Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.3.3-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this is an important debate to hold at this juncture, after the first few months of the US administration, with the visit of President George Bush to Göteburg in June and the Commission's initial thoughts on the common foreign and security policy. So where are we today? We have a timely communication before us, which points to the breadth and growth of the transatlantic relationship from the declaration in 1990 to the new transatlantic agenda in 1995. The number of subjects it covers will continue to grow and we will probably see a consolidation of ideas on the monetary dialogue and other aspects.
Secondly, the communication contains ideas on how to make the process more effective. Thirdly, it underlines the importance of engaging civil society and building parliamentary links. But I think it is wise for us to ask whether these perspectives are really sufficient for the next five years. Common economic interests and concerns are increasingly global and not bilateral, while regionalisation is increasingly seen as an alternative to the WTO and multilateralism.
US security interests are shifting towards the Pacific, even if NATO and EU enlargements will demand transatlantic political management in the months ahead. It is difficult to focus together on defining common strategic interests like, for example, the Ukraine. In view of these aspects, my group considers this communication a disappointing one. It is more a stocktaking exercise than one that will encourage a broader transatlantic partnership. In other words, it does not match up to the requirements of the developing transatlantic partnership in the future.
Why, for example, have fewer summits if there are going to be more rather than fewer issues to discuss? How do you prioritise the agenda if you have already set eight strategic themes? How do you include the US Congress and the European Parliament in the framework without setting out any ideas for its inclusion? The communication refers to an Interparliamentary Assembly. That is not what it is. It is a delegation which has converted itself into the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue.
So we need broader thinking to develop the transatlantic partnership before 2004. It is time to get away from the humdrum bulk-carrier idea; something rather more visionary, I suspect, would be required at this stage. First, we should stake out the ground for a broader transatlantic partnership. Why not make sure we can re-energise the transatlantic business dialogue? It is in some difficulty. Why not think of an annual Atlantic Summit, which would bring together the EU, the US and NATO, because politics, economics and security policy are increasingly interlinked.
Secondly, we should follow the ideas of the Houston Declaration of the US Congress and the European Parliament and involve the parliamentary community more in the summit process. Last and not least, we should use the summit with George W. Bush to draw up an agenda for the period until 2004, to establish a deeper transatlantic partnership and to fulfil the aims that both the Council and the Commission have said they want to achieve."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples