Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.5.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I was just reflecting for a moment on those points of order. I am sure that Members of Parliament can imagine my own feelings about events in the last forty-eight hours in Northern Ireland. I think we have a better chance for peace than has existed for some time and I for one would salute the courage of those parties and party leaders who have made these encouraging developments possible. We must all keep our fingers crossed and, where appropriate, perhaps pray.
The OSCE meeting in Istanbul provides an opportunity for progress, although I cannot claim to be very optimistic. The Russians have made it plain that domestic public opinion is dominating other considerations in their handling of the crisis. Our job must be to persuade them their present short-sighted approach will never deliver lasting peace in the Caucasus, and we need to be swift and generous in providing the humanitarian assistance that is so badly needed as winter sets in. We will be more effective on both these fronts while channels of communication remain open. I am therefore, like the Presidency and the High Representative, in close contact with Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister. We met in Helsinki last week in the margins of the Northern Dimension Conference and we have since spoken on the telephone.
On the urgent humanitarian situation, I have repeatedly stressed the need to ensure adequate access and security for international aid agencies. Some progress has been possible through recent assessment missions by outside experts and donors. This has allowed a better estimate of the extent of humanitarian aid needs. There appear to be up to 200,000 Chechen refugees now in Ingushetia, most of them staying with families there, the remainder living in tents. Meanwhile a large number of people are waiting to cross the border and many have returned to Chechnya, either to the area occupied by the Russian military or to that still under control of the Chechen fighters. In total, we are talking about up to half a million people to a greater or lesser extent in need of humanitarian assistance. The needs of the local population in Ingushetia who have been hosting the refugees must also be taken into account. Identifying needs is only one part of the problem.
The physical delivery of assistance is another. Continuing security worries have limited assistance efforts so far. From the Commission ECHO has committed close to one million euros to the work of the UNHCR. The large-scale assistance urgently required in this region cannot be delivered through remote control with donors excessively dependent on the Russian Ministry for Emergencies. We must therefore maintain pressure on the Russian authorities to do much more to facilitate access for international donors and to look after their safety.
Finally, I should say that Mr Ivanov has suggested in his conversations with me that an intensification of the contacts between the European Parliament and the Duma might be helpful, including perhaps a visit to Moscow by a representative group of your Members. Obviously you would want to see for yourselves what was going on and make your own judgements. I know that under the admirable leadership of Mrs Krehl, your Delegation for relations with Russia is among the most active in the Parliament, but I would urge you to consider Mr Ivanov’s suggestion seriously.
The Commission is keen to see a constructive relationship between the Russian Federation and the European Union. We have a shared interest in the future security and prosperity of our continent. But I have to say that the present crisis in Chechnya is putting a severe strain on the partnership we have been trying to build. On the other hand, we all know that it is only by trying to maintain that partnership that we have any chance of getting the Russians to heed our message, that is the awful dilemma that we face. The Russians must recognise that they cannot dismiss our concerns out of hand. We want closer friendship and understanding but they must recognise that those things are a two-way street.
To move to the debate: I am extremely pleased to be able to participate in this important debate and I must say that I am very grateful to the business managers for arranging the timing before my departure to the OSCE Summit. I hope the House will not regard it as a discourtesy if I am obliged to leave just before the end of the debate but I have to get to Istanbul, not least for a meeting on the Stability Pact. The debate provides a useful opportunity for me to inform the House of our most recent contacts with the Russian authorities over events in Chechnya. At the same time, I shall be able to participate in the discussions in Istanbul on these issues with a much clearer understanding of the views of the European Parliament.
I think it is fair to say that there is general consensus in the European Union – the Council, the Parliament and the Commission – on the following two propositions: firstly, whatever the understandable outrage about the appalling acts of terrorism in Moscow, in the northern Caucasus and elsewhere – which, as someone whose country has had all too much experience of terrorism, I totally condemn – Russian action over recent weeks has involved repeated disproportionate military force, repeated disregard for the need to seek a political solution and repeated disregard for the tragic human consequences. Secondly, most people (I think this is also true across the European Union) agree that it would be a historic error to begin the next century by locking Russia out of European affairs as we did at the beginning of this century. Because we want to avoid repeating the mistakes made after 1917, the European Union has been genuinely seeking a strategic partnership with Russia. The concrete proof is the dialogue that we have built up under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and the common strategy adopted at the Cologne European Council.
It is equally obvious that the unfolding situation in Chechnya puts our relations with Russia under considerable strain. The Russian authorities must understand that their present action has an impact on their acceptance by the international community and on Russia’s credibility as a political and economic partner. They seek to justify their action in terms of domestic public opinion. It is the same story when they refuse to give ground on the European Union’s legitimate trade concerns despite the EUR 10 billion trade surplus they now enjoy with us.
But we live in democratic countries with democratic institutions like this Parliament. We too are affected by the strength of public opinion which is understandably horrified by what is happening in Chechnya and worried about simply standing on the sidelines. So far, our response has been to try to exert growing diplomatic and political pressure on the Russians. We have taken every opportunity to get the message across at all levels. I participated in the ministerial troika led by Foreign Minister Halonen in early October. The subject dominated the European Union-Russia Summit on 22 October and it dominated our discussion at the General Affairs Council on Monday. At each stage the language has been hardened and the operational proposals reinforced.
The message from the Council this week could not be more clear. The European Union has condemned outright all disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in Chechnya and urged the Russian government to observe its commitments under humanitarian law. There is no alternative to seeking a negotiated settlement based on a dialogue with the elected leaders of the northern Caucasus, including Chechnya. The Council stressed that imposing a military solution in Chechnya would be a major political mistake. What will be the situation in one month, two months, a year or two years from now? There is apparently no long-term Russian strategy to ensure lasting peace. More specifically, the Council urged a role for the OSCE and asked that a branch office of the OSCE assistance group to Chechnya should be immediately opened in Nazran and Ingushetia. The Council concluded that the Istanbul Summit this Thursday and Friday could be used, inter alia, to drive home these messages to the Russian authorities. I am obviously willing to return to Parliament after Istanbul to report on the message we delivered and the reaction we received.
Increasingly I am being asked whether the European Union should step up the pressure by moving beyond strong words to more direct action. What might this involve? Some suggest cutting off financial assistance under the TACIS programme. Would this, I ask, put a stop to military action? There would be no direct impact on Russia’s public finances because the money is all channelled through contractors mainly in the European Union. But it would undermine the process of economic and social modernisation that we have been pressing for so hard.
What about suspending food aid? The existing scheme is nearing an end. By September over 90% of supplies had already been delivered to Russia. It is now for the Russian authorities to ensure distribution. The priority for us is to check that the proceeds of the scheme are properly used to repay pension arrears and for other social projects. As for the future, we have anyway very grave doubts about the need and the economic rationale for any new food aid schemes. Recent events in Chechnya add a strong political argument against meeting any new Russian request for food aid. I told Madeline Albright last week that I did not believe that this Parliament would countenance any further delivery of new food aid this winter to Russia.
There have also been suggestions of withholding IMF assistance and EBRD lending. These are obviously issues beyond the direct competence of the European Union, but would it be in our interests to provoke a political backlash against the international community in the run-up to the Duma elections in December?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples