remembered that the rights that the Tibetans are fighting for derive from Article 4 of the Chinese constitution and Article 10 of the Regional National Autonomy Law. The Tibetans are therefore asking for the rights already granted to them to be respected, and Parliament should emphatically support them in their attempts to preserve their own culture, a basic element of which is language. I think that the words of Dokru Choedaka, a campaigner for the Tibetan language, ring true for all of us when he says that schools and language are the fabric of national identity.
author. - Madam President, culture and cultural expressions underpin people's values and identity. In the words of Aristotle, it is not about outward appearance but about inward significance.
Culture, when used as a tool to impose values and to wash out diversity and freedom of expression, is like a weapon. It is therefore a very troubling development that Mandarin Chinese has been introduced as the main language of education and official documents for Tibetans. If China intends to wash out the Tibetan culture this way, it is acting against its own stated intentions of harmonious relations among the countless cultures, ethnicities and identities the country knows. The Chinese authorities should also allow access to Tibet by foreign media without the need for special permits and allow uncensored communications and access to information - also on the Internet - throughout the entire country.
Not only economic development but also cultural diversity and respect for human rights contribute equally to wealth. The EU should consistently prioritise human rights, especially for ethnic and cultural minorities, in its relations with China.
Madam President, the large European countries really are devoting a great deal of attention to improving economic, investment and business relations with China. This means that Parliament has an even greater role to play in speaking openly about human rights and about the fact that they are being broken. I think that today, Parliament must place a very strong emphasis on the rights of people living in Tibet to their own language, to unhindered contact with the outside world via the Internet - we are living in the 21st century, after all - and to be able to talk to foreign journalists, because the ban on foreign correspondents visiting the region is lamentable. Finally, I would like to say that imposing the state language on Tibet is something I find deeply disturbing.
Madam President, Article 4 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees all citizens and nationalities the right to use and develop their own spoken and written language. Given this, we are very justifiably concerned about the news which we recently received that the status of the Tibetan language as a language of instruction might be being weakened. I know that there are protests in this huge country against the fact that the forms of the Chinese language spoken in Shanghai and Canton are disappearing in the same way, and this is another cause for concern.
It is important that the People's Republic of China should acknowledge that the preservation of Tibetan culture is crucially dependent on its language, and that the Tibetan language should be kept as the first language of instruction and also used in universities. Of course, genuine bilingualism is an important objective. It needs to be recognised that it is only sensible that the Tibetans also study Chinese, but making it the first language of instruction is bound to be problematic, as it will mean that Tibetan culture will suffer.
It is also important that China at long last ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it signed years ago, because that would do more to guarantee the protection of ethnic and religious minorities and the preservation of their languages and cultures.
Madam President, when we rise to speak in the European Parliament, we can use our native language. The Chinese Government is planning to withdraw this fundamental right from the Tibetans, threatening them with a loss of identity. Thousands of Tibetans have campaigned against the possible end to bilingual policy in peaceful protests in schools and universities. On 27 October, I received a petition in front of the European Parliament building in Brussels from Tibetan schoolchildren seeking our solidarity. China's ambassador, Mr Song, yesterday emphasised that bilingual education in Tibet was an important measure to support Tibetan culture. While I have heard what he has to say, I am not sure I believe him. After all, he has not denied the numerous media reports indicating that Mandarin Chinese is to be the main language used in educational institutions in the Quinghai region. Cantonese and Shanghainese are also to be replaced by Mandarin throughout the education system and even on the radio, this despite the fact that the government claims that Mandarin is only spoken by half of the Chinese population. Article 4 of the constitution and Article 10 of the law on regional autonomy emphasise the freedom of all ethnic groups to develop their own written and spoken language. Commissioner Lewandowski, I would urge you to ensure that this worrying development is raised during dialogue between the EU and China. Please send a group of experts to the region on a fact-finding mission to establish where the threat to the bilingual system lies. The Tibetan language can be supplemented by Chinese, but certainly not replaced by it.
Madam President, nobody can complain today about a lack of knowledge or information about what is happening in Tibet, yet despite this, we still make almost no attempts to stop the Chinese destroying the Tibetans as individual people and as a whole nation, together with their wonderful culture and beautiful, authentic religiousness.
Today, we are talking about the destruction of the Tibetan language and its replacement with Mandarin. After all, many of us in this Chamber and many of our ancestors have very often paid a high price fighting for their national languages against the will of an invader or dictator, because we knew that the loss of our language is the loss of the last hope that one day we will be able to be ourselves in our own country. Thanks, too, to these experiences, which have been the fate of many Europeans, we must demand that those who negotiate with China on our behalf, talking about the development of technology, investments, trade and so on, do not avoid the subject of the habitual violation of human rights in China. In negotiations with the Chinese Government on human rights, and here I join all those who have made appeals before me, I ask that the issue of human rights is not relegated to the background, irrespective of whether we are currently in an economic crisis or not.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, throughout the history of Estonia, we have struggled to maintain the language of the indigenous people. After restoring our independence in 1991, we finally enjoyed the liberty to speak our language and treasure our culture and identity. It pains me to see the people of Tibet repressed and their language, identity, culture and religion condemned to extinction.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is using the same method of achieving marginalisation of Tibetans that the Soviet Union used on Estonians. The Sinicisation of Tibet, just like the Russification of Estonia during the Soviet occupation, is being carried out by relocating non-indigenous people to the established territory of the indigenous people.
As long as the Han Chinese population of Tibet is increasing, the Tibetans have every right to feel intimidated. The intention of the Chinese authorities to introduce Mandarin Chinese as the primary language of instruction in schools violates the rights of the indigenous people of Tibet. I would like to see that violation brought up and resolved as a priority item within EU policy towards the PRC.
Madam President, I am opposed to this resolution. My group has allowed me to speak against it, despite the fact that most of my colleagues do not share my opinion.
As has been pointed out, the Chinese ambassador has responded to the criticism expressed. It may be that his letter does not answer every question, but why is it that we are first looking to pass a resolution rather than seeking dialogue? Can we really take ourselves seriously if we first adopt a resolution and then say, as the previous speaker put it - now let us send someone on a fact-finding mission to find out how bilingualism is under threat.
I do not believe it is plausible to speak of the death of the Tibetan language. It is not within the remit of this Parliament to decide how much Hungarian is taught in schools in Slovakia or Romania, but yet it feels entitled to decide whether maths should be taught in Tibetan or another language. I do not know whether this is wise.
Finally, I believe it is a mistake to link the question of language policy with the Dalai Lama, even though the two issues are quite separate. I do not believe that by taking such a step, we will be helping to ensure that people are not prevented from using their own language.
(PL) Madam President, language is the most important attribute of identity and the main tool of social communication. Today's debate on the attempts by the government of the People's Republic of China to introduce Chinese as the only mandatory language in the teaching system in Tibet is an attack on the culture of that nation. Up to now, Tibetan has been the official language in Tibet and in those regions in China where Tibetans are the main ethnic group. For Tibetans, its use and development are one of the most important ways in which they exercise their de facto autonomy. The need to understand Chinese as well is understandable for those who are going to look for work outside of Tibet, but an appropriate and adequate solution seems to be the introduction of Chinese as a subject to be taught, and not the replacement of Tibetan with Chinese as the language of instruction.
For this reason, we should express our opposition to the attempt to take the Tibetans' basic tool of communication away from them. By taking away from Tibetans the ability to learn their own language, the Chinese are slowly but surely breaking down Tibet's autonomy and bringing about the loss of its cultural heritage.
Madam President, I would like to ask our fellow Member a question, if he accepts it. Why, in this context, is the position of the Chinese ambassador on this matter more relevant than our desire to talk about what is happening in Tibet? If I have understood correctly, the reason is that he believes that we must heed what the Chinese Embassy says rather than what our own convictions tell us.
(DE) (The speaker is answering a blue card question from Cristian Dan Preda in accordance with Rule 149(8)).
Madam President, I am much obliged to my fellow Member for asking this question, as it gives me the opportunity to repeat what I said before. I did not say that you should believe the Chinese ambassador. What I said was that we would be well advised to take our job seriously and to seek dialogue, and then to discuss a resolution.
It makes no sense to suggest that we should adopt a resolution now and then send experts to China to find out whether, and where exactly, bilingualism is under threat. I believe that if we want to do something about the effectiveness of human rights, then we do not need simply to express pious intentions, but must also engage with the issue in order to avoid damaging an already difficult situation.
(HU) Madam President, I am pleased to support the joint motion for a resolution, since it clearly expresses principles which I, as the representative of an indigenous national minority, share entirely. I therefore support the principle that a) the oppression of minority languages fundamentally infringes on the right to freedom of citizens belonging to that minority; that b) instruction in the mother tongue is the most suitable for learning; and that c) local authorities and communities should be given legal competence to make decisions about the language used in teaching..
I would like to call the attention of all Members who support the motion to the fact that, unfortunately, these principles are not fully respected in certain EU Member States, either. Evidence of this is the Slovak language law and the Romanian education law currently in force, which allow for instruction in certain subjects only in the state language. I could name a few more EU countries. I will not do this now. I am a committed supporter of monitoring infringements of rights outside the European Union, but at the same time, I think it is important that practices disadvantageous to national minorities within the territory of the EU are not passed over in silence.
(CS) Madam President, in my speech, I would like to mention the wish expressed by the People's Republic of China for harmonious relations between all 56 of the ethnic minorities living within its territory. In relation to this, I firmly believe that it is necessary to support the preservation of Tibetan, which is one of the four oldest and most original Asian languages, and which is one of the fundamental roots of Tibetan identity, culture and religion, and which, together with Tibetan culture as a whole, also represents an irreplaceable part of world cultural heritage, bearing witness to an historically rich civilisation. I trust that China will consistently apply Article 4 of the constitution of the People's Republic of China, and Article 10 of the Act on Autonomous National Regions, which guarantee the freedom of all nations to use and develop their own spoken and written languages.
I firmly believe that every ethnic minority has the right to retain its own language and literature. A fair bilingual education system will contribute towards better cooperation and understanding, especially if Tibetans learn Chinese and Han Chinese people living in Tibetan areas are, at the same time, encouraged to learn Tibetan. As the submitted joint draft resolution includes all of the points I have mentioned, I have decided to support it.
(SK) Madam President, China is a great power in economic and military terms, and the Chinese administration in its behaviour towards its citizens has long given the impression that cultural, social and democratic principles as they are recognised around the world will be selectively applied in China and only insofar as they suit the administration in terms of controlling the country.
I do not believe that our indignation will change the Chinese Government's determination to implement its own education policy in the country. Despite this, I think it is necessary to deliver a serious warning to our Chinese partners that the Tibetan people have the right to retain their identity and their language, and that the mother tongue has an irreplaceable role in the education of children.
China should do the same in Tibet as Slovakia does for its Hungarian minority, with Hungarian minority children able to study in Hungarian from nursery school through to primary school and secondary school. On the other hand, I would like to point out to Mr Sógor that Slovak children in Hungary have to learn in Hungarian from nursery school through to primary school and secondary school, and that they have Slovak only as a foreign language.
(HU) Madam President, as a representative of the Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary, I welcome and support the European Parliament's motion for a resolution against the plans by the People's Republic of China to make Chinese the official language in Tibetan schools. Although the Chinese occupiers guaranteed Tibet's autonomy, they are progressively excluding the Tibetan language from education and official fora. China's poor human rights record also raises the risk of conflicts developing in Tibet because of the forcible introduction of the Chinese language. Tibetans must be guaranteed the right to be educated in their own language and to deal with official matters in the Tibetan language. Their fundamental human rights must be guaranteed, including the right of assembly and the civil right to demonstrate.
Sadly, we need not go far to find similar cases, since crude attempts at assimilation are a real and current problem in Europe, too. We only need to think of the way Romania treats Transylvanian Hungarians or Csángó Hungarians, or of the exclusionary, discriminatory Slovak language law.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Tibetans must be allowed the right to speak in their native language, Tibetan. It is a right that we all have. Otherwise, they will lose their cultural identity. On account of the situation in Tibet, I believe that bilingualism, in other words, learning Tibetan and Chinese, is the appropriate solution.
After all, bilingualism promotes the development of children in many different ways and is certainly to be supported.
(PL) Madam President, the Tibetan language is part of the long history of a nation which has fought for years to preserve its own culture, and it is an element that closely binds the community together. For this reason, maintaining and preserving bilingualism at all levels of teaching in schools in Tibet is the only and best solution. The Chinese Government is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, thereby committing itself to observe the fundamental rights of national minorities on its territory. All of China's actions aimed at banning the use of Tibetan in schools should be condemned by the international community. I believe that steps should be taken that will allow the observance of the fundamental rights of the Tibetans in China to be more effectively monitored.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the abrogation of the bilingual system in Tibet is an illiberal act that runs counter to respect for the cultural identity of a minority and respect for human rights.
Trade agreements or business contracts with China cannot act as trade goods to distract Europe's attention away from the serious discrimination from which the Tibetan people still suffer.
The Tibetans have the right to continue to be and to feel like a people, at least, and to do so they must be free to nurture their own traditions, history and language: in short, to keep their own identity, an essential part of which is language identity.
The plan to eradicate Tibetan culture, which has not yet been brought to a successful conclusion under the symbol of the hammer and sickle in decades of persecution against the Tibetan people and monks, cannot now be artfully completed by eliminating the Tibetan language and imposing Chinese.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, we are discussing an issue which exists in almost all countries where minorities live - namely, the preservation of a language, culture, and equal access to education. That is about reconfirming our values, Mr Bütikofer.
Before addressing the issue of Tibet, allow me a quick word on our bilateral relations with China. Our strategic partnership is strong, which permits us to tackle all issues, including the most sensitive ones. We have constructed an impressive framework of high-level interactions where we regularly address the global challenges that our citizens are facing without, however, neglecting the issues where our views may differ. The overall situation in Tibet is one of those where we differ.
The moves to institute Chinese as the main language of instruction in Tibetan areas raise complex and sensitive issues. China needs to strike the right balance so as to allow the effective instruction and preservation of the Tibetan language, as a living language for maintaining education in the Tibetan language and as the mother tongue in Tibetan areas while, at the same time, teaching Chinese in parallel to give Tibetan students decent chances of future employment. The remoteness of Tibetan areas does not make this task any easier.
We sincerely hope that China will ensure that Tibetan is used as the main language of instruction in schools in Tibetan areas and ensure the protection of minority languages in the other parts of China in the same way. Seeking the view of experts and avoiding discrimination and the influence of ideology are good recipes for the way forward. The EU is ready to share its expertise, should China so decide. We hope - and here is my direct response - to have a frank discussion with the Chinese authorities on this very issue at the next round of the EU-China human rights dialogue. It is most important that China should allow open public consultation in order to allow those affected by any changes to language policy to freely express their opinions, which would have to be taken into account.
We have followed also with deep concern reports of the detention of several Tibetan students and teachers who peacefully demonstrated in protest against the government's education reform plan. We urge China to release the detainees and to enter into discussions with Tibetan civil society on the merits of the proposed reform.
As a final point, I would like to recall the EU's long-standing position with regard to Tibet. The preservation of Tibet's unique culture, language, religion and traditions and the need to achieve a system of meaningful autonomy for Tibet, within the Chinese constitution, remains a top priority for the EU. These are issues that we are persistently trying to address in the framework of our political dialogue with China.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Despite the consistent involvement and commitment of many world leaders, institutions and NGOs in calling on the Chinese authorities to avoid the use of violence against the Tibetan people, these pleas unfortunately seem to fall on deaf ears, thus compromising international relations. The European Parliament has, for many years, demonstrated its support for and solidarity with Tibet, a country that has always struggled against the oppressive and discriminatory policies of the Chinese authorities, which have threatened the territorial and cultural independence of the Tibetan people for years. Beijing's latest act of oppression was the decision to introduce Chinese as the compulsory official language in Tibet, even though the people speak Tibetan and consider Mandarin to be a foreign language. Cultural genocide is going on as we speak, because this decision expresses the clear intention to wipe out this people, not only geographically but also culturally, by preventing younger generations from learning about their own culture and, first and foremost, their linguistic heritage. Faced with China's inflexible and rigid attitude to Tibet, I would like to call on the European Parliament to maintain a position of intransigence with regard to the severe violations of human rights and minority rights committed by the Chinese authorities and to ensure that the people of Tibet know we are behind them and ready to help.
In adopting this resolution, the European Parliament, the voice of European citizens and democracy, is sending a clear message to the Chinese authorities: that eradicating and subjugating one culture to benefit another is an act that is not worthy of any truly great and modern country. The Tibetan people have a wholly legitimate request: that their history and language should be respected. Tibetan culture is not the only one threatened by this unreasonable decision - Cantonese and other languages will also fall victim to the policy of standardisation. Given that the Chinese Constitution specifically recognises each citizen's right to express him/herself in his/her chosen language, how can the political authorities justify this legal U-turn? The European Union's motto clearly sums up the message that we have a duty to pass on to the Chinese authorities through this resolution: united in diversity.


22. Combating terrorism (


1. (