Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991027.7.3-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The debate has been dominated by concerns about the North Caucasus. But there are, as Mr Paasilinna pointed out, grounds for concern about the situation in the South Caucasus as well. The honourable Member pointed to the alarming reports of the shooting in the Armenian parliament today and the reported assassination of the Prime Minister. We await confirmation of that tragic news, but it appears the news is probably accurate.
But when you start talking about cutting off programmes of assistance to Russia you have to face up to some of the consequences. An issue about which I feel passionately is the successful negotiation of the multilateral nuclear environment programme, the attempt to ensure that Western donors can provide technical and financial assistance for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste in north-west Russia, including all those terrifying, rusting nuclear submarines and the other nuclear garbage.
It is very important for all of us that we make a programme like that succeed. I hope we can push on with talks about programmes like that even while we talk firmly and strongly to the Russians about the tragedy in the Northern Caucasus in Chechnya.
One point that we made to Russian officials, to the Prime Minister, was that we were talking strongly on these issues, not as enemies but as people who wanted a cooperative relationship with Russia. We were talking strongly because we were reflecting the opinions of our public in the European Union: the sort of opinions reflected in speech after speech in this Chamber today.
So what this debate has done is to underline the argument that we were putting to Mr Putin and others. It is an argument which I hope they will take very seriously over the coming days and weeks.
There must be a return to negotiation, difficult though that may seem to Russian leaders. There must be a return to negotiation otherwise I fear that we will see disaster loaded upon disaster. In those circumstances I do not think that anyone’s opinion poll ratings are going to hold up for very long.
I saw the Armenian Foreign Minister recently to discuss his concerns about the stability of the Southern Caucasus and, as well, to hear some of the concerns that he was expressing about Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus. I should like to say on this occasion that the Commission wants to reiterate its support for the Armenian Government in its efforts to find a rapid and peaceful solution to the situation in the Caucasus. What has happened today is deeply troubling.
This debate has focused on Chechnya, which was the subject of some very straight talking in Helsinki with some Members understandably asserting that the European Union should have done something more than it has done already. I think it is perhaps an inevitable consequence of a debate like that, that there was not absolute clarity on what it was that we should have done.
I want to reiterate some points that were made earlier by the presidency. The communiqué, as the honourable Member pointed out, referred to the fact that we had exchanged views on the situation in the Northern Caucasus. The communiqué did not say any more than that for a very good reason: we could not put in the communiqué that we had agreed on anything regarding the Northern Caucasus.
What the European Union asserted strongly was: first of all, that whatever the concerns about Chechen terrorism – which are understandable – there is a powerful case for proportionality in dealing with that problem; secondly, we argued passionately for de-escalation and political dialogue. The problem, if you appear to undermine and destroy the authority of any moderate leaders in Chechnya, is this: who do you then talk to? Who do you then have a political dialogue with? That is a point that we put very strongly to Prime Minister Putin, both during the official discussions and over lunch when Chechnya completely dominated the discussion.
We argued very strongly for the aid assessment mission to be allowed into Ingushetia as rapidly as possible. I spoke last week to the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance at the UN. I spoke last week to Mrs Ogata in the UNHCR. I read, as honourable Members will have done, the reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on the humanitarian crisis which gets worse day by day in the Northern Caucasus. The ICRC suggested last week that over one third of the population of Grozny had left already. So we pressed the Russians to recognise that there must be an early visit by aid organisations to the region so we know what the situation is and how we can best contribute to the humanitarian problem.
I hope that the honourable Member who suggested that we should perhaps consider cutting off any humanitarian assistance will have second thoughts about that. I have been a development minister providing humanitarian assistance on a national basis to countries torn apart by war. I have never believed that cutting off assistance to those who are affected by war, who are affected by the political decisions taken by their rulers, was a very good way of responding to crisis.
Let me just add a word about the funding of the military campaign which, in my judgement – not a judgement which appears to be supported by the Russian Prime Minister – is bound to have an effect on the recovery over the last months of the Russian economy.
Some Members suggested that we should cut off financial assistance to the Russian Federation because that assistance might be used to sustain the military campaign. I should just like to remind Members of Parliament, who are probably more familiar with some of the details of these issues than even I am, that we are not the provider of direct financial assistance to the Russian authorities. That is not how Tacis works. We are not an international financial institution providing financial assistance for the reconstruction – we hope – of the Russian economy. People should be clear that what we are doing is not sustaining Russian military campaigns in Chechnya or anywhere else."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples