Mr. Stavros Lambrinidis:

----but there are some elements that, I think, others should touch on more.

Syria is truly a terrible situation, and the atrocities that were mentioned are a fact. Under the human rights banner, I have been involved in trying to see if there is some level of co-ordination and if it might be possible to bring people together. Humanitarian aid is an area where this can be possible and ECHO, the department of the European Commission that deals with humanitarian aid, is extremely active in it. I have discussed Syria extensively with Peter Maurer of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is there at present, and our cooperation is vital. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees in surrounding countries, creating potential political instability and a terrible humanitarian crisis. There are also camps for displaced persons within Syria and the EU is active in those.

There is a consensus that the International Criminal Court and the EU cannot send a message of non-accountability when it comes to the crimes in Syria. My personal opinion is that it would be a good thing if we took a united position and that the ICC should consider its involvement now and open an investigation of all violations by all sides. We all know where the lion's share of violations have taken place.

Aid in Syria and elsewhere in the world is a delicate issue. The only way to be effective with aid is to make absolutely sure it goes to everyone equally, no matter who we might think are the "bad guys" or the "good guys" according to the politics of the matter. Humanitarian aid must go to everyone. That is the whole point. I am troubled to hear people say we should only give aid in Syria to "our" people, or not caring if the aid does not trickle down to everyone. I care that the aid gets to everyone. That is extremely important because that is how humanitarian aid is supposed to work. We must supervise the system more effectively to ensure whatever aid gets there goes to the people and does not get diverted.

On the question of the uniformity of the 27 member states as they deal with NGOs, there are different ways for EU delegations and member states to deal with NGOs on the ground. Some countries have delegations that are very active in meeting human rights defenders and consulting with NGOs before European policy is drafted, making sure NGOs get involved so they can be taken into account in larger EU policy. There are other countries in which NGOs are not contacted as frequently and where the sense exists that it might be a nuisance to get too involved. In my opinion, we must provide capacity building to the NGO community in a number of countries around the world, not so we can tell them what to say or do - we do not intend to ever to do that - but to ensure they have the ability to have people on the ground, to do research and to effect policy. In many cases the EU and member states cooperate very well on the ground on issues of human rights and human rights defenders. There are a number of important human rights defenders' trials going on around the world that the EU delegation alone could not follow. We get together with national delegations and split up the trials so human rights defenders can feel they are being observed and protected by our presence, which is a reflection of the co-ordination between the EU and its member states.

The Chairman asked some important questions that essentially related to double standards. Whether internally or externally, double standards are an issue the EU must address. When I say internal double standards, I mean what people could see the EU preaching but not applying what it preaches to others. I was a member of the special committee of the European Parliament set up to look at rendition and abduction on CIA flights. The European Parliament was extremely critical of the fact that a number of EU countries did not investigate rigorously enough the issue of those violations within their borders. Also, the United States, a major advocate of human rights around the world, faces criticism over questions such as Guantanamo Bay. Such questions are important for us and the soft power we exercise in international relations and human rights largely relies on our being as consistent and vigilant internally as we are externally. We are mostly remarkably good at dealing with human rights violations in the EU but we are not perfect; that is for what we should strive.

The other issue of double standards is external. Are we dealing with some countries more softly than others either because we are closer to them politically or because we have a greater need of them economically? I intend to be very forceful and very consistent about violations in the appropriate fora and always with the countries and governments involved, no matter how painful or unpleasant that may be. I assure the committee that many countries that violate human rights respect an EU that is firm and committed and stable in its position that the country may not continue to violate those rights. If I can do anything to stop those countries, I will and if I can do anything to help them through capacity building to stop those violations, I will do it. I will not, however, say that a country cannot violate rights one day and the following day say it can because there is a big business deal involved. Such inconsistency would give the impression that we do not take seriously our own rhetoric and give the impression of weakness. We are not weak. We are extremely consistent when it comes to the protection of human rights and that is the image we should project around the world, including in countries with which we have friendly relations. It is not okay to violate human rights just because a country enjoys friendly relations with us. It is not okay for an EU member state to violate human rights and for people to remain silent because the member state is part of the family. Human rights are universal and we must be adamant about this.