Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.9.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate concerns an issue that is particularly important in two respects. Whilst in the first place, our discussion has to do with delivering financial aid to Cyprus and Malta, so as to enable them to play a full part in the pre-accession strategy, it is also concerned in no small way with the peace process in Cyprus, and thus with stability and security in the Mediterranean region.
Now just a few brief comments on how the Cyprus question has developed since the European Council in Helsinki. I wholeheartedly endorse the statement Under-Secretary of State, Mr Seixas da Costa, made here on behalf of the Portuguese Presidency. We are cooperating closely and to good effect on this issue. As far as Cyprus is concerned, it has always been the Union’s contention that the accession negotiations should benefit the efforts being made to find a solution to the political problem. Indeed we always supported this view, and I am quite convinced that it is appropriate for the negotiations on the resolution of the political problem to take place under the auspices of the United Nations. And we were always agreed that the solution should continue to have as its aim a bicommunal and bizonal federation.
It is still the European Union’s goal to admit a united Cyprus. The European Council in Helsinki reiterated that resolving the political conflict would facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. Nonetheless, as the presidency has just said, the Council has made it clear that this is not a pre-condition for the conclusion of negotiations.
Should it not have proved possible to find a political solution to the Cyprus question by the time the accession negotiations are concluded, then the Council, taking all the relevant factors into account, will take a decision on whether or not Cyprus should gain admittance to the Union. That is how matters stand on the political front.
The Helsinki European Council’s decision on how relations between the European Union and Turkey are to be framed in future has given the situation considerable impetus. I would emphasise that several political processes are running in tandem here and they are closely linked.
In the first place, this is all about the relationship between the EU and Turkey. It also concerns the further development of relations between Greece and Turkey, and the peace process in Cyprus.
There has already been talk of the ‘window of opportunity’, which has presented itself following Helsinki and on account of the détente between Greece and Turkey. And so what can we do to make use of this window of opportunity as far as Cyprus is concerned? I believe we must adopt an intelligent and cautious approach. If we set about this with too much gusto then we will raise expectations we cannot fulfil, and so I favour an intelligent, softly softly approach which is sensitive to the needs of the given situation. The first thing we are able, and want, to do is to step up dialogue and communication between the two communities on Cyprus. That is an ambition that finds favour with our Greek and Turkish partners.
Therefore, we want to give the so-called bicommunal activities renewed impetus, in particular those involving young people. We should also give more attention to making sure that the Turkish Cypriot community is better informed about the Union’s aims. I am absolutely convinced that, if the people were to have a better understanding of the Treaty, in fact a better understanding of what the European Union is all about and what its ambitions are, this could help to eliminate fear and prejudice. I will be going to Cyprus in mid-March, and I aim to do my bit towards convincing both communities of the benefits renewed cooperation will bring.
For our part, we have made funds available for this purpose in the new financial regulation. These funds are not inconsiderable. I believe it is very important for us to call upon both sides to at last break free from the shadows of the past and gradually develop a new form of cooperation and, ultimately, a new way of living together.
The talks held under the auspices of the United Nations took place in New York in December and in Geneva at the beginning of February. They will enter the third and perhaps crucial round in May. Negotiations should certainly continue until such time as a solution is reached, or at least until substantial progress has been made on the major issues that the presidency has just highlighted.
Firstly, I would like to say a few words on the financial regulation for Cyprus and Malta, which the Commission put forward in October last year. I am exceptionally grateful to Mr Brok, the rapporteur, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for his report, which forms an excellent basis for our deliberations today. We need this instrument. It replaces the financial protocols that expired at the end of 1999. We need these instruments so as to be able to meet our financial commitments under the terms of the development strategy for Malta and Cyprus.
What should the Commission’s role be in this? It is interesting to observe how all those who are party to this process deem the European Union’s role to be of central importance. All the players are seeking contact and cooperation with us. They are well aware that the peace process and the adoption of our common accomplishments are inextricably linked and must not come into conflict with one another.
I have to say that I too prize cooperation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his Special Representative on this issue extremely highly, and can tell you that it is progressing smoothly and in a spirit of trust.
One is therefore right to conclude that the resolution of the Cyprus question has gained renewed impetus since Helsinki. I would not wish to go very much further in my assessment at the present time. The Union’s decision to commence accession negotiations and to move them on apace, which is intended to act as a catalyst to resolving the political problem, still appears to me to be the right course of action. In any case, I can see no alternatives to this approach that are even remotely reasonable and therefore, it just remains for me to say that the Commission will stick to this line and play its part in attempting to resolve the political problem until the accession negotiations are concluded, using the accession negotiations themselves as an important instrument in the resolution of the conflict.
I am very grateful for the fact that Parliament is supporting the Commission in its efforts to adopt the draft regulation as quickly as possible. The Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets have put forward a series of proposed amendments. The Commission is able to adopt some of them. I would like to comment on two points that I know are very dear to Parliament’s heart.
First and foremost, we are talking about the financial package itself; i.e. how much money do we actually want to spend? The Commission will propose a package of EUR 95 million. The Council has also agreed on this figure. I am aware that Parliament would like it to be a larger amount and I fully understand why this is so. I can assure you that, as the competent Member of the Commission, I too would very much like to have more money for this purpose at my disposal.
But it is simply the case that we are unable to achieve consensus for a larger amount at the present time. At the end of the day, it is the budgetary authority that must establish the final amount.
The second important issue in this respect relates to the transfer of the financial means under line 7 of the budget. In fact this only appears to be a technical issue. It is very much a political issue. I myself have already said here, on another occasion, that I consider this to be the right approach. I believe I can safely say – notwithstanding the fact that the Commission has not reached a formal decision yet – that in principle the Commission is prepared to go along with this suggestion.
However, the aforementioned decision cannot be reached via this regulation; this can only be done under the terms of the scheduled revision of the Financial Perspective. This regulation, which covers the period from 2000 to 2004, affords both applicant countries access to technical and financial support for the implementation of the
for involvement in Community programmes and certain of the Community’s institutions, and for extending the authority of their administration systems and courts
Of the proposed total amount of EUR 57 million, EUR 57 million are earmarked for Cyprus and EUR 38 million for Malta. In the case of Cyprus, the draft regulation also provides for the financing of measures intended to support reconciliation between the two ethnic groups, and in fact this accounts for a third of the total amount.
On behalf of the Commission, I would like to guarantee that the programming for the funds will take place in accordance with the priorities of the accession partnerships as early as in the course of the next few weeks."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples