Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-07-21-Speech-3-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990721.6.3-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Commissioner, I should first like to offer my warmest congratulations to the Finnish Presidency, Madam Foreign Minister and her colleagues on their lucid and precisely-formulated programme, which may not be one imbued with great vision, but which is nevertheless very forward-looking. It is exactly what we need. There will be more than enough problems to solve, the list is already before us, but best efforts have been made to this end.
I should like to stress the following, further to the points made by Mr Commissioner Fischler, giving particular attention to the two matters of Turkey and reconstruction in Yugoslavia. Firstly, I consider that it is right that as far as actual reconstruction work is concerned, particularly in Kosovo, the decisions should be taken on site. That is a line of argument that this Parliament has represented and which we have defended, namely that greater local autonomy should be devolved to the area where the reconstruction work is actually to take place. However, and I am probably prepared to go further than you are in this respect, Mr Commissioner, I believe that Greece and Thessaloniki would be a good location when it comes to aid for reconstruction in general for the Balkans or South-Eastern Europe, and particularly in co-operation with Mr Hombach. This work cannot be undertaken in Pristina alone, both in view of infrastructure and political relations.
People may well say that is a bad compromise. I don"t believe it is. I believe that they are two different things, but that they must be closely interwoven. But this decision is entirely reasonable, on the one hand Pristina for the actual reconstruction aid and, on the other, Thessaloniki.
Turning now to my second point, which is Turkey, I believe that we must state in a clear and unambiguous fashion that as far as we are concerned, the Öçalan case is not just about one man threatened with the death penalty, but rather we repudiate the death penalty in general. He is a symbol for many others, for example Akim Birdal or others too, who are in prison, some of whom have not had legal proceedings taken against them, and some whose health is greatly impaired. Turkey must at last demonstrate respect for human rights, for full democracy, particularly as regards the Kurdish question.
We do not support terrorism in either word or deed. We support a political solution for Turkey; this is necessary in every sense, and I hope that the Finnish Presidency too will succeed in making this clear to Turkey. Yes, there is a road that leads to Europe and there is also a road that leads to the European Union for Turkey, and the same rules apply to Turkey as apply to Latvia, Bratislava and Slovenia. If Turkey is prepared to recognise these rules, then there is a clear and unambiguous road leading to Europe, but that means showing respect for democracy and showing respect for human rights.
(Applause)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples