Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.5.3-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I only wish to clarify certain issues, without getting into a great historical debate, since I do not believe that this is the moment to do so nor is it the moment for us to all to start discussing problems that are not germane. Ladies and gentlemen, some of you have recently visited the region. I must tell you that I have been visiting it since 1991, more or less continuously. We have seen an enormous amount of suffering. Those of us who have seen so much suffering want to try to reach a peaceful and lasting situation. That is the commitment that those of us who are involved in trying to find a solution at the moment wish to achieve.
I would like to say that it is not advisable at the moment to appeal for frenzied optimism. It would not be sensible to do so, but I honestly believe that the connotations of the problem have never been so well defined and we are therefore in a better position to move towards a solution. Why do I say this? We all know that, in order to find a solution to this immensely serious problem, we must define the territory and be prepared to talk about it, we must define the security conditions and be prepared to talk about them, we must define the future of Jerusalem and be prepared to negotiate it, and we must negotiate the issue of refugees and be prepared to do so.
For the first time the four or five most important parameters have now been defined, and both sides have accepted them as the important parameters to be defined and accepted, and they have begun to negotiate them seriously and in depth. This is an historic step forward. The problem that leads me to be less than hopeful is that, unfortunately, time has not been well managed. If we had had a rather longer period of political calm, I sincerely believe that we could be optimistic at this time. But now I am not so optimistic because time unfortunately depends on the electoral and political calendar and there is little we can do about it.
But anybody who wants to negotiate, in this case with the European Union, must accept the challenge of reaching agreements on the basis that there will be two states in the region, which are capable of defining the four parameters which I have mentioned: territories, security, the capital and the refugees.
The European Union has proposed possible solutions to these four issues. Please do not imagine, ladies and gentlemen, that the people involved in the various presidencies, in this case the Swedish Presidency, have not put forward suggestions and ideas for making progress. The problem is that the proposal does not always miraculously coincide with the exact solution necessary at any particular moment. However, Mr Morillon, with regard to Jerusalem, you must believe me when I say that many suggestions have been put forward. These suggestions cannot perform miracles, they cannot fall outside a particular framework with which we are all familiar, and you have clearly indicated what this must be.
I will also say that, with regard to the settlements, the European Union has taken a brilliant and generous position. This position indicates that a policy of settlements such as the current one is not acceptable. We have said so, we will continue to say so and I can assure you that, for my part, I will always condemn the current policy. There will be no definitive solution without a solution also to this issue of the settlements. We know this and anybody who has been involved in this horrific conflict knows this.
The concern which I do have and the cause of the deep sadness which I also feel is that, as some of you have said, the Oslo Process is beginning to lose the political support of both sides, which it had a few years ago. It is true that the Oslo Process – not peace – is not accepted as intensely and in the same way by all the parties as it was a few years ago. For some, it has not offered the security that they wanted, and for others it has not brought the change that they expected and wanted in their everyday lives. Hence the frustration of some and the lack of security of others. And that, to a large extent, explains why the current debate is experiencing such difficulties.
I would like to say that, on the part of the European Union, we will do everything possible, with your support, and with the support of the governments and parliaments, to continue making progress, but it is true that there is a limit to what all of us can do to promote the process. It is the parties directly involved which have to reach an agreement, and the rest of us can only try to put in place the economic, social and political conditions for that agreement to be reached.
My own experience over recent months has shown me that the parties have never before spoken in such a devoted and generous way and have never come so close to solving the problems. And that was my hope. Unfortunately, you are perhaps right and it has been a vain hope. I would be extremely sorry if that were the case."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples