Establishment of a European Asylum Support Office (debate)
President
The next item is the recommendation for second reading by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the Council position at first reading (16626/2/2009 - C7-0049/2010 - for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Asylum Support Office.
Jean Lambert
rapporteur. - Mr President, I am not sure that inspiration is going to be what is on offer but this is obviously a very controversial topic that many Members in this House were terrified to come and speak about, so those of us who are brave enough to be here must seize the moment.
I want to start firstly by thanking very much all the shadows who worked on this report for their very active involvement and our ability to find a common negotiating position and act as something of a team. I also want to thank the two Presidencies involved - the Czech and particularly the Swedish Presidency - for their more open attitude on this than we have seen in some negotiations, as we were able to negotiate rather than feel we were there to do what Council wanted - well, sometimes anyway.
So, what did we achieve? The aim of the common European asylum support system is to deliver consistent high-quality decision making for those in need of protection, and it really can be a matter of life or death for those in need. It is well known that the system is not delivered in a consistent way across Member States. Differences at times are so great between the best and the worst that there is a lack of confidence which can lead to those who try to deliver objective decisions feeling undermined by those who do not. And those who suffer at the end of the day are those in need of protection.
There is also a very strong feeling from some Member States under particular pressure that there is a lack of solidarity from others, that their need for support is not given a real practical response. Under the refugee fund, there has been a funding strand for cooperation between Member States which has led to some positive developments, but it has also become clear that there are limits to this more piecemeal approach.
The Asylum Support Office is therefore being set up to provide ongoing support to enhance a consistent approach and to provide active support for countries under particular pressure. Specific tasks are already being assigned to it via other legislation.
The key points for the European Parliament during the negotiations have been the role of the European Parliament itself in relation to the Asylum Support Office, how to achieve greater solidarity between the Member States, and the role of civil society and UNHCR with the Office.
The issues about the role of Parliament have centred around our relationship with the Director in terms of his or her appointment and ongoing links. We have eventually settled on the European Parliament hearing the recommended candidate, offering a confidential opinion and receiving feedback on how that is being taken into account.
The Director will also present the annual report to the relevant committee - I cannot quite believe we had to fight for that, but still - and we can also invite the Director to report on the performance of certain tasks.
The role of Parliament in relation to agencies is now a topic for discussion in the interinstitutional working group, and I am now a member of the European Parliament team on that - partly due to my experiences and a certain sense of frustration with the negotiations on the Asylum Support Office.
As regards solidarity between the Member States, Parliament wanted binding mechanisms, Council wanted to entrench the voluntary nature of cooperation, and the final language is more neutral, but we do have an external evaluation of the Asylum Support Office to look forward to, which will cover the Support Office's impact on practical cooperation on asylum.
On the role of the consultative forum, there is a lot of real expertise available to Member States, and it seemed obvious to us that such expertise could be valuable. We know that some Member States have active relationships with NGOs, and we wanted as well to make sure that local authorities, which often deliver much of what is required under the common system, also had an opportunity to be included. So we are pleased to have been able to breathe a little more life into this body.
In conclusion, we feel that the Asylum Support Office could play a very valuable role in developing a common system. We hope it will be of high quality - even if we could not quite get that into the final text - and help engender a sense of mutual confidence and support. I would also ask the Member States involved to be more open to what other institutions, elected authorities and civil society can contribute, because, while this is about cooperation between Member States, it is not entirely intergovernmental. It is a European institution we are creating.
Cecilia Malmström
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am really happy that we are now very close to a final adoption of the regulation establishing the European Asylum Support Office. The Commission proposed this back in February 2009, and the Council and Parliament have been extremely committed to this.
The establishment of a common asylum system has been an objective of the European Union for many years and the Commission and myself remain very committed to this objective.
We must establish a system which is fair and efficient, based on common standards and common principles. This system should also be based on solidarity, and that means solidarity with the migrants, with the countries of origin and transit, and it also means solidarity between the Member States. In order to strengthen the solidarity between the Member States, practical cooperation between the different authorities in the area of asylum is important as a part of forming the European asylum system. To enhance this practical cooperation, the establishment of the Asylum Support Office was requested by the European Pact on Asylum and Migration of 2008 and agreed in the Stockholm Programme in 2009. The Support Office will therefore be a cornerstone in the building of a common asylum system.
The Support Office will, as you all know, be located in Valletta. It will provide concrete and operational support to Member States' authorities, and will facilitate the development of the necessary cooperation between the Member States and the development of common practices. This will be achieved through training of individual persons dealing with asylum applications and through exchange of information and best practices. The Support Office will also provide assistance to Member States under particular pressure by sending expert teams which can help with the registration of asylum applications.
I would very much like to thank the European Parliament and all the rapporteurs responsible for this - Mrs Jean Lambert, of course, for her work, as well as Mr Moraes for the necessary amendments to the European Refugee Fund, and all the co-rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. Your full and constant support has been extremely valuable and I am looking forward to working with you on the final steps before this Office opens - hopefully very soon.
Simon Busuttil
Mr President, I would also like to begin by congratulating Jean Lambert for her report and for the success of this dossier, as well as for the loyal manner in which she cooperated with us, the shadow rapporteurs, on the subject. The European Popular Party has a positive outlook on the establishment of the Asylum Support Agency because it considers it to be an important step forward in the establishment and implementation of a common asylum policy within the European Union. On a personal level, as a Maltese MEP, I am obviously not just satisfied but also proud that this Office is to be established in my country's capital city, Valletta. I would like to point out that this Office must recognise that a common asylum policy needs to be built upon one word, as has already been mentioned, and that is solidarity: solidarity towards asylum seekers travelling to Europe who are entitled to protection, which the said office must ensure, and, as rightly stated by the Commission, solidarity towards those countries who have been shouldering the burden alone, without any assistance. Therefore, this concept of solidarity must be understood in its entirety; indeed it is as though we are looking at two sides of the same coin, in showing solidarity to those who deserve protection and solidarity with those Member States carrying a disproportionate weight. I would like to say that, so far, it seems as though the message on the importance of solidarity has been understood. However, we have not yet taken it a step further. I would now like to see words being translated into facts, and to see this principle being activated on a practical level. This is where the Support Office will have a major role - to flesh out this principle, to implement it and to ensure that the specific initiatives it undertakes will indeed succeed in extending solidarity to all those who require it. Therefore, I hope that this Office will be up and running as soon as possible and I would like to assure others that we, as Members of Parliament, will be closely monitoring its operation method in the months and years to come.
Sylvie Guillaume
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by congratulating both Mrs Lambert and Mr Moraes on their excellent work, which will allow us in the next few days - as soon as the airspace situation has returned to normal - to formally adopt the regulation on the creation of the European Asylum Support Office. I imagine, therefore, that we will all agree on one point: that we welcome the imminent creation of this Office.
Resolutely aimed at practical cooperation, the Office will help reduce the significant gaps that still exist between the asylum practices of the various Member States, and this despite a first, so-called harmonisation phase that began at the Tampere European Council. This body will allow us to ensure the consistency that is lacking in current practice.
I also wish to stress the important role that civil society will play in this Office, through its participation in consultative forums. Civil society's grassroots involvement will provide a clearer insight into the difficulties encountered by asylum seekers, and into the failures of the national systems.
However, we must recognise that this matter leaves a slightly bitter taste in the mouth. For Parliament, it is regret at not being able to play a full role in the appointment of the Director of the Office, for example, and for the Office itself, it is the impossibility of contributing to the introduction of a system of compulsory solidarity between Member States to provide relief for the countries located at the gates of the European Union.
In practical terms, this voluntary solidarity is empty talk. The fact is, if we refuse to even mention a more binding system, how will we ever achieve it? This remains a topical issue in our debates and we will continue to remind our partners, the Council and the Commission, of it.
The creation of this Office perfectly illustrates the need to put in place a common European asylum system. All the Member States are very much in favour of this when it is a case of declarations such as the 2008 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. Strangely, however, these same Member States seem to suffer memory lapses when it is case of shifting from words to actions and translating their commitments to common rules into texts.
It is, for example, most regrettable to see how willingly the Council adopts a whole series of measures to combat illegal immigration, as it did during the February Justice and Home Affairs Council. However, it proves more cautious during the negotiations on the asylum package, which has been at a standstill for several months now. Rather than putting on a purely and opportunely political display achieved through repressive measures, I call on the Member States to build a real Europe of solidarity.
On the one hand, we know that these repressive measures are a significant threat to the right of asylum in Europe for individuals who, because of the increase in screening and other barriers, are undertaking increasingly dangerous journeys. On the other hand, Europe could finally boast genuinely harmonised asylum procedures based on the granting of proper guarantees to asylum seekers.
We can see that the Member States are very resistant to the asylum package and that the tendency is towards keeping national practices. This resistance is echoed resoundingly in arguments over the budgetary costs of such a common policy, which would seem to be unsustainable in a crisis context. Nevertheless, Europe has a huge responsibility where asylum is concerned.
We should emphasise the fact that, to date, it is more often than not third countries that are less well-off than us that have played their part in accommodating refugees. Let us hope, therefore, that this asylum package is as successful as the Office was, and that its success comes quickly, because there is an urgent need to act.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the right to asylum is one of the European Union's fundamental values and nobody dares question it publicly, in their speeches. Nevertheless, the reality of European policies and those of its Member States in this area raises questions.
It was in 1999 that the European Union started to harmonise its policies on the subject, and there seems today to be a sense of satisfaction at the spectacular fall in the number of asylum seekers. We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left could also be pleased about this if that figure reflected an improvement in the human rights situation across the world. We all know that it does nothing of the sort. Our debates will prove it, if necessary, when they take place on Thursday afternoon.
Since 2004, in particular, we have been seeing the downwards harmonisation of reception procedures and conditions. There are significant differences between countries' practices, and we know that some of the applications have been outsourced and that, today, some asylum seekers no longer even have the opportunity to register their applications. Once again, the prize for the biggest reduction in the number of asylum applications goes to France. As a human rights activist in France, I am well placed to know what has caused these results. To have accompanied an asylum seeker just once to the services of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons is enough to know what the cause is. It is unbearable to watch the way in which these men and women are summoned to submit evidence of the acts of torture that they have suffered.
The proposal that we are examining today therefore seems to be a breath of fresh air. It helps improve the implementation of a European system on the right to asylum. It aims to promote practical cooperation between Member States, in particular, by improving access to accurate information on countries of origin, which is a good thing. The majority of the proposals made by Parliament at first reading have been adopted by the Council. We know that we owe this result mainly to the Swedish Presidency, and we are grateful to it. I would add that, in my opinion, Sweden is, as it were, a model, and I would very much like other states to align themselves with it in this area.
We have supported our rapporteur at both first and second readings in committee, and I too am keen to congratulate and thank her. We will do the same in plenary and we express our sincere hope that this small step forward will constitute a new turning point in European policy on this matter. We hope that, instead of Europe withdrawing into itself in what we in this House dare to call fortress Europe, we can instead welcome these men and women who have a right to asylum, as is proclaimed in the international treaties and in the European Convention on Human Rights, which we will soon be ratifying.
Mario Borghezio
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard it suggested that this measure relies on solidarity. In my humble opinion, something else is lacking - and that something is security.
And yet, you only have to talk to those involved with these issues, for example, the police - on this occasion, I was lucky enough to be travelling with members of the law enforcement agencies, Carabiniere officers from the supply office in Turin, whom I would like to mention by name, Romanini and Tavano. They confirmed to me that in many cases, these asylum seekers show false cards and documents; cases of this have been reported by various police forces and other bodies.
Would it not be a good idea to look at this question from a security angle as well? I do not think that the question of security is very pronounced in this document and yet it is very important, because we must avoid contaminating an important principle, an important institution of such great humanitarian value, in other words, the entitlement to asylum, with the grubby interests of those who traffic in illegal immigrants and who often use asylum as a way of infiltrating people who have no rights and no relationship to those actually being persecuted.
Secondly, Article 2 of the regulation states that the Office shall facilitate, coordinate and strengthen practical cooperation among Member States on the many aspects of asylum and help to improve the implementation of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimensions. Article 7 should specify this, but it only does so very vaguely, saying that the Office can establish methods of cooperation with third countries on technical aspects.
I believe that we must go much further, and I wonder why - despite many people, including us, proposing it - no one talks about or examines the suggestion of setting up these offices in third countries as well? What is preventing it? I think it is very important to filter, partly in order to lighten the workload and the situation of countries that have to deal more directly with this. Someone spoke of these countries' needs, but these countries must be supported, and I believe that offices should be established in third countries, for instance, in North Africa, in the sub-Saharan area, where there is a concentration of asylum applications and asylum seekers.
Here, we need to filter, perhaps using the European Union's External Action Service, carrying out operations that would involve certain developing countries taking some responsibility; we need to give them a sense of responsibility where the asylum issue is concerned.
I believe that these issues are very important and that we should not neglect them, nor should we ignore the needs of European Mediterranean countries affected by these issues, not merely by talking about them or by sending along a few officials; we already have our own bureaucrats in Italy. What we need in order to deal with this situation is money, resources, and real support.
It has been said that in Sweden, things are going very well. That may be so, but Sweden is very far removed from the needs of Malta, Italy, France and the Mediterranean: this is where the problem is, and it needs to be addressed - and we must make the countries of the European Union responsible for this. Privileges and burdens go hand in hand, and since we have the burden, we should also have the means of dealing with it.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Mr President, it is definitely not a bad idea to apply the regulations on asylum uniformly in order to reduce secondary immigration within the EU and to support those Member States with a very heavy influx of asylum seekers. However, there are serious doubts as to whether it is necessary to establish this support office to bring about improvements and whether the office will interfere too much in the powers of the Member States.
Establishing this agency is another step towards centralising EU asylum policy. The aim is to achieve a high level of protection based on the actions of the most generous Member States, such as Austria. Existing differences are to be removed, with the more generous countries staying on the same course and the others making the necessary changes. That is all very well, but establishing large numbers of new EU agencies (the figure has tripled since 2000) and expanding their remit clearly goes against the attempts of the Lisbon Strategy to introduce more deregulation and subsidiarity.
I believe that the widely discussed objective of circular migration - a bit here, a bit there, occasionally somewhere else - is totally wrong. It does not work in practice and circular migration often turns into permanent migration. There are, of course, other criticisms that can be made. Unrealistic conditions for detention pending deportation are put in place at the expense of security and at the expense of our executive. Extending the concept of the family to cover everyone including grandmothers will result in a further influx and improving access to the labour market in a period of high unemployment is unsustainable.
It will not be possible to finance the extension of basic welfare provision to the same level as countries such as Austria and Germany. The new asylum support office is therefore not fit for purpose and should not be established. We must develop a common asylum strategy from scratch, because what you are recommending will not work in the countries that are affected.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Mr President, the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office is indeed extremely important and thus, symbolically, I consider it to be important that it is being set up in Malta, a country in the south of Europe which is under a great deal of pressure from asylum seekers and also within the framework of illegal immigration issues.
It is very important that we strengthen and coordinate cooperation between the Member States on asylum issues still further and, ultimately, that we try and arrive at a uniform approach from among the various national practices, especially as we all recognise the huge differences which exist. For example - this information is at the Commission's disposal, but I believe that it already knows that an Iraqi asylum seeker may have a 71% chance of his application being accepted in one Member State, but just a 2% chance in another Member State, and, of course, there are also different problems between the Member States.
The Dublin II Regulation will, inevitably, put a heavier burden on some Member States compared with others, and, of course, this Asylum Office will also support the solidarity mechanisms available through the European Refugee Fund. I refer to the transportation and reallocation of refugees both from third countries in Europe and to the so-called internal 'reallocation' of refugees.
As far as reallocation from third countries is concerned, we are making small steps, but we are progressing. However, as regards the internal reallocation of refugees, I wish to stress that, despite the fact that we all acknowledge that there is a greater burden on some Member States, especially in the south of Europe, compared with others, we have not made any specific proposal; we have not taken any initiative on these issues. We await the Commission's proposals; we have also sent a letter on the matter within the framework of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and, if nothing else, we must be bolder on these issues, because the pressures are great.
To close, I have this to say: it is very important that we develop mechanisms in the European Union for receiving refugees, for accepting asylum seekers, not just for humanitarian reasons and for the reasons already referred to by numerous members, but also so that we can combat illegal immigration. We must give everyone seeking a better homeland, a better future, the message that, in Europe, anyone taking the legal route ultimately has a better chance than if they take the route of illegal immigration from which, unfortunately, there is a great deal of pressure.
John Bufton
Mr President, the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office goes totally against the British opt-out on immigration and is at odds with the UK rejection of the Schengen acquis. The proposal that EUR 40 million will be spent establishing and staffing an entire office in Malta to deal with asylum seekers across the EU suggests that this Commission wants to make the decisions that should be left to national governments.
Any common European asylum policy threatens British sovereignty over border control. Repeated appeals to let the UK decide who comes in and out of the country, and who can be accommodated, arise from the fact that we have a huge population problem that is quite unlike the situation anywhere else in Europe.
The Commission does not offer help and support when the UK is struggling. Instead, it will take the money of the British taxpayer to cover the cost of making our decisions on our behalf. EUR 40 million would be better directed towards building new schools, hospitals and houses in the UK as well as affording critical services such as clean water, desperately needed if we are to continue providing a decent First World quality of life for everyone.
One in four births are to mothers who themselves were not born in the UK, that is 170 000 births a year. Where is the money to help the British taxpayer afford all this? In your pocket or spent on setting up a new asylum office which will no doubt pile more pressure on to the UK?
In our election campaigns, all the parties in the UK are promising to do something about immigration because the people back home are demanding something should be done. But what can Westminster do as long as we are in the EU, because at exactly the same time, the European Commission wants all the powers over asylum seekers passed to them?
Time and again, this Commission has shown only disregard for the wants and needs of the UK people. Is it the Commission's intention to repeal the UK opt-out in this area too? The people back home deserve your honesty because this issue is extremely important to them. You are supposed to represent them and they deserve to know what you have planned.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not shroud in solidarity an office that must support a procedure for establishing the true conditions of asylum seekers.
We believe that this is important and useful, but that it must ensure, on the one hand, that those who actually have the right to asylum are granted it more quickly, and, on the other hand, that those who do not have the necessary rights and try to abuse this system are firmly dealt with, because it is clear that not all those who have the right to asylum are granted it.
I would like, very briefly, to echo the statements of Mr Borghezio: certain countries, such as Italy, and particularly southern Italy, where I come from, provide natural entry routes for immigration and are particularly affected by asylum applications due to their historical traditions of welcoming immigrants.
Europe must take charge of this, and the European Union must focus its attention and efforts, including its economic efforts, in those areas that receive the most immigrants.
Cecilia Malmström
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am grateful for the strong support for creating this agency by a majority of this plenary. As you know, there has been a unanimous demand from Member States to create this agency, even those under opt-out, who know that the Commission has no intention of forcing any changes in the UK opt-out. That is the decision of the UK people.
But there has also been a strong support in this plenary for an agency, and I am very glad that it is going to be created now. We know that, especially in certain seasons, there is a great pressure on the countries in the Mediterranean, and this agency can help and support. There are also migrants coming to northern, eastern, western and central Europe, so this is an agency for the whole of Europe, even if it is no coincidence that it is located in Valetta.
It is not just another agency. It is, in fact, a cornerstone in building a common asylum system and it will be an important instrument in supporting Member States, in helping develop practices and common standards, and in supporting Member States under particular pressure. It would gather information, it would put up a portal, it would have experts, etc. Ultimately, it is always up to the Member States as to who can stay, but there are certain procedures which need to be harmonised.
As some of you have said, this is part of developing a common asylum system in Europe. This is just one part: as I think the rapporteur said, we are stuck when it comes to the rest of the asylum package. The Commission counts on the help and support of the European Parliament in moving on with these issues so that, within the not too distant future, we can indeed establish a common asylum policy in the European Union.
Jean Lambert
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to just take an opportunity to clear up one or two questions which have arisen, although it is a pity that some of those asking the questions are not around for the answers.
Asylum obligations are clearly set out under international conventions which all Member States have individually signed up to. That is not the same as an immigration policy, and people really should recognise the difference.
For those who are concerned about the money - if I may make a party political and national political point here - if certain of our Member States stopped creating asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan, I am sure we could save a lot more money and indeed save people a lot more misery.
As regards some of the other points which were raised, it is hoped that improving the quality of the system in certain Member States will be able to increase confidence between Member States and deblock some of the other parts of the asylum system, as well as helping Member States feel that there is support when they are facing particular burdens. As others have pointed out, while some of our Member States do have considerable geographical pressures on them from the flows which arrive, many of the over-burdened countries are actually not in the European Union at all but are elsewhere.
I was very interested to hear a colleague arguing for additional support out there, in terms of the Asylum Support Office, but I am afraid I missed the amendments which he tabled on that topic.
I also want to be clear that the Asylum Support Office is not there to determine status; it is not taking over the role of Member States in that field.
All in all, I welcome the kind comments made by colleagues, I welcome the active involvement of those who have helped me very much on this report, and I am sure that we are all looking forward - or most of us anyway - to being there in Valletta when the ribbon is cut on the Asylum Support Office and we can begin work.
President
I am going to close the debate. I will not do so, however, without saying with great feeling that I am not unmoved by the fact that the person who chaired this debate enjoyed the right of asylum because of the generosity and hospitality of the governments and people of France, Austria and Belgium, to whom I would like to pay a tribute of thanks here today, because there is no time limitation on gratitude, even though this happened more than 40 years ago.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place during the part-session in the first week of May
Written statements (Rule 149)
Ioan Enciu
Setting up the European Asylum Support Office is an extremely important step in establishing a European Common Asylum System, as provided for in the European Immigration and Asylum Pact and the Stockholm Programme.
The Office will help increase cooperation between European institutions, local authorities and civil society, and will identify common practices in asylum matters. I am confident that this will bring Member States' positions closer together with regard to asylum-related policies. This matter is an absolute necessity, given that some Member States are facing large influxes of asylum seekers. Cooperation and solidarity are also needed between Member States not only to help these countries cope with the problems they are facing, but also to improve the European Common Asylum System.
I must mention that this system will be based, from a legal and practical perspective, on the full, overall application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


EU relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Baudis, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on European Union relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Dominique Baudis
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, first of all I should like to stress that this report is the outcome of very constructive work with the political groups and I wish personally to thank Mr Howitt, Mrs Brepoels and Mrs Brantner, as well as Mrs Jäätteenmäki, for their collaboration.
As you know, this report relates to the overall strategy in relations between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Our work started several months ago, so before the events that are now taking place in the Arab world. Since then, we have observed everywhere - including in the Gulf - powerful demonstrations, which are taking place to ask for greater respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy.
However, right at the beginning of our work, even before the events began, the report - and the amendments adopted in committee - raised all the issues that are behind the uprising. We condemn all forms of discrimination - including those founded on gender or religion - we highlight the issues relating to labour law, social and trade union rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and of opinion, women's rights, the need to reform the justice system, the abolition of the death penalty and of mutilating sentences, and political rights.
As the events in Bahrain have unfolded, and faced with the repression of demonstrations, as well as the military intervention of neighbouring countries, members of the GCC, we have prepared, with the shadow rapporteurs, a series of oral amendments that offer support to the demonstrators fighting for freedom. We have highlighted the legitimacy of their demands and condemned the violent reaction by the Bahraini authorities as well as the military intervention of GCC countries that came to take part in the repression, and we express our grave concern in respect of the violent response of those in power. Finally we offer our full support to the process of democratic transition.
Obviously, this report also outlines long-term strategic prospects. It touches on the potential of a partnership in many areas (geopolitics, energy, education and science and in the area of regional integration).
From a geopolitical point of view, Iran clearly represents a genuine threat. Between Iran and Israel, the Gulf States would inevitably be the collateral victims of a conflict. These countries expect a lot from us in trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The GCC countries, which make up a quarter of Arab League member states, play a very important role in the peace process. Let us remember that they are behind the Arab peace initiative.
With regard to energy, the GCC is the European Union's leading oil supplier, so the EU is highly dependent on these countries, but their oil reserves are dwindling and they are preparing their transition thanks to the development of renewable energy. We can offer our experience in this area.
On an educational and scientific level, these countries are making education one of their priorities. Because of the limited number of universities and lecturers, we are seeing units of prestigious American universities being set up. Unfortunately, the European Union, although committed, is very much lagging behind the United States. For example, only eight students from GCC countries came to Europe last year as part of the Erasmus Mundus programme.
Finally, in the area of regional integration, the GCC is slow to make progress. Wiser for its experience, the European Union can offer its help, advice and know-how; finally, we call for the signing of a free trade agreement which has been in negotiation for over 20 years.
Jaroslav Paška
- (SK) Mr President, the states of the Persian Gulf have significant economic potential, offering broad possibilities for greater cooperation with the EU. The Gulf Cooperation Council, just like the European Union, has a serious interest in improving commercial cooperation, which therefore depends on our ability to communicate cooperation priorities to Gulf state representatives.
Our views are close on many issues regarding the economic management of international security or the fight against terrorism, and it would therefore be a pity to limit potential cooperation only to the commercial and economic sphere. It is surely clear to us all that our current cooperation with the Gulf states has considerable potential for growth, and the drafting of a new, more ambitious plan for EU policy in the Gulf Cooperation Council and its member states might, along with trade improvements from economic cooperation, also bring a closer partnership with representatives of the moderate Islamic world, which, in difficult times, might be a worthwhile interesting political bonus from this activity.
Csanád Szegedi
(HU) Mr President, personally, I too am in favour of a free trade agreement coming into effect between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The region could become an important strategic partner for the European Union with regard to commerce, including an increased oil supply. I believe it is essential that we strengthen economic relations. In order to ensure the competitiveness of the European Union, we must find additional new markets and new partners, whereas in areas where the European Union already plays a substantial part, our priority is the official reinforcement of relations. The successful conclusion of the negotiation process which has been going on for twenty years requires a constructive yet flexible approach from both parties, so that the current, rather rigid positions can be approximated. If we seriously believe that the European Union must be able to compete with the United States, China and India, it is essential that we also penetrate various economic areas and market segments where other major powers may already have seized predominance, and that we focus on our existing market priorities and increase their importance.
Elena Băsescu
(RO) Mr President, first of all, I too would like to congratulate Mr Baudis for this report. Parliament therefore supports the resumption of negotiations between the EU and Gulf Cooperation Council at a critical time.
The events in Bahrain indicate that political dialogue between both international organisations needs to be stepped up. Indeed, I think that the six Arab states can initiate peaceful change in society by improving the human rights situation.
On the other hand, the EU's oil supply is affected by the events in the Mediterranean region. In this situation, cooperation between the Union and Council is vital for guaranteeing energy requirements and avoiding a rise in the oil price on the global market.
I also think that it is time to conclude the 20 years of negotiations by signing the Free Trade Agreement, which would be so beneficial to both sides.
Karel De Gucht
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we are here this evening to discuss this Parliament's reports on the Gulf Cooperation Council. I understand that some political groups would have preferred to have postponed the discussion so as to better reflect the strategic times the Arab world is going through.
Indeed, at the time you started drafting no-one could have guessed what the world would be like today, nor what challenges the countries and people of the entire Arab region would be facing. In line with our conviction that each country is different from the others, the European Union is responding to different situations with different adapted responses. You heard Cathy Ashton yesterday on all these: whether Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen or Bahrain, the European Union is faced with many critical choices and decisions.
The report we are discussing this evening is focused on the Gulf Cooperation Council and its countries, some of which are also experiencing calls from their populations to take better account of their political, social and economic aspirations. Gulf governments are responding in different ways: substantial financial packages to alleviate the most pressing and social needs, announcements for political reforms, ceding some legislative powers to elected bodies, or openness to comprehensive and inclusive national dialogues.
But we have also seen violence. Within the limits of our discussion tonight this is especially true of Bahrain. We have been following this closely; Cathy Ashton has repeatedly stated her concern at reports of serious violence on the streets and at the signs of increasing sectarian tensions. She has also called on the security forces present in the country to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. She has raised her voice many times in calling for dialogue as the only way forward. All of this has been done using a mix of public statements, which you have seen, and direct contacts with the authorities concerned.
The question for us is: where does all this lead to? What should the EU do? How should we read your report against the backdrop of these events? Yesterday Cathy Ashton noted she preferred engagement to isolation and I share that view. Your report calls for more contacts and not less and I agree. As trade Commissioner I would welcome better opportunities for exchanges between businesspeople. This is a time for us Europeans to stand ready to foster more contacts with the populations of the Gulf countries. It is also time for us Europeans to stand ready to respond positively to any request we may get for Europe to facilitate unprecedented dialogue leading to reforms.
We should not shy away from defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, but we should not dictate or impose our models of democracy on others either. Europe firmly believes that reforms must come from within. I believe this is right also with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is not for me to tell this Parliament how to go about dealing with the report before it. What I believe is that we need to think in strategic terms, and for that dialogues and engagements are essential.
The EU should stand ready to lend all its support to dialogue and reform processes in the region. We are ready to provide political support to reform, and also know-how and expertise to address more specific issues. We welcome any such opportunity but this can only happen if and when the countries in the region ask for our assistance.
One final word on the free trade area with the Gulf for which I am directly responsible. I trust that when the right circumstances on the ground materialise we will be able to proceed on the basis of a common EU determination to further trade relationship objectives in relation to the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Needless to say stability is a necessary condition both for the political contacts between governments and citizens to be enforced, and for trade flows and business to operate effectively. Thank you for your attention and I would more specifically thank the rapporteur, Mr Baudis.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz
I believe that it is absolutely vital for the EU to formulate a more ambitious policy in respect of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and its member states, particularly at a time when the European Union is exiting an economic crisis and in view of the disasters - an earthquake together with a tsunami - which have hit Japan. I am pleased that the report covers issues such as energy in its broadest sense, industry, scientific research and the development of education. The European External Action Service should therefore allocate more employees and increase the number of diplomatic missions open in GCC countries, in order to bring about closer cooperation.
I also believe that we should welcome all efforts undertaken as part of free trade negotiations to guarantee safe and secure supplies of raw materials. Cooperation between the EU and the GCC should encompass further support for exchange programmes involving students, scientists and professionals. In its report, the European Parliament stresses that the conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EU and the GCC is a priority for further cooperation with our Mediterranean partners. The European Union should therefore develop an appropriate strategy to support the process of regional integration.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) It seems that the people of the six states in the Gulf Cooperation Council, which incidentally are the EU's most important trading partners in the Arab world, do not believe that the reforms that have been taking place there over recent years are adequate. It is not yet clear to what extent the plans to inject huge sums of money to support the economies and improve social conditions in the two poorest of the six member states could help to bring an end to the ongoing demonstrations. Although the Gulf Cooperation Council disputes the legitimacy of Colonel Gaddafi and supports the idea of a no-fly zone, demonstrators have been fired on in Saudi Arabia, which is also a member state, and in Bahrain demonstrators have also been subjected to violent treatment. Even the sending of special units by the Gulf Cooperation Council to protect important infrastructure facilities in Bahrain is controversial, because the Shiite opposition is calling on the international community to protect the people from military intervention. It seems as if the introduction of a no-fly zone has opened up a Pandora's box. The EU must not allow itself to be dragged into the internal affairs of states in the Middle East and that is what is threatening to happen, because the balance in Bahrain could change very rapidly. We have seen what agreements are worth after a coup in the case of the readmission agreements. Therefore, we should wait to see how the situation develops instead of pressing ahead now.
Cristian Dan Preda
I welcome the adoption of the Baudis report as, now more than ever, the European Union needs to have a coherent strategy in its relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Firstly, the member states of this organisation have a growing influence on the Arab-Muslim world and can play an important role in intercultural dialogue. Furthermore, I believe that specific measures need to be taken to raise the Union's profile in this region and promote mutual understanding. Ways for doing this include establishing cooperation in the press and audiovisual sector, so as to remedy the lack of information about Europe. Finally, I believe that the recent events in Bahrain force us to base the Union's relations with the GCC more firmly on respect for human rights and basic freedoms. At the moment, we need to ensure that the demonstrators' calls for democratic reforms are heard as part of a genuine political dialogue. The way to resolve the recent conflicts in Bahrain, for example, is by engaging civil society and not by using violent repression.
Anna Záborská
A free trade agreement means fewer barriers to mutual cooperation and trade. I therefore support such an agreement, in principle. The states belonging to the Gulf Cooperation Council are undoubtedly important trading partners, particularly because they possess the basic raw material of our age - oil. I also welcomed the fact that the report, in addition to trade, also mentions the shortcomings of our trading partners in the area of human rights. Despite this, however, I hesitated for a long time over whether to vote for the report. Some of the states represented in the Gulf Cooperation Council have two faces. One face smiles at us in a friendly way and says it is our ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism. The other, however, is less visible and devotes billions of dollars every year to the spreading of religious 'education' which calls for violence against Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims. Eventually, however, I voted in favour of the report, because I also expect the Commission to tell us who is providing financial support for this hatred, when it begins detailed monitoring of manifestations of violence against Christians in Islamic states.


Formal sitting - 2008, European Year of Intercultural Dialogue
President
Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the President of the European Parliament, I have the great honour and pleasure, in this European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, of welcoming to the European Parliament the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr Asma Jahangir.
Our Parliament attaches particular importance to this Year of Intercultural Dialogue. Through a series of events and initiatives, our Parliament provides a forum for the exchange of ideas between citizens from different cultures and communities, and between citizens of different religions and beliefs.
In the course of this year, we have already invited politicians and religious leaders from around the world to address us. We hope that our Parliament will also serve as a forum for communication, the spreading of a common message and the promotion of genuine free dialogue and better mutual acquaintance.
It is my particular pleasure to welcome you, Dr Jahangir, to address the plenary on issues of vital importance to world peace and development.
As part of our common mission to promote democracy and human rights, we have been closely watching events in your country, Pakistan, and during your detention last year, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for your immediate release. For this reason above all, we are particularly glad to have you with us today.
There is another reason why your visit is especially significant at this time. This year we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948. This Declaration heralded a new era in a world that had just survived the tribulations of the worst war in history, a war that began in Europe. The Declaration laid down the first international, formal obligation regarding the dignity and equality of all human beings, regardless of colour, belief or origin. Article 18 of the Declaration states that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'
Your task as Special UN Rapporteur is to identify existing barriers or possible future barriers to the exercise of this right, and to propose methods and measures to counteract and overcome them.
In your reports, you emphasise the importance of ongoing, intensified dialogue with communities that adhere to different religions or beliefs. This is a dialogue that must be held at all levels, by all social groups. In particular, you emphasise the need for widespread participation by women in promoting greater tolerance, respect and mutual understanding.
In many of its resolutions, the European Parliament has highlighted the fact that women play a vital role in promoting dialogue and peace, as was also underlined at the conference that we organised on the occasion of International Women's Day. You yourself have participated in many conferences on the promotion of dialogue, for example in the context of the Alliance of Civilizations, and have taken many initiatives to give women a greater role.
You have also stressed the role of education as the most important factor in preventing conflict. Education can teach respect and the acceptance of pluralism and diversity in the context of religion and beliefs. It thus contributes to the dissemination and enforcement of human rights in all societies.
What you are advocating is in line with the motto of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, 'Together in Diversity'. It complements the leading role assigned to activities promoting knowledge, respect, and tolerance of different beliefs.
Today's meeting is a grand occasion. For those wishing to continue the discussion with you, there will be a special meeting tomorrow morning, organised by the Subcommittee on Human Rights.
Dr Jahangir, I have great pleasure in inviting you now to address the European Parliament.
(applause)
Asma Jahangir
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. - Madam President, distinguished Members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, it is a great honour and an immense pleasure to be here with you today. I would like to very warmly thank the President, Hans-Gert Pöttering, for having invited me to address the European Parliament. I must also thank you for the support that you have given me, both as a UN Special Rapporteur and, personally, when I was a prisoner last year.
Your decision to designate 2008 as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue and develop various related initiatives is indeed timely and very important. The history of Europe has been shaped by many positive instances of intercultural dialogue. However, a lack of such constructive dialogue is also noticeable, for example when we remind ourselves of the religious wars or the ghettoisation of certain believers in the Middle Ages.
In my speech I would like to share with you some thoughts, mainly on interreligious dialogue, based on the experience I have gained in the past four years as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. I would like to raise four questions, basically with regard to the what, why, who and how of intercultural dialogue.
Let us start with the first question: what do we mean by intercultural dialogue? Already the terminology seems to be tricky: does 'intercultural' also include 'interreligious' dialogue? Of course, I would answer this question in the affirmative, since religions are part of culture. At the same time, 'intra-religious' tensions also need to be adequately addressed. Consequently, intercultural dialogue should also take the believers of different denominations of the various religions on board and their ideas into account.
What about dialogue between theistic, non-theistic and atheistic believers? All of these believers are protected under international human rights law, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. So, in my opinion, these dimensions should also be included in initiatives of intercultural dialogue.
At the level of the United Nations there are further terms, such as the Alliance of Civilizations or 'International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures 2010'. These titles avoid the often contentious word 'religion', but they are very much designed to foster interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace.
So 'intercultural dialogue' could be seen as a comprehensive term, including the various dimensions mentioned earlier on: interreligious dialogue and intra-religious approaches, also when they involve atheistic non-believers. I very much like the way the European Parliament and the Council have described the goals of intercultural dialogue in their decision No 1983/2006/EC, which established the European Year 'to strengthen respect for cultural diversity and deal with the complex reality in our societies and the coexistence of different cultural identities and beliefs. Furthermore, it is important to highlight the contribution of different cultures to the Member States' heritage and way of life and to recognise that culture and intercultural dialogue are essential for learning to live together in harmony.'
More importantly, the state must abide by policies and develop its governance skills to include diverse interests. Both government and civil society have a role in creating an environment where people of various religions and beliefs can effortlessly interact. As such, the concept of intercultural dialogue must be broadened.
This leads me to the second question: why is intercultural dialogue important? I am convinced that maintaining an intercultural dialogue is of the utmost importance in order to overcome sectarian and intransigent attitudes and to enhance religious tolerance all over the world. Apart from education, interreligious dialogue constitutes one of the principal means of preventing misunderstandings, conflicts and violations in the area of freedom of religion or belief. If conducted successfully, intercultural dialogue can indeed promote tolerance, respect and understanding.
Although cultures and religions may be quite different, there is no justification for saying that, because they are different, they do not have equal status. While a vast number of people, regardless of their religion or belief, adhere to universal values, there have always been individuals who try to prove that their culture, their religion, their language or their history is superior to that of their neighbours. My predecessor as United Nations Special Rapporteur, Professor Abdelfattah Amor from Tunisia, has already asked if there is anything that people have not done throughout history 'in the name of religion'. Nevertheless, religions share many moral values which could and should make it possible for them to come to a common understanding of respect.
During my country visits I have seen how beneficial efforts to engage in interreligious dialogue can be. At the same time, the absence of such a dialogue may be an early-warning sign for forthcoming interreligious tensions and conflict. It is evident that dialogue alone does not solve the underlying problems; it may, rather, be a first step in the right direction. Interreligious dialogue should not only be an intellectual and theological exercise, it can also activate the silent majority to look for a common strategy on how to find harmony and peace. There are true success stories of interreligious dialogue; however, the grass-root efforts rarely make headlines in the media - unlike interreligious violence.
Let me share with you two experiences from my recent fact-finding missions, which demonstrate that interlocutors do not have to go far in order to conduct a meaningful dialogue. During my visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, I was informed of various interfaith meetings where Israeli and Palestinian residents come together and do not let recent political events hamper their dialogue. One NGO reported: 'both Israelis and Palestinians spoke of frustration and despair about the extreme attitudes in each society and the reluctance of the majority to work together non-violently to find solutions. Both spoke of the need to hear the other side acknowledge their own violence and express regret.'
Furthermore, in Northern Ireland I witnessed the importance of interreligious dialogue in the neighbourhoods: in Belfast there are many initiatives at the grass-root level that bring together people from different political and religious backgrounds, some of them living next to each other but partitioned by the so-called 'peace lines'.
This brings us to the third question: who should be involved in intercultural dialogue? The Millennium World Peace Summit, held in New York in August 2000, brought together over 1 000 religious and spiritual leaders. In their final Commitment to Global Peace they emphasised that no real peace could be achieved unless all communities acknowledged the cultural and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding.
Such meetings of religious leaders are important, but, at the same time, interreligious dialogue at the grass-root levels should also be encouraged and nurtured. In my opinion, exchanges of views should, if possible, also include believers who are dispassionate about their faith, as well as atheistic and non-theistic believers and members of religious minorities. Any dialogue would also greatly benefit from the perspectives of women, who tend to be marginalised in major events of interreligious dialogue. Women are one of the worst sufferers of religious intolerance, yet I noticed that women's groups across religious lines have been very effective human rights advocates in situations of communal tensions.
Sometimes it may also be useful to have present people of the same faith with contrasting opinions. One good example from my recent visit to the United Kingdom is a roundtable discussion in London which also dealt with legislation against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and statutory exceptions to organisations relating to religion or belief. That discussion would have been completely different without the participation of members of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.
Artists may also play an important role in public education regarding religious tolerance and in building bridges between different communities. One good example is the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, which is composed of young Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian musicians. Its founder and conductor, Daniel Barenboim, described the humanitarian idea of this orchestra as follows: 'We don't see ourselves as a political project, but rather as a forum where young people from Israel and all Arab countries can express themselves freely and openly whilst at the same time hearing the narrative of the other. It is not necessarily a question of accepting the narrative of the other, let alone agreeing with it, but rather the indispensable need to accept its legitimacy.'
My most recent visit to India, however, has also shown how vulnerable even artists feel vis-à-vis mob pressure on the streets. The visual arts industry there has played an important role in public education regarding religious tolerance. However, some Bollywood films have effectively been banned by non-state actors through intimidation. Regrettably, professionals of the audiovisual arts industry seem to routinely seek the approval of self-appointed custodians of religious sentiments before going ahead with a film which touches upon communal issues. This shows how important the artist's contribution to intercultural dialogue is - or at least could be. Journalists and lawyers can also make a difference, especially when their statements and actions transcend religious lines. There are innumerable examples where individuals have come to each other's rescue, crossing all religious boundaries.
Furthermore - and more importantly - politicians would need to undertake a joint brainstorming on how to address the new challenges in a world that is getting even more globalised. Such brainstorming could eventually lead to concrete actions with regard to mainstreaming diversity, for example in housing projects, school curricula and nominations to statutory bodies.
Finally, I would like to raise the fourth question: how can intercultural dialogue be conducted effectively? There are different levels of intercultural dialogue: international and regional organisations such as the UN, EU and OIC can play a role in facilitating platforms for intercultural dialogue. Furthermore, NGOs are currently proposing to advance the culture of peace through dialogue and cooperation between individuals and communities of diverse religions and beliefs through a UN Decade of Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace, possibly to run from 2011 to 2020. In this regard it seems vital to have a multitude of good initiatives at global, regional, national or local levels. Let me highlight that it is also possible to use old, new and creative means of communication to establish intercultural dialogue at low cost, for example through penfriend programmes in schools or via Internet chats on specific topics, street theatre and puppet shows.
The EU's Lifelong Learning Programmes can - and already do - serve as perfect platforms for intercultural and interreligious dialogue. The various programmes are indeed examples of good practice: Comenius seeks to develop understanding of and between various European cultures through exchanges and cooperation between schools in different countries; more than 1.5 million students have already participated in the higher education exchange programme Erasmus; the Leonardo da Vinci scheme funds transnational mobility in vocational education and training; the Grundtvig programme provides new learning opportunities, especially for adults at risk of social exclusion and for older workers; and, finally, the Jean Monnet network is stimulating teaching, research and reflection on European integration at higher education institutions throughout the world. Let me emphasise how important it is for the European Union to reach out to the whole world, especially in the framework of intercultural dialogue.
The role of educational institutions is vital. They could either inculcate a spirit of tolerance or promote tensions, even at an early age. Therefore, the emphasis must lie on enlightened education that teaches children to recognise the diversity that exists. There is a significant potential of voluntary school exchanges with other countries, both in Europe and elsewhere. In this regard I would like to refer to the 2001 International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination. It adopted by consensus the Madrid Final Document, which recommended that teachers and students are provided with voluntary opportunities for meetings and exchanges with their counterparts of different religions or beliefs.
The family is another entry point where open-mindedness can either be hampered or nurtured, very much depending on individual upbringing. Furthermore, mixed marriages - quite naturally - give new perspectives and may facilitate intercultural or interreligious dialogue. In my opinion it is important to start at an early age with getting acquainted with the approaches of your neighbours or of other religions. This would not necessarily need to involve long-distance travel, but, for example, could be organised by setting foot and meeting people at your local church, mosque, synagogue, temple or other places of worship. The size of the groups - especially for grass-root interfaith meetings - should not be too big, in order to give the interlocutors an opportunity to speak and to get to know each other personally.
However, there are several potential risks to intercultural dialogue: if not properly conducted, it may turn out to be a superficial, vague and ineffective exercise. Furthermore, intercultural dialogue can also be used as a tool for emphasising the evil sides of the 'other'. Participants may feel tempted to convince their interlocutors of the superiority of their religion or culture.
Concerning the possible substance of dialogue, there is also a fundamental question to be answered: Should the participants also ask about their respective religions and theological approaches, or would this be dangerous? A positive aspect would be that the interlocutors can become aware of similar approaches but also of differences. However, these differences may be interpreted as sensitive or even offensive. Just think of a discussion focusing on contentious issues such as: Who was the last prophet? Did God have a son? Are religious leaders infallible? What are you supposed to eat or not to? Is there reincarnation?
A tempting alternative might be to look only for non-contentious topics which are not at all related to theology, for example to discuss common environmental concerns. But these topics may be difficult to find and could be quite boring and, ultimately, such an approach would defeat the purpose of a real intercultural and interreligious dialogue. I do not think that it would help to add a layer of 'religious correctness' to the existing approach of political correctness.
You sometimes hear from diplomats that we must not engage in criticising religions other than our own. However, I would like to ask: Does dialogue exclude the possibility of criticising the tenets of other religions? In my opinion, in a true dialogue one of the options should also be that the interlocutors ultimately may agree to disagree, obviously while still respecting each other's views and approaches.
(Applause)
If somebody wants to criticise their counterpart's religion, it is, of course, advisable do so in an informed manner and to weigh one's words carefully. Furthermore, it may also help if mutual trust has already been established between the various groups. I firmly believe, however, that it would be wrong to follow the approach of protecting religions per se rather than individuals or groups of believers, as affirmed by international human rights standards.
(Applause)
On many occasions I have voiced concerns that criminalising so-called defamation of religions can be counterproductive, since it may create an atmosphere of intolerance and fear and may even increase the chances of a backlash. Accusations of defamation of religion might stifle legitimate criticism or even research on practices and laws appearing to be in violation of human rights that are - or at least are perceived to be - sanctioned by religion.
Finally, I believe that the rule of law and the functioning of democratic institutions are prerequisites for the establishment of a favourable climate which would be conducive to real dialogue and understanding. People need to have trust in the system, and thus diversity within institutions may contribute to creating such an environment. Intercultural dialogue should not be imposed or be designed in a condescending way. The policies of states in this regard should give room and space for the variety of religions and beliefs, thus creating natural opportunities for interaction and understanding.
These are my ideas on the what, why, who and how of intercultural dialogue. I am afraid that, rather than providing comprehensive answers, I may have raised a number of new issues.
In my observations I have already alluded to the potential - but also to possible pitfalls - of intercultural dialogue. It seems crucial to institutionalise an intercultural dialogue at various levels in the right format and with a wide selection of participants, while still allowing for a real exchange of views. I think that joint declarations and statements by religious leaders are important; however, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the vital role of grass-root initiatives, concrete meetings and joint actions. I also believe that it is better to have a war of words than to have tensions that are long-lasting. When average, theistic, atheistic and non-theistic believers get together, some of them perhaps for the first time ever, they - hopefully - learn a lot from each other, even if they finally disagree on substantive issues.
Universal values should serve as a bridge between different religions and beliefs, and I do not accept the fact that universal values of human rights can be and should be subservient to either social or religious norms.
(Applause)
This may, ultimately, also lead to the reinforcement of universal human rights, both in terms of promoting and protecting human rights and freedoms.
In conclusion I would like to cite Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former UN Secretary-General, who said: 'Human rights, when viewed from a universal perspective, force us to face the most demanding of all dialectics: the dialectics of identity and otherness, of "self" and "the other". They teach us, in the most direct way, that we are, at one and the same time, the same and different.'
(The House accorded the speaker a standing ovation.)
President
Dr Jahangir, thank you very much for your address. We have listened very carefully to what you have said, which was based on your respect for human rights, your wealth of experience, and what the important work you do is all about.
I hope your visit to the European Parliament will give us the opportunity for wider cooperation in our common mission for democracy, peace and development.