Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-15-Speech-4-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010315.5.4-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – (
) The report underlines the importance the EU attaches to the Ukraine. It highlights the progress made in the country’s development and in the partnership between the EU and the Ukraine, but is not afraid to refer to matters of criticism.
I would like to discuss three aspects. Firstly, the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1989 led to the rapid formation of sovereign independent states, a process that happened quickly, almost overnight, but which could not change the specialisation that had developed over decades or the cooperation between the various countries’ economies.
Although at a different pace, the process of transformation, for which the EU also pressed, went hand in hand with social breakdown and unknown poverty for large sections of the Ukraine’s population. The EU ought to attach greater importance to dealing with this problem in its cooperation with the Ukraine.
While the EU and the Member States pursued primarily market interests under the slogan of stability, little attention was paid to the cooperation established over many years between the CIS states, one might even say it was torpedoed. In its own interest, the EU should pay greater attention to this factor in future and, in its understanding of how the Ukraine fits into the world economy, should also bear in mind that other CIS states are engaged in a similar process.
Secondly, the Ukraine has been given a lot of advice, and in many areas this has no doubt been legitimate and helpful. But politics is always tied up with interests. And if the shaping of partnership shows a strong tendency to benefit one particular party, then there is a problem. Partnership with the Ukraine ought to promote economic stability and social security and prevent or help to reduce tension. This is where the EU’s and the Ukraine’s real common interests lie.
Thirdly, no-one will dispute that the OSCE played an important role in maintaining stability in Europe during the cold war. Both sides were involved in this process and both sides gained from it. The cold war ended ten years ago, and the OSCE should now be developed primarily into an instrument for the peaceful political resolution of conflicts. But NATO is pursuing the opposite course, basing its new strategy on strength and displays of power outside the alliance’s borders, which are steadily moving eastwards, and the EU is following in its wake. I consider involving the Ukraine, which has a long frontier with Russia, in this strategy to be a very serious matter. The Ukraine – and other CIS states as well – ought to be more closely involved than in the past in political processes for the resolution of conflicts. The OSCE would be the appropriate framework for this. With the Union acquiring new external borders, this factor will be of increasing importance not least with regard to the Ukraine."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"DE"1
"Modrow (GUE/NGL ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples