Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.2.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the most tiresome political debates are the ritual political debates. Debates in which everyone acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and subsequently repeats what they said last time. The debate on the Middle East threatens to become something of a ritual debate. We too, in Parliament, are always asking for the European Union to play a more active role. The Council and the Commission subsequently respond: we are making every effort, but we cannot do anything alone and there is division in the ranks. This position was expressed most clearly by Mr Michel last week.
It is clear to us, including myself, that diplomatic success is impossible without the United States. But what is the United States doing? In this connection, I would concur with Mr van den Broek, the predecessor of Mr Patten as Commissioner for External Relations, who said that the United States is, in fact, pursuing a declaratory policy. It says that things should be done differently. It calls on the parties to stop what they are doing, and then nothing happens. If the European Union wishes to adopt the same policy, that should be made clear, and we should then no longer talk about the European Union’s playing an active role in the Middle East.
In this debate, I should like to make a fresh attempt to break the deadlock, in this case the ritual debate, by invoking the European Union’s economic role. If the truth be told, I am getting a little tired of the response by the Commission and Council who say: Mr Lagendijk, economic sanctions are ineffective. As Mr Michel said last week: we know where we start but we do not know where we finish. What I want, the appeal that I am making, is not for economic sanctions à la Iraq. That is not what I want at all. What is important is that it is unacceptable for the European Union to carry on as we have always done while the region is under threat of war. We are doing business with the Israelis and are simply the Palestinians’ largest donor. We cannot continue as if nothing were wrong, while the region is on the brink of war.
I only want to know, and I am addressing this question to the Commission and the Council, whether you would be so kind as to examine the options – and I am choosing my words carefully – for trying, via the economic ties we have with both parties, and I emphasise ‘both’ parties, to apply pressure in order to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. I was, from that point of view, pleasantly surprised that Mr Van den Broek, Mr Patten’s predecessor, thinks along the same lines. I appreciate that this is difficult. It might even be impossible. However, it would be unacceptable if the use of financial instruments by the European Union were ruled out. The Council and the Commission have repeatedly stated that they are willing to make every effort to break the deadlock. In my opinion, this includes that instrument too. Even if it is painful, I do hope that the European Union does not make the same mistake as the United States, namely say that something must be done and subsequently do nothing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples