Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-07-Speech-4-238"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000907.10.4-238"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – It may be quite useful for us, as politicians, to be confronted with the question of whether sports and politics should have anything to do with each other or not. It is a very useful exercise in analysing the extent of our principles and whether or not there are human activities that should be quite independent. Sport today is not only sport, it is also business. For that reason the world of sport has created more difficulties for itself than used to be the case in more innocent times.
As far as I am informed, unlike the line you say they are following with rugby, the Australians, when it comes to participation in the Olympic Games are maintaining a clear distinction between politics and sport. We have no specific view in the Commission as to one event or another. At this moment we are engaging in the dialogue of the Lomé Convention, so at this stage we have not drawn conclusions.
In answer to your more general question, there may very well be broad sanctions, but it depends on the outcome of the dialogue. This dialogue is well-organised and systematic based on the beauty of our relationship with ACP countries. It is not just a donor-recipient relationship. We have the background of a system to work from. This system is put to work in the given situation. The options are open. We have both the stick and the carrot. We are actively drawing into this debate the regional ACP partners and giving the authorities in the country in question a say in the discussion. But it is an extremely critical situation. It contains all the dilemmas that situations like this normally present.
It is not easy to find out what the right thing to do is but we are doing everything to mobilise pressure for a rapid, irreversible return to democracy.
This is also the reply to Mrs Maes. We do have a very important role as a trading partner and donor in Fiji and this creates a serious framework for the present discussion with the people in power in Fiji.
As regards coming back to the Parliament, I would say that I am always of course willing to go to the Development Committee and discuss any issue. I would certainly like to have an opportunity to go more into detail before the end of the year if this is something the committee would welcome.
I can fully concur with everything Mr Ford said. It is really tragic what is happening. Also, as others said, the risk of a negative spillover in the region should also be taken into consideration when we are deciding what our measures should be.
One important measure that was taken – and this is a comment for Mr Van Hecke – was to call off the signing ceremony planned for Fiji. So it is not the Suva Agreement that will govern our future relationship with the ACP states. We went to Benin instead of Fiji in the summer and that, in fact, was a strong measure from both the EU side and the ACP side that it was taken as a natural thing that we could not sign the new agreement in Fiji. So, in political terms we have already sent a strong message."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples