4. Situation of the Jordan River with special regard to the Lower Jordan River area (vote)


4. Obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (
After the vote:
Madam President, if you allow me, I would like to give a clarification on the PPE Group's voting list for all the supervisory package reports, which is that in the final vote on the legislative resolutions, all the PPE Group roll-call votes should be in favour. This is a clarification aimed at preventing any misunderstanding.


Agenda for the next sitting: see Minutes


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


14. Posting of workers (vote)
- Before the vote on Amendment 7:
(NL) Mr President, it has been agreed between the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs that the text should read as follows: 'considers that for ensuring', etcetera.
(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)


3. China: Minority rights and application of the death penalty
The next item is the five draft resolutions on China: minority rights and use of the death penalty.
Mr President, my group has withdrawn its signature from the 'China' resolution. Why? Not because we regard human rights as secondary and subordinate to commercial interests - after all, we submitted a resolution from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament without any concession, highlighting our commitment - but because, in order to achieve a change in China's behaviour, we need to have dialogue, and this erratic resolution devoid of any structure ruins any chance of dialogue. It certainly has everything in it: Tibet, the Dalai Lama and his succession, the religious crusade and even, in case anything had been missed out, criticism of any present, past and future Communist regime.
Is this the way to open doors? No. The tragedy is that they will close on the very people whom we want to save at this precise moment, in other words, the Uighurs and Tibetans threatened with execution.
I urge China to stop being afraid of freedom of expression so that it can open up to the world, not only through business and culture, but also through sharing essential values.
I call for the issue of abolishing the death penalty to be put on the agenda of the next EU-China Summit on 30 November. I also ask the Commission and Council to continue to want to include in the new partnership under negotiation the clause about respect for human rights in China.
author. - Mr President, I support calls for the end of the death penalty in China, more especially when the death penalty is used to terrorise minority ethnic groups and nations within the Chinese state.
The European Union, the United States and other world powers, however, in their criticism of human rights violations in China, are very soft. In the case of violation of workers' rights, those criticisms are virtually non-existent. This is because they wish to build business links with Chinese business and the bureaucracy that controls the state so that they may profit from the appalling exploitation of workers in China.
China is a gigantic sweatshop of exploitation of workers. For example, tens of millions of migrant workers lead lives of shameful misery, with their children suffering the consequences of the horrific conditions under which they live. The EU-based and the US-based multinationals participate in this exploitation to facilitate their super profits.
The Chinese regime is increasing its repression, and that repression has increased since the Chinese Stalinists decided to go for the capitalist market as a means of developing the economy. There is massive repression of journalists and campaigners for justice, for communities and for workers.
Recently a Socialist colleague of my own was banned from China. Laurence Coates, a Socialist who writes under the name of Vincent Kolo, who is the editor of 'chinaworker.info', was detained at the border and banned from China. 'Chinaworker.info' campaigns for workers' rights and free trade unions. We should stand with workers in China. Independent and democratically-run trade unions and the right to strike should be campaigned for, as well as the release of all political prisoners and detained labour activists.
We should call for freedom of expression and assembly and international solidarity with workers in China to fight this horrific bureaucratic regime, many of whose members aspire to be oligarchs, obviously, as they did previously with the same system in Russia.
author. - Mr President, while we are getting closer to China in terms of trade and environmental cooperation and China was host to the wonderful Olympic Games last year, it is clearly backsliding in terms of ensuring human rights to its citizens.
The response of the Chinese authorities to peaceful protests in Tibet last year and Xinjiang this year was completely out of proportion, to say the least. People everywhere in the world should have the right to protest against government policies they do not like. Instead of this, we had a violent and brutal reaction from the Chinese authorities against the protesters and hundreds of people killed.
Now we have a further nine people, mostly Uighurs, executed without mercy as a demonstration that any dissenting voices will be met by brutal and lethal force by the Chinese state apparatus.
While we admire the Chinese culture and make progress in exchanging goods and investments, it is our duty to speak loudly and clearly and condemn the killings and executions. Therefore, we once again reiterate our call to the Chinese officials to impose a moratorium on the death penalty and grant more freedom to its provinces striving for greater autonomy, while respecting the 'one China' policy.
Mr President, in recent years, China has seen huge economic growth. Many Chinese people's quality of life has improved. Unfortunately, there has been no progress of this kind in safeguarding and respecting human rights in China and this applies to all its citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnic group.
On the contrary, the oppressive measures taken against the Uighurs and the Tibetans have increased. As far as the death penalty is concerned, it is a positive sign that the highest Chinese court has once again reviewed all the sentences since 2007 and we assume that some death sentences will be revoked.
However, sadly, China is the world leader in executions. In 2008 alone, at least 1 718 people were executed. The estimated number of unreported cases is much higher. Even the minimum figure means that China is responsible for more than 70% of all executions throughout the world. In addition, China has increased the number of crimes liable to the death penalty. This means that Chinese people can be executed for committing more than 68 crimes. That is why we are calling in this resolution for China to suspend its planned executions and introduce a moratorium on the death penalty immediately.
(Applause)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my position regarding this motion for a resolution is similar to the ideas of a man who belongs to those minorities that are discriminated against, a man who has won the Nobel Peace Prize and who presides over the world's leading power: Barack Obama.
The principles of this resolution are ones I share. However, I believe that we absolutely must not repeat the mistakes of left-wing political parties, which want to recite rights, rather than actually earn them.
Minorities should be defended in China as in every other part of the world but, before submitting such a demanding resolution, we must have a strategy, a coordination of all the different sides and of the whole of Parliament, so as to avoid delaying and damaging negotiations with the Chinese Government.
We cannot think that we can solve the problems relating to minorities and to the death penalty in China without giving any thought to the Chinese Government. That is impossible. In this respect, President Obama has done well; he has made no concessions whatsoever, but he still maintains a good relationship with the Chinese Government which, we must admit, is trying to initiate a better dialogue in all negotiations with the Western world.
I wonder: why submit a resolution - albeit a commendable one - just days before the Nanjing meeting without coordinating, as a precautionary measure, everyone involved? Why submit a resolution that has already been submitted on many other occasions just when we are fortunately starting to get somewhere with the Chinese Government? Why submit a resolution which may potentially damage the beginnings of a new relationship with the Chinese Government?
For these reasons, although I support the principles of the resolution, which are the same as my own, I shall abstain from the vote, because strategically, I believe it may harm, not help, the new path we are embarking on with the Chinese Government.
(DE) Mr President, it was said that this was a speech on behalf of our group. Following thorough consultation over the last week, our group proposed in the Conference of Presidents that this point should be included on the agenda. We want to discuss this point and we want it to be put to the vote. The speech expressed the personal opinion of my colleague and not the opinion of the group.
Mr Posselt, I understand that, but we have agreed that we have a specific amount of time and each group has one minute of speaking time.
In China, those who seek to exercise their labour, social, civil and basic political rights continue to be repressed. This repression is particularly cruel and indiscriminate when it is used against ethnic minorities such as the Uighurs or the Tibetans, but the Han Chinese do not escape either, as in the cases of the Sakharov Prize winner, Hu Jia, and the lawyers and activists who are being persecuted following President Obama's visit to Beijing.
The administrative detention of hundreds of thousands of people, systematic torture in prisons, religious and political repression, executions - all these methods are incompatible with the People's Republic of China's obligations as a member of the United Nations. Moreover, they are ineffective methods, which will not succeed in silencing or containing those who clamour for freedom and human rights. This is the case in China, just like the rest of the world, for the Chinese are not Martians; they are no different to people elsewhere.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we, as Liberals, are against the death penalty in general, but here the death penalty in China is used to oppress minorities, like the Tibetans, the Uighurs and others. Furthermore, China is not a democracy. Human rights are not respected. China has a harsh policy against Taiwan. China should be put under pressure. This is difficult, I know. It is an enormous market, but we should fight for our principles. Therefore, we support this resolution.
Mr President, someone here asked why this resolution to promote dialogue was put forward. It was done so precisely because preparations are being made right now for the EU-China Summit, and the Human Rights Dialogue is a precondition for that.
Our duty in the European Parliament and on the Subcommittee on Human Rights is to remind the Council and the Commission that the results of human rights dialogues also play a very prominent role at the summits themselves.
I am sorry that Commissioner de Gucht is not even listening to what I am saying but chooses to talk to his colleague instead.
It is important for the EU and China to engage in dialogue, and I believe that China, too, will realise that the country can only make progress by making its decision-making procedures more transparent and by guaranteeing its citizens the right to express their opinion.
It is, in fact, impossible to imagine that China would act any differently in this respect from any other nation which has had to recognise the fact that, in order to develop its society, it needs all those creative forces that it now oppresses and tyrannises. If we believe that human rights are universal, we really cannot regard China as the exception, as Mrs Gomes remarked - and I quite agree with her. So let us apply the same yardstick to China as we do other countries.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I have been a long-standing critic in this House of the lack of human rights in the People's Republic of China. I have criticised the bullying of peaceful Taiwan in excluding this country from all international organisations, including the World Health Organisation. I have criticised the repression of peaceful Tibetan culture, the persecution of Falun Gong, as well as other religious minorities, and the presence of widespread censorship in China, including the media and also the internet and Google.
I condemn as well the brutal and widespread use of the death sentence for lesser crimes - such as economic subversion and pimping, believe it or not. Nevertheless, my group, the ECR, regards it as a personal conscience matter whether the death sentence is justifiable in the most serious crimes of terrorism and murder. There can be no doubt that, in the recent riots in Xinjiang province, many innocent Han Chinese were brutally murdered.
Nevertheless, of course, we do now welcome the PRC's expressed desire for having much better and harmonious relations with its ethnic minorities and, in particular, the Uighurs and other Muslim minorities. Of course, I, like all members of my group, call for fair trials for all those detained.
(PL) Mr President, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) endorses the draft resolution. I must confess that I was surprised by the suggestions of some fellow Members, from different groups, that we should not, today, discuss the subject of yet more cases of human rights violations or the widespread use of capital punishment in China. An argument in favour of this was said to be the forthcoming EU-China Summit.
Fellow Members, we should not succumb to the temptation of applying double standards or a conspiracy of silence just because we are dealing with a country which is an important trade partner of the EU. I am certain that one of the European Parliament's fundamental roles is to uphold human rights. This is so, irrespective of whether we are talking about a world power, or about small countries such as Laos and Vietnam.
The People's Republic of China is the country which carries out the most executions in the world. It does not observe a minimum of human rights - those recognised by international legal standards and including the right to a defence and a fair trial. Several days ago, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. If it had not been for the courage to criticise communism, if it had not been for the courage to speak the truth, Europe would look different today.
(LT) I would hope that in the 21st century, the death penalty will die out and that the instruments of the death penalty will only be found in a museum. However, until then, there is still a long road to travel, and I hope that China resolutely follows that road. For several decades, China has led in terms of the rate of economic growth, but sadly also in terms of execution statistics. Of course, Beijing would say that there is no other way in such a huge country and that not even the USA has abolished the death penalty. However, despite this, if we are seriously considering a strategic partnership between the European Union and China that would be very important to both parties, then Beijing should undoubtedly change its policy regarding the implementation of the death penalty, as well as its policy on dialogue between ethnic minorities, for the sake of their harmonious coexistence.
(DE) Mr President, the question of human rights and respect for minority rights has been a constant source of conflict for years, if not for decades, in the relationship between the European Union and the People's Republic of China. The situation of the minorities in particular worsened after the end of the Olympic Games and the Tibetans and the Uighurs have been subjected to strong pressure over recent months. For this reason, I cannot understand why my fellow Members do not want paragraph 9 to be included in the resolution, because this would encourage peaceful dialogue rather than the prevailing oppression.
China is a powerful player on the world stage. In order to be recognised as a player on the world stage as well, China must ensure that human rights are respected. This must not only be included in the constitution, it must also be put into practice. This and nothing less is what the Tibetans, Uighurs and human rights groups in China are calling for.
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, I have already mentioned in this House that the World Uighur Congress, the central organisation for free Uighurs, is based in Munich, for the same reason that thankfully many Czechs and many other people lived in Munich: because Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were also located there. The city still retains this spirit of freedom today. At the same time, Franz-Josef Strauß, who always defended these freedom radio stations against calls for their closure, ensured that we developed a relationship with China very early on. The two things are not mutually exclusive, but complementary: positive contacts with China, but clear defence of religious freedom and human rights.
Several homes in Munich were searched by the police during a raid this week and Chinese agents who do nothing but terrorise and spy on Uighurs were arrested. This indicates the sort of methods that China uses. These methods are unacceptable. They range from terrorising people in Munich through to death penalties in Ürümqi. This is why we must make our opinions quite clear in this regard.
(DE) Mr President, I take it for granted that the European Parliament will speak out when it is possible to save people from execution and, therefore, I support the call for a moratorium on the death penalty.
However, the process of defending human rights must not be misused for the purpose of lecturing China from a position of moral superiority, calling China's integrity into question or creating an absurd caricature of the reality of life in China. This does not help those people in China who are working on behalf of human rights, freedom and social harmony. Our goal must be to help these people and not to encourage European self-righteousness.
I am also opposed to including a positive reference to the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People in an urgent resolution. That is not relevant and it has nothing directly to do with human rights. In addition, it is not a generally acceptable position. I would like there to be a wide-ranging discussion in future before an EU-China Summit on the relationship between China and the EU, covering all the subject areas.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to endorse what Reinhard Bütikofer has said. My group had proposed that we discuss the imminent executions of the Uighurs in China and the participants in the protest demonstrations against the fraudulent elections in Iran who had been condemned to death, because these are two countries where executions are likely to take place very soon and, therefore, an urgent debate is needed. It is true that the Chinese hold the world record for executions, as you have said, and that the Chinese regime is unjust, because it disregards human rights. I would like to state explicitly that this is an intolerable situation.
However, in the Conference of Presidents, we asked for the two things to be kept separate: the urgent issues which we are discussing now, in other words, the imminent executions, and the question of the relationship between the European Union and China on economic, cultural, political and defence issues and in other areas. We want to discuss this in a debate on the EU-China Summit and to summarise it in a resolution. This is why the mishmash that has come out of this has nothing to do with urgent issues. This is also why our group is insisting on a vote on the urgent matter which we proposed and not on the hotchpotch that you have submitted.
(HU) Mr President, it is a major event that this issue has been urgently included on the agenda now. The group of Hungarian MEPs from Transylvania also proposed this issue for discussion. We want to thank some of the groups for their participation and support, but we are surprised that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament withdrew its signature from this proposal for a decision. I regret that at the meeting the day before yesterday, certain sections were removed from the draft text as a whole, namely, those relating to the criticism of Communist regimes and the protection of minority communities. The EU should finally face up honestly and openly to Communism's enduring legacy and to Communist regimes still surviving today, which includes China.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are strongly opposed to the death penalty, wherever in the world it is enforced. We are also opposed to the oppression of ethnic and religious minorities and both of these things are sadly happening in China.
Many people hoped that China would show more respect for human rights as a result of the Olympic Games and also that, because the Chinese are aware that the eyes of the world are on them, they would commit fewer abuses of human rights. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The executions have continued and, therefore, it is very important for us to discuss this today, following the executions in November of nine Uighurs, which many people in the world are completely unaware of, and before that of two Tibetans.
The summit between the EU and China is not far off and, as several of the previous speakers have mentioned, China is an important trading partner. This is what makes it so difficult to bring up the breaches of human rights repeatedly, but that is why it is particularly important to talk about this subject today in the run-up to the summit. We would like the death penalty to be abolished everywhere. It is good that Parliament introduced a moratorium on the death penalty in 2007 and we must do everything we can to keep this subject in the forefront of people's minds while the death penalty is still in place.
(PL) Mr President, as a Pole, I always feel my heart beat faster when there is talk of human rights in China. On 4 June 1989, Poles regained their liberty by voting in the first free election, in which we returned a non-communist Prime Minister. The same day, 4 June 1989, the Chinese regime crushed protesting students under the caterpillar tracks of its tanks in Tiananmen Square. The free world had found a recipe for overcoming Soviet communism, but had not found one for overcoming Chinese communism.
The primacy of economics continues to be victorious over values and human rights. This was clearly evident last year, when the mighty of the world proudly declared they would boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, and then all of them followed their economic interests and queued up in the first row of the parades, deaf to the cries of the oppressed people of Tibet.
I fear that if we put off making a resolution, we will unduly restrict this matter. Of course, abuse of the death penalty is a horrible crime, but there are also arrests. People are killed in labour camps in China, people are beaten with cudgels, they are imprisoned, freedom of speech is stifled, there is censorship. This should all be found in this resolution. It is good that the resolution has been tabled, but most important of all is that the primacy of human rights values should be victorious over economics. That is what I wish for everyone.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first outline the state of play in EU-China relations. Our policy towards China is one of constructive engagement. As two major actors on the global stage, our strategic partnership is increasingly focused on addressing global challenges. A key goal of the 12th EU-China Summit, to be held on 30 November in Nanjing, will precisely be to work together to ensure success for the Copenhagen climate summit and to address EU-China relations, including human rights, the financial and economic crisis and other international issues.
But a strategic partnership is not about thinking alike on each and every matter. It is true that Europe and China may disagree and have different views on some issues, such as on human rights and democracy. The strength of our relationship allows us to discuss these matters frankly. Human rights issues, including the death penalty and respect for the fundamental rights of ethnic minorities, are systematically raised during our regular political contacts and, in particular, during our human rights dialogue with the Chinese authorities.
This was the case during the recent 28th round on 20 November in Beijing, where we had a frank discussion on these issues. The EU's principled opposition to the death penalty and the call for its abolition in China are robustly conveyed on all occasions. The same is also true for the respect of the rights of ethnic minorities. Let me reassure this House that we will also continue to raise those issues in other fora, including at the highest level.
My colleague, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, had an extensive debate with you on Tibet in March, where she outlined the EU's position. I would like to recall some essential elements that the EU position encompasses. We have always supported the dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. For the EU, human rights are universal, and the situation in Tibet is a legitimate concern of the international community. Tibet's situation has invariably been approached as such. We have consistently passed this message to our Chinese counterparts and listened very carefully to their views.
Commissioner Ashton also had the opportunity to express, here in July, her concern over the unrest in Xinjiang, deplore the loss of life and express her condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims. The EU supports any effort that will help reconciliation in this region.
The EU respects China's right to bring those responsible for violent action to justice but reaffirms its long-standing universal opposition to the use of the death penalty, under all circumstances, as well as the importance it attaches to the right to have a fair trial. The EU has raised these concerns repeatedly with the Chinese authorities and reiterates its concerns in the two declarations published on 29 October and on 13 November, as it always does in such situations. The statements called on China to commute any other death penalties passed in connection with the disturbances in Tibet and Xinjiang. Moreover, the EU will continue to press to be allowed to observe any further trials arising from Tibet and the Xinjiang disturbances.
We all share the goal of a more open, transparent China, adhering to international standards on human rights and working together to address global challenges. We all hoped that the Olympic Games would be the start of more Chinese flexibility with respect to the human rights of individuals. Up to now, this has not materialised. We must continue to work on the development of our strategic partnership and the respect of human rights as an integral part of our continued dialogue. The 12th EU-China Summit in Beijing is a privileged occasion to do so at an important stage of our respective evolution.
The debate is closed.
We shall now proceed to the vote.
Written statements (Rule 149)
China has recently said goodbye to US President Barack Obama and will soon say hello to European Council President Fredrik Reinfeldt. We must, however, see more action than just diplomatic gestures. China has stated to its own people and the world its commitment to human rights, including those of the minorities residing within its borders. Nevertheless, their record speaks otherwise. Lately, there have been a number of disturbing incidents involving executions that were conducted with questionable trials and with uncommon haste. These activities were all conducted in secrecy. There is also the serious case of the Uighur minorities, where the Chinese Government is implementing birth control policies that are phasing the group out. As the European Union speaks out for minority rights and abhors the death penalty, we urge the Chinese Government to open up the process by which citizens are tried and sentenced to death, and commute the sentences of those who were not given fair and open trials. We urge the Chinese authorities to respect the rights of minorities living within their borders with regard to both UN resolutions and their own constitution. We also urge China to improve its human rights with the support of the international community.
Mr President, I understand the displeasure felt by some Members here that our resolution on China was actually scheduled for a date after the visit by the Chinese delegation and hence might, by chance, give an impression of an unsuccessful journey, although the atmosphere was, in fact, excellent.
It is everyone's desire that cooperation continues in a positive spirit, without, however, forgetting the facts. Diplomacy cannot ignore human rights, but we need diplomacy and awareness of the situation to promote them.
Only recently, I was on a visit to Pakistan, where I met the President, the Prime Minister and prominent ministers to discuss human rights and the fight against terrorism. I would say that sometimes in our resolutions on human rights, we also need to mention the good news. There is cause for that now. A year ago, Pakistan's new democratically elected government appointed the first Minister for Minorities, who himself represents the Christian minority. The government's achievements in this area have been significant: the country has approved a 5% quota of public offices reserved for minorities, religious festivals for minorities have been made official, minorities are to have their own special day of celebration on 11 August, and the Senate is planning the same 5% quota for that institution.
The most important project relates to the reduction in incidences of violence. Minorities together with Muslims are forming local 'inter-faith harmony' committees, whose purpose it will be to soothe tensions and improve dialogue between the various groups. There will be one in 112 local areas. Ideally, they will also be able to prevent recruitment by the Taliban very effectively. Pakistan is the most crucial country in terms of global security. If the government succeeds in eliminating terrorism by such peaceful means as these, the example will be worth following. The situation should be interesting to watch.


1. Dialogue between the Chinese government and Envoys of the Dalai Lama (debate)
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Envoys of the Dalai Lama.
author. - (NL) Mr President, it is no good thing that the world at large should have accepted for so long China's conception of Tibet as an integral part of itself. The Tibetans embody their own culture in inhospitable living conditions, isolated and high up in the mountains. For a long time, China has been unable to resist the temptation to consider that region as a fall-back that can absorb sections of its own very large population.
This is a problem not only for the people of Tibet, but also for those of the neighbouring and more readily accessible region of Xinjiang, home to the Uighurs, who are related to the Turkic-speaking peoples, such as the Kazaks, Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks. They fear becoming minorities in their own countries and losing everything that is dear to them. Moreover, we should certainly not idealise the traditional living conditions of Tibetans and Uighurs. Although sweeping changes are called for, these changes should not be imposed from outside or, what is more, serve outside interests.
Since China is the world's most populated country and an up-and-coming economic power, it is extremely unlikely that Tibet will be given the opportunity to develop into an independent state. This makes it all the more important that, 50 years after the major conflict, there should be a reconciliation in which, within China, the Tibetans are allowed to retain the most valuable traits of their individuality and they no longer run the risk of becoming the victim of state violence. These days, the progress ideology that has dominated China for nearly 60 years is mainly focused on economic growth. Although this has drawbacks, it does offer more scope for tolerance and recognition of diversity than was the case for a long time. A dialogue or cultural individuality and self-governance within China should pay off. My group is in favour of anything that can contribute to this dialogue and to peaceful solutions.
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe simply to join in the request, directed primarily towards the Chinese regime, to resume dialogue - and let us not forget that this request is also addressed to our European institutions.
As the European Parliament, in the past we have made the proposal that a special representative be appointed to deal with the issue of Tibet, but we know that the proposal has so far not been implemented. In my view, this would be a useful and tangible contribution. There are also other instruments, such as a declaration by the Presidency of the European Union.
I hope that the discussion and the debate will not be restricted to a mere invitation to the Chinese regime, since this request is also of direct concern, at the highest levels, to the institutions of the European Union. We should not be afraid of this.
This Parliament has shown that it is not naively utopian in urging the importance of political and commercial relations with the Chinese regime. In this Chamber, nobody wishes to deny the real significance of such relations; nor is there any need, however, to commit the opposite error, and that is to 'poison' a line of action that is clearly highly popular, not within the institutions but with the people. The Tibet issue and support for dialogue are matters which enjoy the support of the people of Europe.
For that reason, excessive timidity deriving from other motivations should not be allowed to influence the current debate, attention to human rights or the resumption of dialogue.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all of you for attending this debate on Tibet - particularly now that we have reached an important point, with solutions to a problem that has been smouldering away for decades within reach. This is only the case, however, if the Chinese Government, too, stops deliberately raising certain issues as stumbling blocks. For example, it is unacceptable to put the spotlight on the history issue; that is, to ask whether or not Tibet was ever part of China. This is completely the wrong question to ask. Instead we must look to the future.
We have to keep repeating that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans themselves are striving for autonomy - and not just on paper - allowing them cultural and religious freedom and access to education. They are not questioning the 'one China' policy. This must be emphasised time and again, even if the solicitations from the Chinese Embassy that many of my fellow Members have no doubt received in recent days tell a quite different story. I can tell you that we know how things stand. We need dialogue, and we want this dialogue. Europe must support it - I fully agree with the previous speaker on this. Europe must bring this dialogue into much sharper focus and also conduct it at official level.
author. - Mr President, the dialogue between the Government of China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama is to be warmly welcomed and should continue to receive our approval and support. Only through forward-looking dialogue will pragmatic solutions be found that will meet the aspirations of the Tibetan people and fully respect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Let us always keep in mind that the 'one China' policy is a long-standing EU position.
Our support is undeniable, but we should also ensure that this support becomes practical. Such practical support should be offered in the context of the new partnership and cooperation agreement between the European Union and China. Personally, I do not support the idea of a special representative for Tibet because we already have enough means in our hands to facilitate such a dialogue.
China has an enormously positive role to play in world affairs. Just one example: China made a vital contribution to the success of the six-party talks on North Korea just yesterday. We can use this as an example and as a lesson. If China can make a positive contribution through structured dialogue to regional peace and stability, then we can also engage China in a dialogue which will help to create a climate of confidence that will allow for a pragmatic solution to the Tibet issue.
author. - (PL) Mr President, on 26 October 2006 the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the shooting of unarmed women and children in the Nangpa-la pass. We also called for those responsible for this crime to be punished. The incident caused an outcry the world over, but to no avail, as the situation in the region remains unchanged. It is true that no reports of further brutal murders have reached us recently, but this does not mean that the situation has improved.
It seems to me that little has changed in this age-old conflict during the three months that have elapsed since our last debate. We must be consistent, however, and bear the rights of the 6 million people affected by the problems in the region uppermost in our minds. This is a region where human rights are still constantly violated, even in the 21st century. In my view, this problem should be a priority for the new President of the European Parliament and therefore, ladies and gentlemen, for us all.
author. - (DE) Mr President, what good are bilateral talks if they do not produce any tangible results? Do they mask an inability to act, or do they at least contribute to confidence-building? Parliament is rightly calling for the resumption of the dialogue, last conducted one year ago, between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. Items on the agenda should include the elimination of reprisals, an end to human rights violations, and tangible measures to guarantee the Tibetan population cultural and religious autonomy.
The dialogue was launched in September 2002. China has been blocking it for 12 months. The grounds are always the same: preconditions are to be met; the Dalai Lama is not interested in improving relations, and is striving for Tibetan independence. This is simply not true. For years, His Holiness has been interested not in an independent state, but in Tibetan autonomy. There are good examples of this kind of legal status even in the EU. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats stands by four positions, as do almost all other groupings in this House. Firstly, an EU Special Representative for Tibet must be appointed. It is insufficient that this issue be relegated to the fringe of EU-China dialogue. Secondly, we want the Commission to make Tibet an integral part of the EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Framework Agreement. We ask that the Commission inform Parliament of progress and retrogression. Thirdly, the Council should include in its annual report information on current developments with regard to the China-Tibet dialogue. Fourthly, the EU should draw up joint strategies with its partners in the world, particularly the USA.
It is my fervent hope that the representatives of the People's Republic of China understand the desire of the international community - as just expressed by my fellow Members - for China to resume this dialogue with the Tibetans at long last. After all, China's representatives are most preoccupied with good press in the run-up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
I believe that today's debates on the dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama's representatives are particularly important for a number of reasons, but above all, because on 17 January this year negotiations officially started in Beijing toward a new agreement on the basics of partnership and cooperation between the European Union and China. More than once we have expressed support for the commitment of the Government of the PRC and His Holiness the Dalai Lama to resolve the issue of Tibet by means of dialogue.
I think the European Parliament, which in the past has adopted more than one resolution on Tibet, on the human rights situation in the People's Republic of China and likewise on dialogue between the PRC and the Dalai Lama's representatives, must urge the European Council, the Commission and European Union member countries to actively support the intensifying of this dialogue and to seek a result. While no tangible results have yet been obtained in the resolution of these basic questions, Parliament should - in consultation with both parties - evaluate what further role the EU can play in seeking to facilitate a solution of the Tibet issue by means of negotiation, and it should appoint a special European Union envoy to Tibet.
I support the position of the resolution we are considering that the Senior Commissioner and the Council's Secretary-General be encouraged to include information about progress on the dialogue between the PRC and representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 2007 and also in later years in the Annual Report to Parliament on General International and Security Policy.
I think the country currently presiding over the Council - Germany - could initiate and accept a declaration that would show how the European Union might assist in achieving a peaceful resolution of the Tibet question through negotiation.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr Thomas Mann and other colleagues who initiated the resolution being considered today.
(Applause)
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the question of Tibet's status is raised in the European Parliament several times a year. So far, however, the resolutions we have adopted have not led to any tangible results. The same is unfortunately also true of the consultations that have been taking place between the Tibetans and the Chinese Government since 2002.
The problem of Tibet remains unresolved. In the meantime, over 1 200 000 of the six million Tibetans have lost their lives under the Chinese occupation that began in 1951. Every year, some 3 000 inhabitants of Tibet flee their country. These are mainly children and young people, who can only obtain a Tibetan education abroad. The Tibetan people are discriminated against in every area of social life, from education through to social care, work, living conditions and religion.
We must act in solidarity and exert pressure on the Chinese Government, so that the dialogue is resumed as soon as possible and the status of Tibet regulated. The European Commission should raise the matter of discussions with the Dalai Lama during negotiations on the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between China and the Union. For its part, the Council should define the Union's role in resolving the Tibet issue, as the outcome of the negotiations between China and Tibet should be reflected in the Council's annual report to Parliament on the implementation of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the problem of Tibet has been with us for many years and, as has already been mentioned, this House has dealt with different aspects relating to this problem many times in the past.
In essence, the core issue of dispute between the people of Tibet and China has been the wish of the Tibetans for self-determination, as opposed to the Chinese Government's fear of a possible domino effect leading to the break-up of China.
In fact, such a problem has been the commonest cause of disputes worldwide. However, history has shown that by far the best and most effective way to solve such problems is through peaceful and open negotiations with a prerequisite determination on the part of all concerned to find a lasting solution. The alternative way - that of endless confrontation and bloodshed - usually leads nowhere and is, in most cases, to the detriment of both sides.
With this in mind, we would warmly welcome a commitment by both the Government of China, in particular, and the Dalai Lama to resolve the Tibet question through a process of dialogue, and wholeheartedly hope that such a process, if brought about, will lead to a successful resolution of the Tibetan problem.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Despite the fact that since 2002 there have been five rounds of dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and representatives of the Dalai Lama, it is abundantly clear that there are fundamental differences standing in the way of reaching a definitive agreement that clarifies the situation of Tibet in a way that is satisfactory to all of the parties, while at the same time being fair and proper, particularly for the people of Tibet.
Nevertheless, I am one of those who believe that the responsibility of each of the two parties for the fact that an agreement has not been reached cannot be compared.
The Dalai Lama, as the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, has demonstrated his desire for dialogue and agreement on more than one occasion, and he has even given up his demand for complete independence in favour of a genuine autonomy that guarantees respect for the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious identity of Tibet.
In this regard, I believe that it is the Chinese Government that should show greater signs of willingness and at least accept a resumption of dialogue with a view to reaching a good final agreement.
I would therefore urge the European Commission, the Council and the Member States to take every possible opportunity to support a new round of dialogue between China and Tibet. In particular, as others have said, it is essential that we take advantage of the negotiations of a framework agreement on European Union-China cooperation, which began on 17 January, to express the Community's commitment to dialogue and a fair and lasting solution to the issue of Tibet.
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Mr President, it is often the case that different standards are applied to China, where human rights are concerned, than to countries where lucrative contracts are unlikely to materialise. It is very unfortunate that the rule in these situations seems to be that of Erst das Fressen und dann die Moral.
When reading the relevant resolutions, which reflect not only the positions of the different groups in connection with this dialogue, but also the stance of official Europe, I, as a Fleming, do have some reservations.
Politicians who, yesterday and the day before that, while discussing the Fava report, brandished international law and insisted on human rights - which they were right to do - are now suddenly talking about the need to respect China's sovereignty, whilst not breathing a word about the illegal occupation and subsequent annexation of Tibet, about the mass human rights violations, the ever increasing exclusion of the Tibetans from their local government, or the Namdrang Rangdrik programme, launched in 2005, whereby Tibetans are forced to demolish their houses and subsequently rebuild them according to strict official guidelines.
The sanctimonious line is that a mutually acceptable solution must be found for Tibet's future. To say that is to make victim and executioner equal partners in dialogue. It became once again evident on whose side the EU is when in November 2005, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, was received with much pomp and circumstance across Europe, yet it had, in fact, been he who perpetrated serious human rights violations when he was Secretary of Tibet's Communist Party between December 1988 and March 1992.
The Tibet issue once again demonstrates that European rhetoric all too often amounts to nothing but moral wrapping paper and that in reality, only economic interests matter. We must continue to have the courage to denounce the cowardice and sanctimoniousness of this Europe, of this mercantile Europe that chooses to side with the oppressors to the detriment of innocent peoples.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, thank you for your very strong commitment to human rights. I trust the honourable Members have noticed the same strong focus on fundamental human rights and universal values in the recent Commission communication and in the Council conclusions on China. This reflects the fact that it is and will remain an important priority for the European Union with regard to our overall relations with that country.
We share the concern expressed in the joint resolution regarding the human rights situation in Tibet and, in particular, the preservation of the cultural, religious and linguistic identity of the Tibetan people. This issue has been regularly addressed by the European Union in the framework of bilateral dialogue on human rights, as well as at the highest political level, such as our bilateral summits and senior officials' meetings. Former European Parliament President, Mr Borrell, also raised the matter when he officially visited China last year.
With regard to the recent shooting mentioned by Mr Czarnecki, I would like to inform you that this matter was formally taken up by the European Union during the last session of the EU-China Dialogue on human rights held in Beijing in October 2006 and via the subsequent follow-up démarche in December 2006. On both occasions, the EU urged the Chinese authorities to undertake a thorough investigation of this incident and refuted the Chinese claim that the shooting had been done in self-defence. We will follow this serious matter closely. I agree with Mr Matsakis that bloodshed leads nowhere.
The Commission has regularly kept this Chamber informed regarding its overall policy vis-à-vis Tibet and will continue to do so. As Commissioner Fischer Boel underlined in this Chamber in October 2006, the EU has consistently taken the view that establishing a direct dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities is the only realistic way to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the question of Tibet, which will hopefully lead to the recognition of a genuine autonomy of the Tibetan region. We have therefore followed very closely and welcomed the five rounds of talks which have taken place up to now between the Special Envoys of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. In this respect, EU officials have regular contacts with the two Special Envoys, the last being in November 2006. Even in this Chamber there are differing opinions on the question of the appointment of a special EU envoy. We have our doubts about the value of such an appointment, because such an envoy would probably be prevented from having a real impact on the ground or from playing a significant role in this dialogue. We need the two sides to continue and deepen the dialogue.
We agree with the honourable Members that this dialogue should be regular and substantive, and that the respective parties should refrain from taking any step that would compromise the establishment of a climate of confidence. We take note that the Tibetan side is ready for a rapid resumption of the dialogue and hope that the Chinese side is willing to do the same. The European Union will spare no efforts in stressing the importance of this dialogue to both parties on all possible occasions.
I also want to express my gratitude for your attention and focus on this matter and your support, especially now via this resolution, because such support is helpful in the process.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.
Written statements (Article 142)
in writing. - (FI) Mr President, first I wish to express my thanks for this motion for a joint resolution. I believe that it is sound, impartial and relevant. Constructive solutions need to be found for this age-old issue of Tibet.
The motion for a resolution is geared towards finding a solution to the Tibet question which is compatible with China's right to self-determination and which respects the rights of the people of Tibet, and this, I think, is the right approach. We need a constructive, peaceful process that recognises that Tibetan nationals have a right to their own culture and religion. As citizens of Europe and of the world, we have to ensure that people's fundamental rights can be implemented around the world. In this respect it is to be hoped that people's cultural and religious rights will not be restricted in Tibet either. We would hope that proper dialogue can be established between Tibet and China, leading to a solution that is satisfactory to both sides.
I hope that we will find practical solutions which also show respect for China's regional inviolability but which at the same time fulfil the wishes of the Tibetan people. I do not know if this is too much to hope for, but we in the European Union must work hard to establish such a peaceful coexistence.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to raise a point of order. As we have often complained about the Council's absence from our Thursday afternoon debates on human rights, I would like to point out that, today, the German Presidency is represented, and in the person of its spokesman on human rights Mr Nooke, who was at one time a civil rights activist in the former German Democratic Republic. This is something of a sensation. It is one that gives us pleasure, and I would be very happy if, during the trilogue, we could bring pressure to bear to ensure that this becomes something of a dependable tradition, that is to say, that the presence of the Council - Mr Nooke is here as an observer today - becomes a fixture in these Thursday afternoon human rights debates in future. In any event, Mr Nooke, many thanks for joining us here today.
(Applause)
Mr President, Mr Posselt's contribution was not a point of order, but we agree entirely with him.