|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Plenary Session, Brussels
30 November 1999
Grateful to Tarja Halonen and the Finnish Presidency for initiating this
event. Let me begin with the most basic question of all : "Why should
the European Union care about promoting respect for human rights?" For
all of you here, who monitor and respond daily to horrific human rights
abuses throughout the world, the answer is probably so obvious as to be
not worth asking the question. But I ask it because it is often worth
reminding ourselves and more particularly our colleagues who are less
involved with human rights on a day-to-day basis that promoting respect
for human rights is not a voluntary add-on which we do to make ourselves
feel better. It makes moral, political and economic, sense.
The European Union sprang in a sense from a reaction against historical events that had led to the abuses of human rights, in our own continent the self-styled cradle of civilisation on a scale never witnessed or suffered before. With only a month left to go in this century, it is worth looking back and reminding ourselves how grim the first five decades were. Now, fifty years later, we have succeeded in building pluralist, democratic societies which operate under the rule of law.
That concern for human rights which was so evident in the post-war period has become one of the cornerstones of the Union. It is explicit in the Treaty. Article 6 establishes the Union on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Article 11 considers, as one of the objectives of CFSP, the development and consolidation of such principles. And Article 177 indicates that development co-operation is to be geared toward the general objectives of implementing such principles.
The work currently underway on the Charter of Fundamental Rights reinforces the priority we give to human rights. As you know, the Tampere European Council agreed on the composition of a Working Body to draw up this Charter. Antonio Vitorino has been asked by Romano Prodi to lead on this task. I am keen to work with him to ensure that our policy on this is consistent with the approach that we take to human rights in the EU's external relations.
Anna Diamantopolou's portfolio covers non-discrimination, gender issues, labour rights and the fight against racism. All subjects which are integral to human rights. All of them give rise to problems which are encountered universally, not just within or beyond our boundaries. So we will need to work closely together to ensure that our approach is coherent.
I am confident that the European Union's efforts have encouraged and inspired - the rest of Europe. But let us not kid ourselves. We are not perfect. Far from it. We still have our own problems within the European Union. Racism is a particularly repellent example of where we still sometimes go wrong. That is why it has been singled out for discussion in Working Group III over the next couple of days.
In the meantime, as we seek to put our own house more or less in order, it is both sensible and inevitable that we should try to ensure that promoting respect for human rights and greater democratisation is reflected in our external relations.
This is not because human rights are a European discovery, or because we can claim a monopoly of respect for them. Human Rights are universal. Kofi Annan's UN speech this year sought to address the potential conflict between that universality, and the concept of sovereignty. He raised some vital and difficult issues about the rights and wrongs of 'humanitarian intervention'.
Let us leave aside for the moment the question of whether military intervention to halt gross and systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences can be justified. That is a debate which the European Union and the Commission will pursue vigorously. But at a less dramatic level, it is absolutely certain that national sovereignty does not deny us the right to comment on - and to seek to influence - the poor human rights records in other countries. As I said, this is both inevitable and sensible.
Inevitable because the EU was formed partly to protect liberal values, so it is hardly surprising that we should think it appropriate to speak out.
But it is also sensible for strategic reasons. Free societies tend not to fight one another or to be bad neighbours. Countries that treat their citizens decently are the best countries in which to do business. So there shouldn't be any contradiction between wanting better human rights and wanting to trade.
That is why, over the last twenty years, we have made human rights and democratisation in other countries a matter of European concern. The issues must be central to our approach no matter what the policy, whether it be the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention which we hope to finalise next week, or the anti-discrimination proposals which the Commission adopted last week
We must back up our policies, and our exhortations, declarations and dialogue, with cooperation projects that will lead to improvements on the ground. Largely thanks to the efforts of the European Parliament, we have money to spend. In fact the resources available to spend on human rights and democratisation have grown dramatically. In 1987, we had only 200,000 ecu available for specific human rights activities. Today the European Initiative on Democratisation and Human Rights chapter 7-7 of the budget - contains 100 million euro. By my calculation, a 500-fold increase.
And that is only a fraction of the overall amount which the European Union can spend in support of democratisation, good governance and institution building through our cooperation programmes and the European Development Fund.
But the Commission has rightly, and I underline that word been criticised for lacking a coherent strategy for its activities. That is where I hope I come in! I was honoured to have been chosen by Romano Prodi to be the Commissioner with responsibility for coordinating policy on democratisation and human rights in external relations. I hope that the Commission will adopt a Communication on the subject in the first half of next year. I will work closely with Gunther Verheugen and Poul Nielson on this. But more importantly, I see this Forum as the means of setting the ball rolling. The views you express over the next couple of days will directly feed into our policy formulation. So please speak up.
I am keen that in human rights and democratisation as in all areas of external relations the Commission should draw on the views of experts. We now rely heavily on toxicologists to tell us how long our children can suck their rubber ducks, and scientists to tell whether or not British beef is safe. Why don't we also do the same when it comes to considering how we can best support democratisation in Indonesia or human rights in Belarus?
The knowledge and experience of the European human rights NGO community is unparalleled in the world. In between meetings at the OSCE Summit earlier this month, I had a chance to meet Human Rights Watch. The briefing they provided me especially on Chechnya, where their testimony has been invaluable was at least as useful as the contacts I had at Ministerial level.
So it would be intellectual vandalism to ignore your views. And today is an opportunity for the Commission to pay attention. We must pay attention, even if we don't always agree.
I was also pleased to discover when I took up the job that the EU is contributing to building that European expertise, through the EU Masters in Human Rights and Democratisation. That programme, which was launched in October 1997, is intended to build our own practical and academic capacity in the field of human rights, democracy, peace, and development. It now involves universities in all 15 member states - and all of them are represented here today. Some ninety students each year, from the EU and candidate countries, follow the course which prepares them for work as staff members or field workers with inter-governmental, governmental, and non-governmental organisations, or as academics. An excellent investment.
So before the Commission sits down and start to draw up a blueprint for a human rights policy and at the moment, I have an almost blank piece of paper I would like to pose some questions.
What have been the main problems with the EU's approach to human rights? Have our policies been coherent? Has the European Union in all its many emanations taken a consistent line? Have we been able to deliver ? Has the human rights 'Call for Proposals' which we carried out earlier this year been a positive experience?
Looking ahead, what should our objectives be? What do we want to achieve? Human rights are universal. Does this mean that our approach should be identical no matter which country we are dealing with? How can we measure the impact of our action? What is the EU's added value in this area? Do we have a role in monitoring and reporting on human rights violations?
How should we organise ourselves? Romano Prodi's reorganisation brought together the various units dealing with human rights and democratisation in the Commission's external relations. This new unit will cover the whole world and all the budget lines under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. It will work together with the Human Rights Unit of the Common Relex service (the SCR). The SCR are responsible for harmonising procedures and working with partners to implement projects worldwide. It is their common task to ensure sound policy and effective implementation to further our action in this field.
I hope that this will be less confusing for our partners. I hope it will also be more effective. Some of you will no doubt have strong views on our ability to deliver. Human rights projects pose particular difficulties for the Commission, as they almost invariably have to be small-scale, and labour intensive to manage. The SCR is currently working on harmonised procedures so that we can deal with larger number of projects. A standard contract for grants will be used this year for the first time: a great leap forward.
What else can we do to make things smoother ? You are aware of the suggestion made at Vienna in December and repeated in Cologne in June - that we should look at a European human rights 'agency'. Is this a good idea? What would such an agency do?
Finally, how can we work better with NGOs to achieve all of this? You may be aware that the Commission is developing a Communication on building a stronger partnership with NGOs. This Forum is a piece of that partnership.
The 'Human Rights Dialogues' which the European Union
carries on with some third countries have been the subject of some
critical comment. I have a great deal of sympathy. There is no point in
dialogue for dialogue's sake. But I feel sure that the human rights
dialogue which we are to embark on today will prove extremely rewarding
for all sides, and be well worth continuing in the future.
 |
 |