Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.2.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank you all for an excellent debate. It has consistently been shown here that it is important that the European Union has influence and plays an active role. If we are to have any influence, there must also be unanimity within the European Union on the way in which we wish to influence the current process.
By commissioning Javier Solana to draw up a roadmap for the Gothenburg Summit, we anticipate that the EU will be able to provide a further substantial contribution to the peace process and achieve a better, more long-term strategy for the EU’s involvement in the Middle East.
Finally, it is still the parties themselves who must come to their senses, who must break the spiral of violence, who have to refrain from the ever increasing conflicts and return to the only possible road to peace; cease-fire, a freeze on settlements, a return to the negotiating table.
I would like to say both to the Israeli side and the Palestinian side that this is not a question which concerns only you. It is of major international interest. It is crucial to the future of us all and therefore we demand that the parties also take their responsibility. As Mr Caudron said, in this situation it is not about being a friend to Israel or a friend to Palestine. Instead it is about all of us in the EU having to do all we can to contribute to the peace process.
It is good to see that the Council is considerably more unanimous today than we ever have been before. I also think this unanimity can be seen in this context too. Although different resolutions have been proposed and although there are many different opinions, there are still fewer differences between us than previously. I also think this is one reason why we have never before been able to see the EU being as greatly involved in the Middle East conflict. However, unfortunately this is not sufficient, and on the contrary, as Mr Poos said initially, it is also about the willingness of the parties to negotiate and not least about the Israeli government currently bearing the main responsibility.
I can agree with very much of what Mr Poos said regarding the description of the current situation: the catastrophic economic situation, and the illegal occupation. The problem is that this leads to Mr Galeote Quecedo’s view that there is a risk of extremists setting the agenda. The risk is that hate propaganda on both sides and Palestinian poverty will lead to violence increasing further.
Mr Lagendijk said that it is unacceptable for resistance fighters on the Palestinian side to be executed by Israelis. I can only agree; I brought this up in my initial speech. This is completely in breach of both international law and international standards and of what most of us consider to be basic human rights. We have brought this up several times with the Israeli government. We have also received guarantees that this is to cease, but unfortunately this has not hitherto been the case.
Regarding the meeting of 21 May, addressed by several of the speakers, the Council is providing every support to the Commission for the course of action which Commissioner Patten has described and which means that we must now follow the rules and clearly show that the EU cannot accept Israel continuing to break them.
Several speakers have addressed the allocation of the burden of guilt, where we lay the blame and how much of an intermediary the EU can be. I would like to say to Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, and many others who have brought up this issue, that
if the EU clearly is to make requirements of both parties, today it is natural for us to make more stringent demands of the Israeli government and Ariel Sharon. Ariel Sharon actually bears the main responsibility today for reversing the trend. As many of you have pointed out, the current policy increases the risk of benefiting extremist groups. Mr Sharon must acknowledge his political responsibility.
For its part, the Council will naturally also make demands of the Palestinian side: that the Palestinians are to have a more open budget, that they should work more on the basis of democratic, open principles, that they should do everything in their power to stop terrorism.
So what can the EU do further? Just as Mr Napolitano said, it is important that we also act. So I can guarantee that we will not passively sit waiting for the report from Javier Solana to the European Council meeting in Gothenburg. We will address the Israeli government and demand that it stop the violence, cease to close off Palestinian areas and immediately halt its settlement policy which
illegal and constitutes illegal occupation. As I said, we have also demanded that the Palestinian side do all it can to prevent terrorism and to reduce violence. We support the proposals of the Mitchell Report and it was good to see support for the report here in Parliament too. We also support the Jordanian-Egyptian initiative. In particular, and the Commission has also played a part in developing this, we assume a major financial responsibility today for the Palestinian areas and for ensuring that the situation does not become even worse in these areas.
Precisely as General Morillon said, the EU is currently more active than ever before. However, I believe that we all feel the need not only to take on more responsibility than we have done hitherto – the major financial responsibility which has been taken so far – but also the need to take even greater
responsibility which also actually corresponds to the financial responsibility we are taking on the region."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
"political"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples