Textiles (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission on the expiry of the Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and China on imports of certain textile and clothing products, by Pedro Guerreiro, Jacky Hénin, Roberto Musacchio, Marco Rizzo, Ilda Figueiredo and Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group - B6-0388/2007);
the oral question to the Commission on textiles by Gianluca Susta, Ignasi Guardans Cambó and Johan Van Hecke, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Robert Sturdy, Tokia Saïfi, Georgios Papastamkos and Vasco Graça Moura, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Erika Mann, Glyn Ford, Kader Arif and Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the PSE Group, Cristiana Muscardini and Eugenijus Maldeikis, on behalf of the UEN Group, Caroline Lucas and Alain Lipietz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group - B6-0383/2007).
deputising for the author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am also speaking on behalf of my colleague Gianluca Susta, the first signatory of the question, who is absent today because of important commitments that have arisen in Italy. Once again, Parliament wants to tackle the complex situation of the textile industry, asking the Commission for more decisive and appropriate intervention.
The sector employs millions of workers in Europe, and accounts for significant turnover in many countries, making Europe the second largest exporter in the world and therefore making a very important contribution to European exports. In my opinion, it is wrong to consider it a mature sector, because in many cases there is scope for modernisation through technological innovation and research into new materials, and it has strong links with fashion, styling and other specialities in which many European countries have genuine expertise recognised the world over.
Naturally, this requires substantial support for the sector through industrial policies that put it in the position of being truly capable of facing global competition. These are also suggestions made by the High Level Group that was set up, and consequently we are asking the Commission just what follow-up and implementation action it has taken. In the immediate future, the urgent problems concern the measures to be taken for the fateful date of 1 January 2008.
I will mention just three problems: the need for very careful checks: how does the Commission intend to implement the surveillance system to ensure there are effective safeguards; how it will cope with the risk of indirect movements and therefore the problem of twin checking of licences? Basically, for all instruments that look good on paper, the problem is how to put them into practice. There is the matter of how to guarantee the authenticity of products and thus the need to keep fighting counterfeiting, piracy and unfair commercial practices, and we hope that the Council - which is not here today - will adopt the 'made in' regulation, which is truly necessary and would be a genuine safeguard measure.
There is the problem of consumer protection, including from the point of view of health and safety. We should apply the same health and safety standards to imported products that we use for the manufacture of products within the European market.
Finally - and we are directing this to the Commission - there is the problem of willingness to act. If at the beginning of 2008 there should again be a boom in imports, if there should be peaks again, as happened in the past, we are asking for a genuine willingness to use new instruments and possibly new measures and safeguard clauses.
author. - Mr President, Commissioner, two years ago, following the removal of the quotas, the textile sector experienced a veritable big bang. To try to cope with the crisis, Commissioner, you were recommending temporary palliative measures with the aim of controlling and restricting imports of some Chinese textiles. In a few days time, these safeguards will no longer exist and trade in textiles will be subject to joint European Union/Chinese surveillance, which I hope will be attentive and vigilant.
Today, our concern is about the way this system of joint surveillance will be set up. What guarantees do we have that this twin checking system will be both adequate and effective? The textiles sector is one that has always been globalist, both in terms of production and consumption, but it is one that has paid the price for globalisation.
However, globalisation can be anticipated and regulated. For this to happen there needs to be the political will to set up a competitive framework for our European textile industries. We need to work towards fair and reciprocal conditions of market access. We need to continue to be fearless in using the instruments at the EU's disposal to defend our trade; being protective is not the same thing as being protectionist. We need to prioritise the fight against counterfeiting. The Europe of tomorrow will no longer have any industry if we do not stand up for its intellectual copyrights and expertise. Having the same rules applied by everyone for everyone is the only way of offering all of the parties concerned a win-win scenario.
I therefore wish for 2008, Mr Mandelson, that together we can consider the textile sector's bright future in a more peaceful climate.
author. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks after the end of negotiations on the Memorandum of Understanding introducing restrictions on imports of Chinese textiles, it is essential that the European Parliament adopts a strong position on the future of its textiles sector, the structures and organisational methods of which are threatened by its sudden entry into competition with China.
The joint resolution we are proposing today asks for a clear commitment from the European Commission and the Member States on several points.
Firstly, for companies and workers in the sector who face major restructuring risks to be fully supported by adequate social measures and by the granting of European funds to support the modernisation of their production facilities.
Next, we need to commit ourselves to improving the competitiveness of the European textiles sector within the more general framework of a strong and ambitious European industrial policy. This objective cannot be achieved until words turn into actions and until we invest heavily in research and development.
Furthermore, in view of unfair competition from some of our competitors, who base their competitive advantages on social and environmental dumping, or both, Europe needs effective tools to defend itself. Greater efficiency will not be achieved by means of hurried reform, which will weaken the EU's means of protection, but by the more transparent and predictable use of existing instruments.
Finally, Europe needs to use the Euro-Mediterranean partnership as the foundation for an integrated manufacturing area that makes the most of the proximity of the Mediterranean countries to increase competitiveness in the international textiles market. The development of the Mediterranean countries with which we want to create a partnership depends on our ability to offer them firm commitments on policies and sectors of common interest.
author. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few days away from the fateful deadline of 31 December 2007, when the quotas system for textiles from China will be abolished for good, concerns are growing within European industry.
China joined the World Trade Organisation some time ago, and has enjoyed many benefits as a result of this, starting with the ban on reintroducing quotas on its textile exports. Having accepted these advantages, it should have reciprocated by meeting requirements defined and ratified by the World Trade Organisation. It does not seem to us that this has happened, and this is bad for international competition, which is still far from fair, and still far from having the same rules for everyone.
I am not talking about the comparative social and environmental advantages that unfortunately still remain outside any legal framework in multilateral trade negotiations and that one day, very soon I hope, must be brought into the framework of trade that can truly be described as fair. Today, I am talking about the rules that govern the strenuous fight against counterfeits, the safety standards of many products from toys to medicines, and access by our companies to markets like China, which is not the only one where, not just for textiles but also for other sectors, there are still tariff barriers and especially non-tariff barriers that make it very difficult for European industry and small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector to break into the Chinese market.
In view of situations like this in international trade, we should not be afraid, provided that the legal and economic requirements are met, to use the legitimate instruments available, which have been put in place by multilateral international agreements to protect and safeguard the textile industry, specifically to counterbalance the potential negative effects of the ending of quotas. I am talking about the function and effectiveness of the High Level Group for surveillance of the textile market, which will have the task of monitoring the operation of the market in Europe through the import and export licence twin checking system. This is one method that should identify indirect trade movements and provide information about flows of imports.
We need to have the courage and strength to implement the safeguard clause on the basis of the WTO rules and to reintroduce the quotas, at least temporarily, if there is serious damage to our industry from abnormal import levels. I am thinking about the constant use of trade protection instruments, such as anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules and, more generally, about keeping a channel of comparison open between China and the European Union at all times.
Our textile industry is not afraid of competition, but it must be put in a position to be able to cope with it. Consequently, we need to act on two different fronts. On the one hand it is important to encourage the modernisation and restructuring process that will make the sector more competitive, with social shock absorbers to cope with a possible backlash, and on the other we need to ensure the sector is fighting on a level playing field, with the same rules for everyone.
Mr President, Commissioner, this is also why we are inviting the Commission and the Council to get the identification of product origins off to a stronger and more incisive start.
author. - Mr President, I should like to emphasise that the Greens are very aware that the consequences of a totally liberalised textile and apparel market for EU-based producers is still a very pressing issue, particularly for certain production zones within the EU in which the industry is highly concentrated. Several hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost since the beginning of 2005, albeit fewer than some of the worst predictions.
The Greens have from the start flagged our concern about the impact of competition on European producers. I think we need to monitor the situation carefully and be ready to apply import restrictions if import surges in the next year overwhelm the capacity of EU-based apparel industries to adapt, as well, of course, as channelling research and development resources to that sector.
However, we need to be aware that the problem is very much harder for certain poor countries in the South, like Bangladesh and the Philippines, which have been induced by the World Bank and other donors to invest heavily in exporting clothing and apparel products and now find themselves with shrinking export opportunities, a continuous debt burden, no financial means for adjustment of the sector, and misery - especially for millions of women who work for almost nothing in nightshifts in order to undercut the cheapest offer on the market with an even cheaper one.
It is, in fact, that latter perspective that emphasises that in certain sectors, where too many producers produce too many products, some kind of management tools to control supply are necessary and in the interests of the majority. That is why I urge colleagues to support the amendment that the Greens and Socialists have filed together, which reads: 'Calls on the Commission to evaluate the usefulness of supply-side management tools for the clothing sector, in order to level off global competition and prevent a lowest-common-denominator approach to social and environmental standards.'
A completely liberalised market in sectors characterised by overproduction capacities brings misery to all but a few. In that respect I think we should use the example of the apparel industry to press for new thinking about the way in which policy ought to regulate markets for the benefit of all. The reintroduction of some kind of quotas should be considered in this evaluation of supply-side management tools.
Another option mentioned in the joint resolution which deserves a more comprehensive evaluation is the creation of a Euromed production zone of the clothing and apparel industry. Indeed, that option not only points towards the improvement of opportunities for development in the southern Mediterranean rim states, but also gives opportunities to the southern European textile and apparel producers who would profit from shorter transportation times to EU markets. It is one of the good examples of how a Euromed economic zone could be sensitively managed without dragging the whole of the Mediterranean region in all-out liberalisation through a free trade agreement. From my Group's perspective, we regard this proposal as an option in its own right that should be fostered independently of the contested 2010 Euromed free-trade-agreement project, which, according to the sustainability impact assessments done by DG Trade in the Commission, would involve a significant number of quite negative social and environmental consequences.
author. - (PT) We are glad to be having this debate to which my parliamentary group has contributed a great deal. We hope that the debate will help to protect jobs and the activity of the textile and clothing sector, a strategic sector for the European Union, which has been so little protected and so undervalued.
As regards the questions to the Commission, we have nothing to add; they have been tabled. As regards the joint motion for a resolution, due to be adopted by the European Parliament today, we should like to point out that, although it contains certain points that might in practice protect and promote the textile and clothing sector in the European Union, we have reservations about some other points.
To give just three examples: the 'Globalisation Adjustment Fund' should not be used as a temporary cushion against the unacceptable social and economic costs of closure and relocation of undertakings, with the consequent destruction of jobs. That is, we should intervene on the causes, not the effects. The current liberalisation policies need to be reversed and financial means made available that effectively help to protect jobs, to modernise the sector and also to promote the introduction of other industries, including those linked to textiles and clothing, thus making for industrial diversification in regions where that activity is currently concentrated.
It would not make much sense to urge the European Union to encourage others to review their monetary policies if the EU does not first critically reappraise the strong euro policy and its impact on some EU countries' exports. Nor would it make sense to call for trade defence instruments in relation to China, whilst simultaneously supporting the setting up of a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area.
I do not have time in this speech to summarise all our proposals on the European Union's clothing and textile industry. They are set out in our motion for a resolution. However, we should like to mention some of the amendments tabled to the joint resolution.
They aim at making up for the lack of any mention of the serious consequences of the liberalisation of the textile and clothing industry at global level, with the closure and relocation of numerous undertakings, in particular to North Africa and Asia, leaving a trail of unemployment and serious socio-economic crises; stressing also that the double-checking 'surveillance system' will serve no purpose unless it prevents any repetition of the situation that occurred in 2005, underscoring the need for new safeguard measures so as to enable employment in, and the business of, the textiles and clothing sector to be safeguarded and promoted in the EU. The proposals highlight that some countries have adopted safeguard measures applying until the end of 2008 and it is therefore difficult to understand why the EU has not followed suit.
The proposals also express disquiet at the Commission's intentions to review trade defence instruments according to the interests of firms which are relocating their production to countries where, because of the low wages and social and environmental standards, production costs are lower. They propose that a Community programme should be drawn up for the textiles and clothing sector, and especially for the more disadvantaged regions that depend on it and aid for SMEs. They are proposals which maintain that a regulatory framework needs to be laid down to penalise company relocations, making public aid to businesses subject to long-term commitments regarding regional development and employment, including the requirement to pay back aid if such conditions are not met. Finally, they are proposals which call for a stronger role for workers' representatives in company boards and in fundamental organisational decision-making. They are proposals that we hope will have the support of the European Parliament.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as Members of this House know, back in 2005 the EU and China agreed a memorandum of understanding that included a two-and-a-half-year transition arrangement designed to give some extra breathing space to EU textile producers following the liberalisation of global trade in textiles and clothing.
The arrangement capped growth each year for 10 particularly sensitive textile and clothing products. These caps expire on 31 December 2007, although the memorandum itself remains valid until the end of 2008, and it commits industry and government on both sides to work for a stable transition to free trade in textiles.
It was always my intention to hold China to that responsibility. The Commission negotiated with China a double-checking surveillance system for 2008 that will cover eight textile-product categories with particular sensitivities.
What this means is that China will issue an export licence for all exports and, in parallel, the EU licensing offices in the Member States will issue an import licence. It is a familiar system, and manufacturers, importers and retailers have all welcomed it. Its value lies in allowing us to monitor textile import patterns and, because imports have to be licensed before they leave the dock in China, it allows us to see likely developments in advance.
I am the first to acknowledge the fact that the textile and clothing industry is going through a long period of structural change. This started long before the dismantling of quotas. Successful European companies are not taking the mass producers head on but are investing in technology and in quality. We remain - it is always worth saying it - the second biggest textile exporter in the world. We have more fashion and quality brands than the rest of the world put together. It is a sign of the European textile producers' confidence and resilience that they have not called for quotas to be further extended. They have argued that their competitiveness depends more now on effective action on counterfeiting and market access in China.
It goes without saying that I intend to throw the entire weight of our trade policy behind these two problems. On market access, we will be seeking new access for textile goods in the Doha Round and in all our new FTAs. We have also set up a specific working group for textiles as part of the renewed market access strategy. Europe is well poised to exploit huge new markets for consumer goods in the emerging economies and we will not simply be sitting back and hoping that these trends go our way.
Counterfeiting is, if anything, an even greater problem. Protecting trademarks and design rights is absolutely central to the textile industry and I raise these issues with the Chinese in every single meeting I have with them.
We have done some useful collaborative work with the Chinese customs service and trade fair organisers, and the Chinese patent office. But, on balance, China remains a huge problem for intellectual property rights holders. The counterfeit markets are cleared out one day and the traders creep back in the next. As I have said in the past, we have not ruled out the prospect of using the WTO if the situation does not improve. Ms Toia mentioned the 'Made in' proposal to assist textiles: I made this proposal, I presented it to the Commission, it was agreed by the Commission but it has not been agreed, I am afraid, by the majority of Member States. In view of this, I cannot press the proposal further or do more than I have done.
Last month, at the EU-China summit in Beijing, I was very careful to pass on some frank messages, and they apply in the textile sector as much as anywhere. The EU-China trade relationship has been transformed in the last two decades. Both sides have benefited from it immensely but it has become badly imbalanced. While China dominates our import markets, our businesses are losing out in China because of counterfeiting and market-access barriers amounting to EUR 55 million a day in lost business opportunities. Our spiralling trade deficit reflects both these things.
This is not because of a lack of competitiveness by European producers. We have a surplus in goods trade with the rest of the world and, where we are allowed to compete freely, we are a match for anyone. This is not the case in China. Instead of a level playing field, it is seriously tilted against us. We face trade and investment restrictions, rampant counterfeiting and regulatory barriers in virtually every sector. China's WTO obligations six years after it became a member are still too often unmet.
I see the textiles problems as emblematic of the broader problems we face in China. We are China's largest client for clothing and textiles. We have respected China's comparative advantage in labour and production costs. We are focusing on our own comparative advantages. We are moving up the value chain in what we produce. We expect the same sort of equal opportunity and fair treatment in China's market that Chinese producers receive in ours.
At the recent summit, the Premier of China, Wen Jiabao, appeared to hear and understand our strong concern and offered to create a high-level strategic mechanism with the EU to focus on rebalancing our trade deficit with China.
I welcome this, with one obvious caveat: it is not one more dialogue or one more roadmap we need, it is action - on the ground, in the markets, in the courts, where it matters to European exporters. And action not just by the Ministry of Commerce but across the board by the regulating agencies and ministries which restrict market access and law enforcement in all parts of China's economy. The openness of Europe's own markets to China will not be politically sustainable if this action does not occur.
I talk of textiles and clothing products, but also all sectors where Europe has export interests. The practical delivery of real change by the new high-level trade deficit mechanism, which I and my trade counterpart are charged with designing and launching, will be the definitive test of China's sincerity. I hope their sincerity matches our own in wishing to resolve the issues before us without resorting to avoidable confrontation.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that I find myself almost speechless for once. Congratulations! I think it is exactly what this House wanted to hear and I certainly hope he continues with the points that he has raised today in his negotiations with China. It is encouraging, and it looks to me as though he has a total and utter grasp of the situation. He would not expect me to say that, but I am saying it because I think he has done exactly what is wanted.
I would just say one thing, or two or three things, very briefly. Yesterday, I heard in this House one of the best speeches that I have ever heard any head of state give, and that was by the King of Jordan. One of the things that he mentioned was the situation with Euromed, which has a specific relevance to textiles and, of course, is very important for the stability of the whole European/Mediterranean region. Perhaps the Commissioner could just add his comments on that, because it is coming up for negotiations. I think it is particularly important, particularly as we have Turkey on one side and Morocco on the other; all would be particularly affected by our relationships with China.
Secondly, as one who does not believe in trade defence instruments and believes more in a free market, but in a free and fair market where competition is equal, I am pleased to hear that he is following those lines.
Thirdly, what exactly will happen after the Commission's double checking finishes - I believe the Commissioner said at the end of 2008 - bearing in mind the United States has just put in place very strict import conditions? Will this mean more products coming on to the European market than we already have?
Finally, Commissioner, may I take this opportunity of wishing yourself, Renate and the rest of your staff a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, what will the year 2008 bring to the textile industry in the European Union? Certainly nothing good. China has developed into the most aggressive textile power in the world and in 2006 alone, 50 to 60% of high technology in textiles was bought for China in the ring-spinning, weaving and texturing machine sector. Capacities are now waiting in the wings.
European retailers and manufacturers are no longer ordering, but are waiting for better offers from China. Further bankruptcies are imminent. The European focus on trade will create even bigger problems for us in other sectors, not just in textiles.
The volume of products we are offered will, of course, increase. The variety of textiles, however, will fall. If the issue is still to have any meaning, then further restructuring of the industry in the European Union must be flanked and more effectively cushioned in social terms. Only a very few niche producers will survive.
This development also has an extra dimension, however. In China, working and pay conditions for textile, garment and leather workers are still abysmal. European retailers and investors are in addition beating down prices in China. Alongside all the competitive advantages in China, survival is made more difficult because of the strong European support given to the remaining European textile industry. A fast buck is always at the expense of the smallest players.
As a trade unionist, I would expect the sports economy staging the Olympics in China to reveal what it is like for the female workforce there. Today 350 to 400 people already die on a daily basis in China's textile factories. Up to 100 sustain mutilations to their hands every day. Nine out of ten Chinese manufacturers violate international labour standards and even labour standards laid down in Chinese legislation!
However, business is going well for us in the retail trade. As a trade unionist and as Vice-President of the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation, I would say to you that it is too late, but not too late for us to take social measures.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I think that the speeches that we are hearing are all along the same lines. There have been very few debates recently in which we have heard people from different sides of the House representing different political sensibilities all talking the same language, with exactly the same objective.
We support free trade, without a doubt, and we support it as a very clear principle. It is therefore not about creating barriers: it is about ensuring that the rules of the game are the same for everyone and accepting that the unfair competition by China, through imposing restrictions on access to the market and through extremely serious, permanent and systematic infringements of intellectual and industrial property rights, or the lack of controls on imports, or the question of exchange rate differences, which obviously not only affect textiles but also many other spheres of our commercial relationship, and other measures on the part of China are placing the industry in an extremely serious and very delicate situation. The industry is continuing to exist and defend itself in order to survive and is not asking for protection, as Commissioner Mandelson rightly said in his speech, on which I certainly congratulate him. It is not asking for barriers, it is asking for the rules of the game to be equal for everyone, and it is asking to be able to play on equal terms.
In fact the situation is changing entirely from the end of the year, and the Commission cannot just note this, observing it as if it was a meteorological phenomenon It has a large number of weapons and tools at its disposal, such as import controls, with which to ensure that the rules of the game are indeed the same, and it can use the defence mechanisms that it has at its disposal.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner Mandelson, like a British gentleman, wishes to play chess; it is just that his opponent, the Chinese partner, really wants to play another game altogether with totally different rules.
Obviously we can talk here about monitoring, about controls on imports from China, but let us not forget something known as re-export, which is where China sends certain items to, for example, African countries, and those items then come to us as African products, although really they are products made in Chinese factories located in those countries, or actually manufactured in China.
I would like to emphasise something about which too little is said here: the matter of artificial lowering of the value of the Chinese currency. Obviously this facilitates exports to Europe. This is a serious threat.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking Commissioner Mandelson most warmly for his clear arguments. I had already read about them in detail in the European press.
Now for my contribution. The future of the European textile sector in the light of China's economic rise is at the forefront of this debate. Time after time, the Union reveals itself as unable to anticipate China's development adequately. The reason for this is the Union's inability to develop an unambiguous trade policy. The European Union is divided into a northern and a southern camp, be it on the subject of quotas for textile products or of the reform of trade defence measures.
It is high time, therefore, that the Member States learned to see beyond their own interests alone. An initial step in this regard is the recognition by the northern camp that the protection of its own industry against piracy and illegal State aid is not protectionism, and that an effective set of instruments is required for that protection. The southern camp must realise that China's rise has consequences.
The Union must no longer let itself be caught off guard, as happened in 2005 when the Multifiber Agreement expired. Europe's industries must seek niche markets in good time. After all, the options for reintroducing quotas are limited until the end of 2008.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with the Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and China set to expire imminently, it seems to me that the questions presented clearly express the valid concerns of industry and those in the sector regarding the impact, in the past and present, of the importing - or rather the massive invasion - of Chinese products into the EU Member States.
On several occasions I have highlighted the fact - and I have not been the only one to do so - that genuine competition and competitiveness for our products in the internal market, more so than in the external market, is assured not only or not so much by a system of quotas, but chiefly by defending the sector from unfair competition. Such competition is unfair because it is based on vastly lower cost and production conditions. The added value of Chinese production at that cost is disproportionate, because of well-known production factors that are inconsistent with those on our much more civilised continent.
How can we imagine we can compete with manufacturing where the costs are infinitely lower but where, even in terms of comparative quality, the products are now almost equal to many European products? I believe there is really only one option open to us, the only thing that can re-establish a bit of what I might call fair trade and sustainable competition: a surveillance system over Chinese imports should be based, in my opinion, on checking that manufacturing conditions are not very different from those our industry has to provide. We may not be able to demand that labour costs are the same but we can demand that products are definitely made without the use of child labour or in conditions that are shameful or akin to slavery, and that they are made without causing massive damage to the environment, beyond the insufficiently verified environmental safety, consumer safety and certified quality.
A different policy should also be applied to European industries that relocate outside the EU and engage in unfair competition with respect to industries that continue to manufacture within the EU, perhaps through tax measures that counteract the advantage over companies that do not relocate, to achieve a new balance.
To conclude, distribution conditions in Europe should also be monitored more closely, in view of what is certainly going on in Italy at least, where what is actually wholesale marketing masquerades as retail distribution.
(EL) Mr President, we, as the European Union, are being called upon - even now - to redraft our strategy for the important sector of textiles and clothing.
The outlines of an overall European strategy could be drawn as follows: firstly, ensuring improved access for European products to foreign markets, through the greatest possible worldwide convergence of customs duties at low levels; and eliminating customs barriers.
Secondly, achieving effective application of the rules of origin to imports.
Thirdly, giving substantial support, through the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, to small and medium-sized enterprises affected by liberalisation. I think it would also be useful to set up a Community programme to support the sector, especially in the less-favoured regions of the Union.
Fourthly, ensuring that there is an effective way of combating piracy and counterfeiting, given that the textile and clothing sector accounts for more than 50% of the recorded cases.
Fifthly, maintaining and strengthening the trade defence instruments, which are absolutely essential for combating illicit practices which harm competition.
Sixthly, guaranteeing that products imported into the European Union are subject to equivalent safety and consumer protection rules.
As regards China, we express our concern at the application of the double-checking system instead of the extension of quotas to the ten categories of products. In any case, we ask of the Commission - we ask of you, Commissioner Mandelson - that the system be applied rigorously and effectively. I also remind you of the 'ultimum remedium' of the safeguards which the European Union is entitled to activate.
To conclude, Mr President, liberalisation of the world trading system does not mean tolerance of unfair competition, illegal trade tactics or, in the end, disruption of the economic and social model.
(ES) Mr President, allow me to congratulate you, Commissioner, on your firmness and on the agreement reached in October with China regarding the system of double control of textile exports to the European Union.
In view of the removal of the quota system, which is concluding this year, the agreement will help, or should help, at least, to guarantee that the transition to a free market throughout 2008 is done correctly. This is essential for European manufacturing companies, which have already had to deal with huge challenges, as other speakers have said. The industry and the authorities will have to work together in order to closely monitor the development of trade patterns with China and prevent a repeat of the situation that occurred in 2005.
We do, however, regret the fact that the categories covered by the June 2005 agreement only included eight of the 10 products that were subject to limits until 31 December of this year, and on this point I would like you to clarify what the Commission's strategy is going to be for monitoring the two categories of products that have been excluded from the agreed double control system, which are cotton fabrics and table and kitchen linen.
There is, however, no doubt that in addition to this agreement we will need to continue to act in other areas in order to guarantee that European industry can compete under fair and reciprocal conditions, for example by making progress on the indication of origin marking - although there are the difficulties that you pointed out - or by promoting working, social and environmental conditions in the negotiation of trade agreements.
All the institutions and businesses must focus on R&D, using the wide range of possibilities offered by the Seventh Framework Programme, and we need to anticipate the changes and, at the same time, take into account the effects of restructuring by adopting the social measures needed to support workers.
Finally, I would like to welcome the agreement reached on the occasion of the Tenth Europe-China Summit that you mentioned, through which a high-level working group will be created to tackle key issues such as the trade deficit, difficulties accessing the Chinese market and intellectual property rights.
This is another step in the right direction in terms of improving our relations with China and promoting an advantageous environment for both parties.
(NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is there still a future for the European textile industry? The answer lies to a great extent with the European Commission. Last month in Beijing, Commissioner Mandelson denounced the poor safety of Chinese products, the enormous influx of counterfeit goods and the dumping of Chinese export goods. Quite rightly, he threatened to lodge a complaint with the WTO. Europe's daily imports from China amount to half a billion euro, and eight out of ten of the counterfeit goods intercepted originate from that country.
As well as from counterfeits, however, the European textile sector is currently suffering from the weakness of the US dollar. The weak dollar not only mortgages our exports, but also gives an artificial advantage to countries continuing to use the dollar as a currency. Coincidentally, those countries are situated mainly in Asia, and, not so coincidentally, China is holding on to the dollar. This is intolerable for the textile sector, which works with large volumes and low profit margins.
Our industry cannot and must not fall victim to a strong European currency. Hence the need to use the euro more and more in our trade relations. After all, that was, I thought, one of the reasons for the introduction of our single currency five years ago.
(PT) The consequence of globalisation within the European area is that productive undertakings are the losers and undertakings exporting technology are the winners. That is all very clearly reflected in internal cohesion. In the case of the textile industry, the fact that the sector is mainly made up of small and medium-sized enterprises is a disadvantage on the market that represents 6% of total world trade and an estimated turnover of EUR 566 billion. In addition, many producer regions are suffering the consequences of economic restructuring, so that it is difficult to achieve sustainability in the sector.
European production is forced to compete with that of countries that artificially devalue their currency, do not respect environmental protection rules or bear the costs of environmental protection, that frequently infringe intellectual property rights or, even more seriously, on the social and employment front, apart from having much lower wage costs, do not apply such stringent worker protection measures as Europe does. It is therefore all the more pressing to make sure that WTO rules are respected and that the Commission is able to monitor imports, not allowing a veil to be artificially drawn over the excesses noted in practice with China as regards textile imports, as has happened in the past.
The Commission must adopt all the measures needed to safeguard the interests of the European Union, including if necessary the imposition of quotas on China, possibly up to the end of 2008, within the WTO legal framework and must also insist upon total respect for the rules of fair play. European producers lack incentives for research and development and for improving the skills of the labour force, they do not have appropriate access to external markets or an effective means of preventing counterfeiting. Intellectual property is basic to the added value of the sector and must be defended at all costs in order to encourage production with a high added value. Finally, Mr President, Commissioner, consumer safety must not be forgotten. It falls to the Commission to prevent any product that might be harmful to our families from coming into the homes of Europe's citizens.
(EL) Mr President, in Europe, and particularly in Greece, the textile sector consists mainly of small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of these enterprises are developing in the region. We, as the European Union, have a duty to ensure the viability of the sector within our borders, and to guarantee protection for our businesses against unfair competition and illegal trade.
The European textile sector must become more competitive at international level. We need to support measures for the modernisation of our enterprises, innovation, research and development. Of course we must take serious account of the fact that on 1 January 2008 the transition period for quotas on imports of textile products from China ends. In the wider context, however, and for the sake of European consumers, we shall also have to ensure the enforcement of binding rules on 'made in...' labelling for textile products, and effective application of the surveillance system for imports from third countries.
(FR) Mr President, when I spoke in this chamber on this same subject in July 2005, I said that the lessons we would learn from the textiles crisis would eventually help us to maintain and develop other sectors of the European economy. I think we have made some progress, but not very much. Here we are, still demanding more research and development and asking the Commission to make sure that intellectual copyrights are respected. These are decisive factors but they are not enough. It makes me think that, instead of being a factor of the growth of trade and economic development, the WTO and its rules act as a brake. Trade is obviously a source of growth, but in order to be so, it needs to work in both directions. The textiles issue in fact throws up two fundamental problems: the absence of an EU industrial policy and the question of the European interest.
As regards the European interest, I welcome with some satisfaction the Commission communication entitled 'The European Interest: Succeeding in the age of globalisation', published in early October, which says that we need: 'to have ground rules which do not impinge on our capacity to protect our interests and to safeguard our high product standards relating to health, safety, the environment and consumer protection'. We will not tolerate third countries that want to operate in the European Union bending the rules applied to the internal market.
Commissioner, let us start by applying these principles to the textile industry.
(NL) Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner for his clear intervention. I should like to address two remarks to him, however. The textile industry is not only important to southern Europe, as Belgium, too, for example, still has a very flourishing textile industry, which provides 25 000 jobs.
Commissioner, the disappearance of quotas for the 10 finished products on 1 January threatens to have serious repercussions again not only for the sectors concerned, but also for upstream businesses. Taking the example of the jeans sector, if this is swamped with Chinese products, whether or not at dumping prices, the producers of the denim material and of the thread are also directly affected. Thus, of course, the ramifications are much broader than they seem at first glance.
My second remark, Commissioner, is that the 'monitoring system' currently only monitors the volume of the imported goods. It would be much more efficient if monitoring were also carried out on the basis of prices - and this a priori, or at the time licences are issued. Only in this way is a genuinely proactive, preventive approach possible.
Commissioner Mandelson, we should also like you to tell us when the Commission is planning to take action, as this is rather confusing and vague. In other words, how big do imports from China have to grow and how much do the prices of these imports have to decrease before you actually start to take action? It strikes us as no more than logical that we obtain some clarity on this, too, in advance.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I find myself in broad agreement with most of the sentiments that have been expressed during this debate. However, I would at the outset reject Mr Belder's view that we do not have a common trade policy in the EU, and that the Member States are so divided that we cannot pursue a policy on, for example, textiles.
Our experience in textiles demonstrates only too clearly that we do, in fact, have a common trade policy, through which we have been able to bring together Member States with different emphases and different orientations, to weld together their views and to produce a common trade policy in textiles that has been consistently pursued. There may be differences on the use of trade defence instruments, but through the review and anticipated reform I want to build fresh consensus and solidarity amongst Member States on the use of those trade defence instruments, and notably on their greater use by SMEs, for which I want to bring forward proposals.
Some specific points have been made, for example about the double-checking surveillance which will be in operation in 2008. The Commission will monitor textile imports from China in as close to real time as possible. This includes double-checking surveillance and any other monitoring means at the Commission's disposal, such as the TAXUD surveillance, which provides trade data on the basis of actual trade. In the face of a sudden surge of Chinese textiles, the Commission stands ready to use all the instruments at its disposal, should the situation so require.
However, I would stress that the 2005 deal was a once-and-for-all deal, and the Commission does not intend to make proposals for the extension of the levels agreed. As such, it is not opposed to more trade, and an increase could be expected. Should the upsurge, however, take such dimensions that action is justified, this will be based on existing requirements and criteria. We do rely on the co-responsibility of China for this smooth transition. China is well aware that it is not in its interests to repeat what happened in 2005. We also rely on the economic operators' self-interest to avoid a recurrence of 2005. Textiles are now moving into the same category as any other product, so the usual instruments - including trade defence instruments - apply, with the usual standards.
The issue of EU assistance for the textiles industry has been raised. Let me make two last points on this. At the EU level, the Commission has committed over EUR 70 million, for research and development under the sixth framework programme, to textile and clothing projects, while two innovation project proposals have acquired funding within the Europe Innova framework.
As far as the Globalisation Fund is concerned, it is as open to the textile sector as to other sectors. There have, so far, been eight formal applications for a contribution from the European Globalisation Fund, of which four concern textiles. None of these textile cases have yet been approved by the budgetary authority. They are all still being assessed by the Commission services.
Lastly, I turn to the issue of the Euro-Mediterranean, raised by Mr Sturdy. The Commission has set up a formal Euro-Mediterranean dialogue on the future of the textile and clothing industry, in order to define common strategies towards achieving better competitiveness of the industry in the Euro-Mediterranean zone. The objective of the dialogue is to bring Euro-Mediterranean countries and candidate countries together, in order to find common solutions for improving their competitiveness. I look forward to receiving proposals emerging from that dialogue.
I have received six motions for a resolution submitted in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.


13. 2007 progress report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (
- Before the vote
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, forgive me for rising too early a moment ago. I will be brief. We fully agree with the basic thrust of Mr Meijer's report; he has done a very good job. There is one sensitive issue and that is the question of the name. We want to make it easier for Macedonia to navigate through these rocky waters, which is why, between now and the next Strasbourg part-session, we want to work with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur to find a solution so that we can take a vote during the next Strasbourg part-session. That means postponing the vote today.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr Swoboda, this is laughable! Everyone knows that we cannot find a solution within a week. This row has been going on for years, and the decision has to be taken: Macedonia is called Macedonia is called Macedonia. Greece has to accept that and then we will take a vote. It will make no difference whether we do so today or leave it for a week; Macedonia will still be called Macedonia.
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, I would like to vote in favour of Mr Swoboda's proposal, even if Mr Cohn-Bendit cannot imagine this working, perhaps because it does not sit easily with his style of political work. It is possible to achieve compromises within a matter of days, if you take time to seek these compromises, and that is precisely the purpose of Mr Swoboda's proposal. Yes, we can vote in the next part-session, but in the intervening period, we could find some kind of compromise for our resolution, given that we seem to be well on the way to doing so here in the House. We should take the time to do that, even if Mr Cohn-Bendit feels under pressure.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, although I do not fundamentally disagree with Mr Cohn-Bendit regarding the name, I think that Mr Swoboda's proposal should be adopted. I think it would be wise for Parliament to look into this further and to find a solution, and the negotiations, the contacts between Macedonia and Greece, are important in the coming days. I think therefore that it is indeed wise to postpone this vote until Strasbourg.
(Parliament adopted the motion. The vote was postponed)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes


Composition of political groups : see Minutes
Mr President, I rise on Rule 103(2). In response to the historic and - some would say - joyous expression of democratic will in Ireland last week, you said yesterday from the Chair that 'it remains our goal to see the Lisbon Treaty enter into force before the elections of next year. Provided that you agree to this, I shall resolutely defend these principles in the Council at the end of the week'.
(Applause from members of other groups)
You have asked us for a mandate. I would suggest to the House that simply having the mandate of the Conference of Presidents is not enough for this and that we ought - under Rule 103, which clearly says that 'Parliament shall decide whether or not to wind up the debate with a resolution' - to finish our debate tomorrow with President Barroso with a vote to see whether we should give you that mandate or not and to see whether Members of this so-called democratic Chamber are prepared to respect the Irish result and to find out whether 'no' really means 'no'.
(Applause from members of the IND/DEM Group)
Mr Farage, I gave you the chance to speak because you asked for it, but I have to tell you that your request has come too late. It is the Conference of Presidents that decides whether there is a resolution. The matter can be raised again in plenary, although that should have been done earlier. You are now too late, so there will definitely not be a resolution. That is the situation according to the Rules of Procedure, and we keep to the rules. Your loudness does not make up for your arguments.


1. Pakistan: murder of the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer
The next item is the debate on the seven motions for resolutions on Pakistan.
author. - Mr President, there is a fundamental struggle going on in Pakistan and the extremism that we have seen has to end, especially the abusive blasphemy laws. These are leading to a climate of fear and intolerance and, in the worst cases, extremism.
The fight against extremism is not an easy task, which is why the Pakistani Government and all those citizens who agree that intolerance and extremism are unacceptable need our support. We have to continue to wipe out terrorism.
The Governor, Mr Taseer, was violently murdered out of sheer intolerance by a guard from his own security detail, a person who should have protected him. His daughter, Shehrbano, wrote a letter which was published in The New York Times, from which I would like to quote, because I think she gets to the essence and it is very good to use her words in memory of her father.
She says of the perpetrator: 'Mr Qadri and his supporters may have felled a great oak that day, but they are sadly mistaken if they think they have succeeded in silencing my father's voice or the voices of millions like him who believe in the secular vision of Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah'. She continues: 'There are those who say my father's death was the final nail in the coffin for a tolerant Pakistan. That Pakistan's liberal voices will now be silenced. But we buried a heroic man, and not the courage he inspired in others'.
Others followed in their condemnation of the blasphemy laws, even conservative politicians. We have to support that here in the European Parliament. The daughter of Governor Taseer went to Smith College and she studied European politics and human rights, but too many people in Pakistan are educated in madrasahs. We have to make sure that the young generation has opportunities, and learns how to live together in the diverse society which is Pakistan.
Mr President, several weeks after the governing coalition in Pakistan was on the verge of collapse, the country was rocked by the shooting, in broad daylight, of the Governor of Punjab. Salmaan Taseer was governor of the country's wealthiest and most populous province, and was also an important politician in the ruling party. He died because he had the moral strength and the courage to demand the release of the Christian woman Asia Bibi, who has been sentenced to death for blasphemy. His murder, carried out by one of his own security guards and inspired by Muslim extremists, is not just another attack on a highly placed politician in Pakistan and proof of the dramatically low level of security there. It is, principally, testimony to the increasingly visible slide of the country - of Pakistan - towards a situation in which part of the armed forces, the judiciary and the political elite support, both openly and secretly, a policy of concessions towards Islamic political and religious extremists.
Yesterday, in this Chamber, we debated the subject of the persecution of Christians. Today, we have adopted a resolution on the matter. It seems to me that scope for activity is opening up for Mrs Ashton and her service to put diplomatic and political pressure on the Pakistani authorities, who must at last start to fight religious extremism.
author. - Mr President, it was shocking, but sadly not surprising, to receive the news that Governor Taseer has been murdered. I personally knew Benazir Bhutto, and Minister Shahbaz Bhatti has become a good friend of mine. What links all three of them is their amazing courage as vocal and visible critics of blasphemy laws and their abuse by extremist groups.
The government of Pakistan has indeed taken several important steps to improve the rights of minorities, for example, by allocating a minimum quota in public jobs. The government has also formed a committee to review all discriminatory laws, including the blasphemy law. However, the work has not yet finished. Despite several major steps, so long as there is a legal loophole, such as that in the current blasphemy law, so massive that it enables terrorists and extremists to push their own agenda forward, it is difficult to believe in a true commitment to democracy.
I hope that, with this resolution, we can express our continuing solidarity with the government of Pakistan in the fight against terrorism and the spread of extremism.
Mr President, exactly eight months ago, on 20 May, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on religious freedom in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Today, this subject has returned to our Chamber again, as a result of the religiously motivated sentence of death handed down to 45 year old Asia Bibi and the murder of the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, who had spoken out publicly in her defence.
It turns out that the situation we described eight months ago has not only failed to improve, but has become yet worse. In Pakistan, today, one can lose one's life both for so-called religious blasphemy and for freedom of speech - in this case, a public statement about a judicial sentence. The murder of Mr Taseer shows how delicate a situation we face. Pakistan is divided by religion to such an extent, that on both sides - Christian and Muslim - people are dying, including the representatives of local elites. Public support for amendment of the Pakistan Penal Code and, in particular, of Section 295 C, which prescribes capital punishment for blasphemy, can also involve the risk of death.
We should, however, require courage from Pakistani politicians and, in particular, from the opposition, for example, the Pakistan Muslim League, which is blocking government reform of the code. We can also support the work of the Ministry for Minority Affairs and help the government of Prime Minister Gilani in such matters as improving the quality of journalism and media reporting and the standard of educational materials in schools, for example. Today, the European Parliament is not interfering in Pakistan's internal affairs, but is only calling attention to Article 20 of Pakistan's 1973 Constitution and the freedom of religion for which it provides.
Mr President, I would like to open this speech by saying that I read with much interest the joint resolution on Pakistan and, in particular, on the assassination of Governor Taseer. It offers a strange contrast to the resolution which was adopted this morning on Christian minorities.
All of us here are committed, or so I hope, to protecting freedom of expression, conscience and religion. What we should be equally preoccupied with are all those who fall victim to persecution because of their religious choices, including when they decide to change religion and also when they do not believe in God.
If we want to combat fundamentalism, of whatever kind that may be, then we must treat all victims of this fundamentalism in the same way. No religion is, or ever was, invulnerable to what I will call intolerable deviations. Just let us remind ourselves of the mass murder of American Indians, particularly in the Caribbean and in Latin America. Let us remind ourselves of the sorrowful period of the Crusades, the Inquisition or the wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants. Let us remember the anti-Semitism which had such devastating effects during the 20th century and which lives on more or less latently in a number of EU countries.
Every religion has its own form of fundamentalism and the first victims of such fundamentalism are often the religious moderates of those same religions. From this perspective, the assassination of the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, is a classic example. This man was murdered because he was a model of tolerance and because he dared to condemn the blasphemy laws in force in his country and the abusive usage of these by certain extremist groups in cases such as that of Asia Bibi, a Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy under the Pakistan Penal Code.
What is even more unacceptable is the praising of his murderer by fanatical groups. Let us not forget that the blasphemy law is applied primarily to Muslims, that it affects all religious minorities, and, in particular, women, but also trade-union activists, journalists and lawyers, and that people from all of these groups are also frequently deprived of their fundamental freedoms, if not obliged to go into hiding.
It is therefore time that the Commission and the External Action Service changed their policy, and I would like you, Commissioner, to provide an accurate assessment of the agreement with Tunisia and the agreement with Pakistan on democracy and human rights, and I would like Tunisia to be a lesson to us, to be a lesson to you.
author. - Mr President, I think all of us would want to express our condolences to the family and friends of Salmaan Taseer, the Governor of Punjab put in place by the government of Pakistan, and we are remembering here today his clear support for Asia Bibi - a position he knew to be controversial and indeed dangerous.
We are rightly distressed by his murder and the reaction to it by part of the population of Pakistan, but we should not forget, as well, that many have mourned him and have done that in public as a public act. It is an act we should be commending, like, for example, the action taken by the media regulator against certain media with regard to their coverage of the alleged murderer.
However, as we know, the blasphemy law in Pakistan puts the lives of Pakistani citizens at risk: Muslim, Christian and others alike, as many speakers have said this afternoon. We are aware that Pakistan is a new democracy, that it is facing conflict on its borders, and that it has faced the disaster of the recent flood, as well as the earthquake only this week. We know that the government is struggling, but we also recognise that it needs our support in terms of developing democracy within Pakistan, not least in the political battle against extremism and for universal human rights, and it is our role as democratic parliamentarians to support all those who are working for positive change and to give them the voice that others would deny them.
We are also asking for action by the government of Pakistan, not least to remove the reservations on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - which they ratified with a large number of reservations - and we urged this in our recent delegation visit to Pakistan. We want them, as well, to continue the efforts to change the blasphemy law because this is a law that is more abused than properly used.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, we all strongly condemn the brutal murder of the Governor of Punjab on 4 January. This murder was committed in the context that Mr Taseer opposed the notorious blasphemy law which has been a legal justification for the persecution and suppression of other religious groups.
When expressing concern over the increased influence of extremists in Pakistan, we also realise that moderate Muslims and the Pakistani Government, of which Mr Taseer was an influential member, have suffered a grave loss and we offer our condolences to them.
We are worried that the young lawyers praised the assassin, but we also take notice that an overwhelming majority of Pakistani society has condemned this murder. It is important that influential religious authorities have called for the amendment of the blasphemy law, and this is also our demand. We wish the Pakistani authorities all success in increasing their efforts to fight extremism there.
Mr President, the murder of Salmaan Taseer basically reflects the religious intolerance that prevails in Pakistani society. Taseer was one of those rare people that dared to speak out against Pakistan's Blasphemy Law. He had asked the President to pardon Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy, and had also visited her in prison. The fate of a citizen who opposes injustice is harsh and cruel in today's Pakistan. Will Asia Bibi's fate be the same if she is pardoned? Will they murder her too?
We might well ask whether a state like Pakistan should enjoy the trade benefits that the European Union offers. Parliament should make respect for human rights a fundamental element when the EU is debating the regulation on emergency autonomous trade preferences for Pakistan.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the murder of Governor Salmaan Taseer is not only a private tragedy but a tragedy for democracy in Pakistan.
All the deplorable incidents and cases that have been outlined in the resolution altogether constitute an intimidating sign of Pakistani society's reluctance to move towards secularisation, and of the rise of religious extremism.
How can Pakistan even call itself a democracy when the freedom of religion that is granted by the constitution is completely ignored by applying the blasphemy laws, to which the late Salmaan Taseer was so opposed.
I would like the European Union to consider the ramifications of the application of such inhumane laws on relations with Pakistan. Pakistan would benefit in many aspects by repealing the blasphemy laws and revoking the penalties that have been based on those laws. I also would expect the government of Pakistan to reinforce the measures that have been taken to fight the spread of violent extremism.
Violence causes violence and I am quite confident that Pakistan cannot afford the escalation of a full-scale civil war with extremist groupings such as the Taliban.
Mr President, once again, we are talking about Pakistan, and once again we have a problem and a political murder. We are, indeed, talking about this matter one more time. There was a resolution about Pakistan a couple of months ago. The problem has come back again, and it is a kind of hot potato. It seems to me that it is necessary, here, to say something about the unacceptable toleration being shown towards those Muslim imams who make public calls in Pakistan - in Peshawar for example - for killings, offering, for example, to reward the perpetrators financially. Such situations have occurred, and the Pakistani authorities have not reacted to them. It should be said clearly that there is a certain sense in which their failure to act and their lack of reaction mean they share responsibility for these things.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, to make a personal statement, I spent a lot of time with Salmaan Taseer when we were both in our twenties. Indeed, we were friends. Salmaan wrote to me at Parliament to invite me to stay as his personal guest at the Governor's house in the Punjab. That letter arrived after Governor Taseer's murder.
Salmaan was a man of charm, charisma and high intelligence. He was also very capable and effective. He represented the best tradition of Pakistan - a devout Muslim but not in any way fundamentalist. As has been said, Salmaan strongly supported a Christian lady who had been sentenced under blasphemy laws. Salmaan paid for that support with his life. It was a political assassination.
Pakistan is not only a large, developing country. It is a country with over 20 nuclear warheads. I came here today, first and foremost, to express my profound sorrow, but I must also express my concern - all our concern - for Pakistan.
(DE) Mr President, the violent death of the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, who was always a proponent of religious tolerance, brings the strengthening of extremist forces to the eyes of the world. Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in the streets after this atrocity, marching not against the murder but in support of the person who committed it. Mr Taseer spoke out vehemently against the blasphemy laws, which prescribe the death sentence for blasphemers. Just recently, as some of my fellow Members have already mentioned, the Christian, Asia Bibi, has been sentenced to death for supposedly having insulted the prophet Mohammed.
As a moderate member of the PPP political party, Salmaan Taseer was one of the strongest voices against extremism. His death weakens the government, which is already fighting for political survival following the withdrawal of a coalition partner. There are only 3 million Christians in Pakistan's population of 160 million. What fate awaits this always peaceable minority?
Europe must intervene here and the delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia, of which I am Vice-President, will continue to give its full backing to the human rights movement. This murder must be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrator and the people behind him must be brought to justice.
(LT) Mr President, yes, the situation in Pakistan is particularly complicated, both due to internal and external factors, and therefore, events like a political assassination for religious reasons, and of such an important figure, immediately rock the entire country and the whole of society. After such shocks, events in the country may take a dangerous turn towards strengthening religious fanaticism and restricting human rights. Our resolution should help to ensure that there is nevertheless a different course of events, and that even in this situation, the Pakistani Government can still find the strength to go down the road of bolstering human rights and opposing religious fanaticism. We must provide significant support to such steps, as well as, undoubtedly, the independence and protection of the judiciary in complex cases concerning blasphemy.
(HU) Mr President, I have expressed my firm support on several occasions when it came to taking strong action in defence of human rights in the EU's relations with third countries. I do so again in relation to the events that transpired in Pakistan, as such a position conveys the message that Europe does not abandon those who raise their voice in support of tolerance, freedom of religion and the equal treatment of minorities. We are well aware that the persecution of Christians exists in many countries. Not only in Pakistan would there be a need for leaders like the late Salmaan Taseer. For this reason, the European Union must take every opportunity to express the importance of its common values with a single voice through the European External Action Service. One such common value is the freedom of religion. If we do not speak out against the atrocities committed against Christians or other religious minorities, we cannot take our own faith seriously either.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe cannot remain powerless in the face of what is happening in Pakistan. The murder of the Governor of Punjab, Mr Taseer, is a tragic and appalling act in a situation which has worsened enormously over recent months.
The division between Christians and Muslims is increasingly clear, but the law on blasphemy is still at the root of many acts that violate fundamental freedoms. Anyone who opposes or merely expresses their disapproval of this rule, as the Governor of Punjab did, is suppressed.
The Governor is dead because he was a moderate and because of his moderate views, because of his courage in expressing opposition to this and other rules that violate fundamental freedoms. This is why a failure by Europe to take clear and strong action risks leaving those who are bravely fighting for something that we should support in isolation.
Mr President, just a few words of criticism on the way some sections of the European public and also some sections of this Parliament are treating Pakistan and its fight against terrorism.
I see too many Pakistan-bashing exercises and I see a disregard of the effort that the Pakistani Government and civil society are making against extremism. It should be very clear to everybody that 90% or more of Pakistani people are against terrorism and that they are paying a very high price for this.
The death of Governor Salmaan Taseer has been condemned by an overwhelming majority of the people, and also by the most prominent religious scholars. Moderate Muslims and all government authorities have also suffered a great loss and that should be fully recognised by everybody.
(FI) Mr President, freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights. It is being violated, however, around the world almost daily. It is nothing less than ruthless intolerance.
The Blasphemy Law goes back to the times of the military dictatorship that was in power in Pakistan in the 1980s. It is not acceptable that the Law be used to persecute religious minorities and sentence dozens of people to death every year. The EU should act decisively and consistently to persuade the Pakistani authorities to repeal this cruel law.
Mr President, when Governor Salmaan Taseer was buried, it seemed to me as though any hope for a moderate, stable Pakistan was buried with him. This disgusting murder of a dedicated and enlightened public servant was sparked by his advocacy of reforming Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws. In particular, he championed the case of a Christian woman who is currently awaiting execution - would you believe it - having been convicted of defaming Islam.
We in this Parliament have long called for the reform or scrapping of these wretched blasphemy laws, which are invoked frequently against Pakistan's religious minorities. This assassination underlines the growing radicalisation of Pakistani society. Jinnah, were he alive today, would be shocked.
Few mainstream politicians dared to follow Salmaan Taseer's lead and suggest a reform of the blasphemy laws and even fewer will be able to do so now. They will be afraid. Instead, the violent radicals and fanatics - including, I am afraid, leading jurists - praised the assassin and called for his release. They seem to be winning the battle of ideas in Pakistan. As a result, domestic terrorism is flourishing, and we saw this phenomenon again last week.
Can the EU now sustain a strategic relationship with a country so unstable and particularly given our generous concessions over trade and aid?
Mr President, we are talking here about a double tragedy: firstly, the execution of an innocent man and, secondly, done by someone who was supposed to be minding him, his bodyguard. I can empathise and sympathise with the family in particular, because only a week ago, we had a similar experience in difference circumstances, where a beautiful 27-year-old girl from Ireland on her honeymoon in Mauritius was killed in her own bedroom when she walked in on staff who were robbing her room. They strangled her, threw her into the bath and tried to pretend it was suicide. Circumstances are different but the result is the same: an innocent person dead.
Also, a few weeks ago, I was part of the EU-US delegation to America and there we met the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. He struck me as being a very reasonable, sensible, fair-minded person and he emphasised that religion is about tolerance and we should try to get that message through to the extremists and the fundamentalists.
(SK) Mr President, what is particularly alarming about the murder of the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, is the background to this violent act.
The fact that this murder took place with the silent approval of Pakistani spiritual leaders, and that local lawyers support the murderer, means that murder on grounds of religious intolerance is tolerated in Pakistani society. Pakistani laws on blasphemy make it possible to persecute religious minorities with the threat of the death penalty, as has happened to Asia Bibi, a mother of five children who is awaiting her punishment in prison.
We therefore really cannot remain indifferent to what is happening. Our pressure on the Pakistani administration is quite legitimate and I expect a similar response from all free and democratic forces around the world. We cannot today tolerate - in the third millennium - brutal behaviour from the middle ages perpetrated by oppressors in an abuse of religion.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I must point out that the situation in Pakistan is quite unsettling not only in this case, but also in general. Pakistan's problems must not be viewed as something far away, since we know all too well that the problems arising in the region of Inner Asia, whether they are economic problems, ethnic problems or even the issue of emigration, will sooner or later ripple over to the area of the European Union. Thus, there is a very real need for us to address the problem of Pakistan. Pakistan is burdened by two problems in particular: on the one hand, the continuous attacks from Afghanistan and India, and, on the other, the issue which is the most important for us in this sitting, Muslim extremists, to whom Salmaan Taseer also fell victim. For this reason, I ask the European Parliament that we assure Pakistan of our support, so that the situation can come to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.
(RO) Mr President, the assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer, a dedicated voice for tolerance and the rights of minorities in Pakistan, shows a human rights violation on a dramatic scale. Exercising the right to freedom of expression and religion in Pakistan is punishable under law by imprisonment or even death. Salmaan Taseer paid with his life in the defence not only of religious freedom, but also of the life and freedom of others. We must support those who fight courageously and risk their lives for human rights and democracy. We urge the authorities in Pakistan to punish the criminals and their accomplices and get rid of the blasphemy laws.
Mr President, the murder of Governor Salmaan Taseer is indeed a brutal and tragic crime. He was killed, apparently, by an Islamic extremist because he advocated changes to the blasphemy law. The murder is a tragedy for Pakistan, but what does it mean for the West?
Instead of doing all we can to combat Islamic fundamentalism taking deeper root in Europe, we placate and appease it. Sharia law is now recognised in some tribunals in the UK. There are inner city areas where the de facto writ of Sharia law runs. Europe, having produced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the wonders of the modern scientific age, now lies supine before a 6th century ideology.
Governments are frightened to confront it because of political correctness and the economic power of some Islamic countries. We must support the moderate and progressive elements in countries like Pakistan, but above all, we must assert that Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalism have no place in a modern, Western, liberal democracy.
(RO) Mr President, firstly, I would like to say that, for my part, I condemn the brutal assassination of the Governor of Punjab province. He was a prominent figure in the political life of Pakistan who was noted for his courageous fight against extremism, intolerance and fanaticism. Seven months ago, I supported here the need to urgently revise the provisions relating to offences against religions in the so-called 'blasphemy laws'.
I would like to remind you that the possibilities for abuse offered by these laws create an atmosphere of intolerance that encourages violence on religious grounds and also promotes discrimination, intimidation and persecution of religious minorities. The case of Asia Bibi that actually culminated in the murder of Governor Taseer is symbolic in this regard. I believe that the Pakistani authorities must demonstrate through action their declared commitment to the fight against extremism in this country by abolishing the blasphemy laws. I would like, therefore, to reiterate the call to the voices of reason in Pakistan that was initiated by the daughter of Punjab's deceased Governor, Shehrbano Taseer.
(SK) Mr President, I would like to begin by expressing my sympathy with the citizens of Pakistan and my sorrow over the loss of such an important political figure as Salmaan Taseer.
I am concerned about the fact that people with specific beliefs and religious groups, including Christians, continue to be persecuted in the country, for example, the notorious case of the woman who, on the basis of Sharia law, on the basis of a law on blasphemy, is actually awaiting execution. The fact that Islamist extremist groups continue to exist directly inside the Pakistani security services does not contribute to the stability of the country, and clearly undermines confidence in the country being governed by the laws of a legal state. I hope that the reform process will go further in the country, and I would therefore like to call on all political forces, including religious institutions, to provide greater support for moderation, tolerance and mutual respect between communities.
(DE) Mr President, in many ways, Pakistan is a fragile country. It is politically fragile because the government is not strong enough to implement effectively its moderate course of political and economic stabilisation and because the army's offensive against extremists in the border areas is, in fact, causing resistance to increase. It is economically fragile because the global financial crisis and the devastating floods in the country have set back its development by several years. It is socially fragile because social structures have failed to develop over the decades in such a way as to enable large sections of society to share in economic development.
We in the European Union must enter into dialogue with the political class there in order to promote a recognition that fundamental economic and social change are necessary so that people can be offered prospects that promise them more than the alternatives of extremism and fundamentalism.
(DE) Mr President, the most hateful and violent regimes ever known were the anti-religious regimes of the Jacobins, Nazis and Communists in Europe. For this reason, I do not think it is helpful for Mrs Vergiat to attack religions in such sweeping terms. The fact remains, however, that religions are often misused for ideological purposes, which is something that we need to combat. This is the case in Pakistan, for example.
On the other hand, we must remember that Pakistan was created on the basis of religious criteria when India was partitioned. It is a country with no history, but was established as a Muslim state by the British colonial powers as they pulled out of the region. That is why we should understand that this is an Islamic state. However, we must insist that this country should be organised along tolerant lines and that religious freedom should be upheld. Christians must be treated with greater respect than has been the case to date and the EU needs to show greater vigour in stepping up to its role as an advocate for this group. After all, if Europe does not stand up for the world's Christians, then who will?
(FI) Mr President, more than one of us here has said how Salmaan Taseer was someone who stood up for vulnerable women and representatives of religious minorities, through both words and action. He fought against injustice generally. Taseer was a supporter of the democratic state and spoke out against Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws, saying that they were enacted by human beings and were therefore capable of being amended by them.
Several here have already spoken of how he vigorously defended a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death and tried to overturn her sentence. All these deeds in the name of justice were his undoing. The EU should support the forces in Pakistan that seek reforms, because not everyone in Pakistan backs fundamentalists. In its foreign policy, the EU should therefore consider wisely its position on the situation in Pakistan.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, this debate is yet more proof that the European Union is shocked by the brutal murder of Mr Salmaan Taseer, Governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, in Islamabad on 4 January. High Representative Ashton strongly condemned the killing in her statement on 4 January. She urged the Pakistani authorities to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. This assassination is all the more distressing as, based on available reports, it is linked to Mr Taseer's outspoken defence of a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who was sentenced to death under questionable blasphemy charges.
It should be noted that on 12 November 2010, High Representative Ashton expressed deep concern over the death sentence given to Mrs Asia Bibi. She called on Pakistan to abolish the death penalty and respect human rights, as guaranteed under the international conventions to which the country is a party.
The European Union has repeatedly brought up the continued application of the blasphemy laws with the government of Pakistan as part of this human rights dialogue. We are conscious of the fact that the blasphemy laws in their present form are open to abuse and have often been applied against religious minorities. We are also aware that false accusations have been used as a tool to settle private disputes or for personal gain.
We were encouraged by earlier steps taken by the government of Pakistan to try amending more controversial aspects of the laws. Ideally, of course, the blasphemy laws would be totally repealed. It is unfortunate that in the case of Mr Taseer's assassination, there has been widespread public support for the murderer. We are concerned that fatwas were not only issued against Mr Taseer but also against other public figures who have spoken out for a reform of the blasphemy laws. Inciting hatred and violence with impunity should not be allowed.
The government of Pakistan has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and we count on it to do everything possible to ensure their safety. There are fears that the murder of Mr Taseer reflects a rise in extremism and intolerance in Pakistan. We need to face up to the situation and consider carefully how to react, knowing that the government, and democratic institutions of the states more generally, continue to face daunting challenges. Let me be very clear here: there is no alternative but to continue to strengthen democratic and progressive forces in Pakistan's civil society.
Pakistan's constitution explicitly protects the rights of minorities, and accordingly, the government needs to tackle extremism not just in the border areas but also on the streets of Pakistani cities. We need to provide continued emphasis on education in our development cooperation and more needs to be done to promote tolerance within the educational system, especially towards minorities. We are well aware of the vulnerable situation of persons belonging to religious minorities in Pakistan; this does not just concern Christians but also Hindus, Shias, Ahmadis and others. The European Union should champion their common cause and not that of any particular group or religion, as this would play into the hands of those wishing to deepen divisions among Christians and Muslims.
We will continue to focus on the need to fully protect every individual's right to religious freedom in Pakistan or elsewhere.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - I would like to express my deep indignation at the murder of the Governor of the province of Punjab in Pakistan, Salmaan Taseer, on 4 January 2011, for having spoken out against Pakistan's law against blasphemy. According to the values of our Western societies, murder is considered as the worst single crime. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how someone can commit murder as a form of retaliation. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are as important as freedom of speech, which may lead to conflicts between these freedoms. However, any definition by governments of what is to be considered as blasphemy is an unacceptable restriction on freedom of speech. A modern society should consider as legitimate all personal views expressed in an inoffensive manner. Moreover, if Pakistan is to become a tolerant society, such barbarian acts motivated by religious fundamentalism are to be condemned. This incident is yet another reminder that freedom of speech continues to be absent in some regions of the world. Given the history of his country, it was courageous for Salmaan Taseer to speak out against the blasphemy law and in favour of free speech. It is regrettable that this ultimately cost him his life.