Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 53: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the former EU Commissioner Mr. Chris Patten's analysis of the EU's recent handling of relations with China (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27053/05]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I read with interest the newspaper article by former EU Commissioner, Chris Patten, which is the subject of the Deputy's question. Mr. Patten was an excellent EU External Relations Commissioner and is a good friend of Ireland's. While I would agree with him on many issues, and while he is undoubtedly right to pose searching questions, I would not fully share his assessment of EU-China relations as set out in the article.

The year 2005 marks the 30th anniversary of EU-China relations. A broad EU-China dialogue was formally established in 1994 in recognition of China's status as an emerging power on the international scene. This dialogue has grown into a regular, structured series of meeting at several political and official levels. Annual EU-China Summits at Heads of State or Government level have contributed to upgrading the dialogue and providing a strategic vision for the fast growing relationship. The eighth EU-China Summit took place in Beijing on 5 September 2005. Both sides agreed at the summit to move towards early negotiations on an EU-China framework agreement — an initiative very much in line with Chris Patten's wish to see the EU adopting a consistent and coherent strategy in relation to China. The EU is determined to intensify the dialogue in all areas, economic and political. The EU also attaches great importance to its human rights dialogue with China.

Where economic matters are concerned, I would agree with Mr. Patten that the EU has been correct to work assiduously to bring China into the World Trade Organisation. There are benefits for all in having China play its part in the rules-based multilateral trading system. In the context of the recent difficulties which arose in trade in textile products following the ending of the multi-fibre agreement, and when a surge in imports of textile products from China into the EU created a number of difficulties, it proved possible for the EU to negotiate with China on a transitional arrangement to cope with these.

Mr. Patten rightly points out the enormous economic potential of China in general, its role as a manufacturer of consumer goods and its attraction as a market for exports from the European Union and other sources. I would agree with him wholeheartedly that a prosperous and stable China is better for all than an impoverished and divided China. The article also refers to the EU arms embargo against China. I refer the Deputy to Parliamentary Question No. 54 of today.