Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010704.8.3-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to support Mr Brok’s motion on the approval of macro-financial assistance to Yugoslavia. I also believe that it is absolutely vital, given the country’s high level of debt, to provide an above-average level of lost subsidies here, i.e. above-average compared with the usual practice. I fully support the Commission on this point.
One condition for cooperation, as has been mentioned, is cooperation with The Hague. This has always been the position of this House and also our group. There is no question that a great deal has been achieved through Milosevic’s extradition. This is a positive development. Yet positive developments can sometimes leave a stale after-taste. Firstly, it was all too clear that Milosevic was handed over in exchange for the funds pledged by the donors’ conference, not so much in exchange for direct assistance from the European Union. It was not a pretty sight. There are two sides responsible: those who demanded this step, but also the government in Belgrade, who was too hesitant at first.
Secondly, it is interesting that particular pressure was applied by the Americans: the Americans, who persist in rejecting the notion that international courts could actually have jurisdiction over their citizens. This is an interesting point, and the European Union should bring pressure to bear on the Americans to recognise the international courts and their jurisdiction over American citizens at last.
Thirdly, it does not resolve the issue of Yugoslavia’s critical examination of its own history. There are many individuals, such as those responsible for the destruction of Vukovar, who are still at large. This debate must continue in Yugoslavia.
Fourthly, it is conceivable that the fragile balance established in Yugoslavia will undergo hard tests and could even be destroyed. On this point, I would like to make a comment about the future of the country. Over recent months and years, we have all witnessed what is often an antagonist mood towards Yugoslavia itself. Yet Yugoslavia has an important role to play in the region’s reconstruction, and thankfully, it now has responsible and sensible leaders who can set it on the right course.
However, we must be patient here and help Yugoslavia fulfil its tasks in the region. Together with my group, I identify three key points in this context.
Firstly, the critical debate in Yugoslavia about events in the country over recent decades must continue. Secondly, there must be reconciliation with its neighbours. Here, in particular, the extradition of a number of war criminals would undoubtedly help. Thirdly, and this is my final point, the economy must certainly be reconstructed, and we must give our support to this process. If we are able to link these three elements together, we will be able to look back in five or ten years’ time on the successful history of EU policy in Yugoslavia."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples