Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.2.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will reply quickly to some of the questions; unfortunately I have to be fairly brief because I cannot stay till the end of the sitting.
Several Members raised the issue of security in Brussels, so I will address their concern. I do not think there are any difficulties in principle, except for one aspect where we do come up against certain problems – I will endeavour to analyse this matter and take a closer look – namely the question of unconditional access to Belgian territory. I do believe this could pose a number of problems. That aside, it looks as though we can certainly reach an agreement fairly soon. I promise I will discuss it with the Home Affairs and Justice Ministers immediately after my return so that I can give you practical answers to your questions as quickly as possible.
Let me highlight something that has emerged from our debates and to which I too am paying close attention. If we take a whole range of measures to combat terrorism effectively, they will necessarily – and we must not pretend otherwise – involve the risk of taking measures that curtail freedoms. Mr Barón Crespo said so and Mr Lannoye also drew our attention to it. I have heard statements in this Chamber that show that some people have not entirely understood this: for instance, if I had to translate Mr Berthu's programme into action, it is clear that this would lead straight to a society which restricts freedoms, which would have nothing to do, let me say, with the quality of life, with the democratic quality of our societies. That is the way it is, that is my opinion and I am sharing it with you. I think we must be very watchful here, for this really is an important issue. We cannot bring back the olden days on the pretext of fighting terrorism. I think that would be very dangerous, so I am not in favour of it. I believe the difficulty we will keep encountering will be, precisely, how to evaluate our margin for manoeuvre constantly. But let us please not give in to a security phobia, because sooner or later we would all end up as victims and that would be democracy's loss.
Mr Lannoye and several others made a most important point in relation to our foreign policy and I entirely agree with him here: the enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friends. Of course, I agree with him. It is true that, under cover of this kind of consensual coalition, necessarily based on immediate needs and, admittedly, to some extent also on feelings that are justified, it might well be tempting to overlook, to look away from or to forget certain aspects.
I think it was yesterday, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy that I was asked whether I had put any questions to my interlocutors about State terrorism. I think we must not, indeed, lose sight of that aspect in considering our approach, our European commitment and our values. It is true that we will have to be very vigilant here too; in other words, sometimes we must not forget that countries, organisations and bodies that form part of the coalition should also, to some extent, render account for some of their own practices, forms of behaviour and policies. I therefore agree that we must avoid any kind of naive optimism in this respect and not forget to continue to fight for and campaign for a democratic society wherever possible in the world. I therefore agree that we must strengthen the role of the International Criminal Court. As time goes by, we come to realise that it is absolutely crucial to have that vital tool at our disposal.
I was asked whether I am in favour of incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights into a constitution. You all know my views on this. Unfortunately, I do not think everybody is quite ready for it yet. Nevertheless, I believe that there are all sorts of arguments that can be put forward and that we must, therefore, pursue this debate. We will get there in the end.
Another important aspect on which I was questioned was the danger of curtailing freedoms. It is true that if we take a range of measures – Members have referred to the freezing of assets and various other measures – we must ensure that, however urgent, they are accompanied by a systematic evaluation process, preferably conducted soon after their adoption, whatever their nature. I think that it will, of course, be necessary for urgent measures to be re-evaluated fairly early on and fairly regularly. We must avoid a practice often seen in some countries – and I know this happens in Belgium – where temporary measures are still being applied 50 years later. So I support those who call for guarantees. In the event of urgent measures, we must indeed lay down a procedure of regular re-evaluation of those measures.
Apart from that, I basically agree with the ideas and concerns that have been expressed. Mr Dupuis spoke of the effectiveness of the secret services. I must admit that I know little about the secret services, since they are secret. I suppose that, from that point of view, they certainly are effective. I would simply appeal for more regular exchanges of information, deeper integration and closer coordination. I think others will agree with me on this point.
I also replied to Mr Dupuis on the question of the risk of encouraging State terrorism or, at any rate, concealing certain facts about certain countries. I also agree that we must not abandon our action; we must persevere and continue trying to persuade certain countries to move towards democracy. We must not conceal that aspect or pretend the problem no longer exists in certain Arab countries. We must nevertheless continue to bring it up. I, personally, am convinced that we must strengthen political dialogue wherever we can, a political dialogue without taboos. I think it is quite possible to impose that dialogue in our relations. It is a minimum condition and, during my visit to Iran, for example, we agreed to set up a European Union-Iran group, which would have human rights questions as the only item on its agenda. This was accepted. We definitely need to take more initiatives of this kind.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, I believe I have answered as fully as possible although I may well have omitted some aspects. Let me say, however, that, in general, I broadly share the concerns you expressed. I heard them clearly. In any case, I undertake to pass them on to the quarters concerned. I will do my utmost to transmit faithfully the information, ideas, criticisms and suggestions Parliament has offered me today.
Let me begin with some further information about the convention. Several Members raised this matter. I think it is important to say, since the question was asked, that the principle of holding a convention to prepare for the IGC has, I believe, been accepted. It has also, of course, been agreed that representatives of the governments, the Commission, the national parliaments and the European Parliament, that is, a quadripartite group, will take part. This participation could take the following form: government representatives – possibly numbering 15 – 16 MEPs, 30 members of national parliaments and one Commission representative. However, I am not going to start a debate about numbers at this point. What is important to remember is that the number of participants in this convention must be reduced somewhat. It must not be exponential. Of course, we could try to please everyone, but then we would end up with a convention that was not viable. I believe we have to remember that.
The Laeken European Council will, no doubt, or, at least, that seems the most likely road, appoint a president, assisted by a bureau made up of at least one member of each component of the convention and assisted by a secretariat. The convention's brief would not be to adopt a final text but, at this stage – I think that answers Mr Barón Crespo's question as to whether these are proposals or whether these are options – simply to decide whether we are in favour of options rather than proposals, leaving it, of course, to the bodies concerned to choose from among these options, since options are never more than variations on proposals.
I am not embracing any one point of view: I am simply describing things as they are. If it was just up to me, believe me we would go much further than proposals. We would be more radical. However, I simply have to adjust to toeing the presidency's line… So I am telling you what I believe I have to tell you for the sake of transparency. I can do no more.
The convention should become operational as soon as possible, during the Spanish Presidency, that is, during the first half of 2002. Let me also touch on two questions relating to this convention: it is important that you remember them but also that you can discuss them and make your views on the subject known.
First of all, it is important to gain the support of the candidate countries. We saw a fairly strong convergence of views in Genval on the need to involve the candidate countries in the convention. Although, in effect, we are moving towards giving them a status and right of say there, obviously we still have to define the precise procedures for their representation. Here, the presidency is putting forward three possible formulas: representation modelled from the outset on that of the Member States, namely one representative of each government and two members of each national parliament – that is conceivable; or one representative per country for the duration of the convention's activities; or, the third formula, progressive representation, consisting of a single representative until the accession treaty has been signed, then representation in line with that of the Member States after the signature. Representatives of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions could also be invited as observers. Those are the ideas now on the table.
The next question is how to involve civil society. On the whole, the idea of a civil forum was well received by the delegations. Nevertheless, some questions came up about the composition of this forum, that is, the selection of representatives of civil society – its organisational procedures and the nature of its links with the convention, which could, for example, take the form of hearings or a variety of other formulas.
In the presidency's view, this forum could take either of two forms. Either it could be like an enlarged assembly, in which case one would need to define its exact composition, role and modus operandi; or it could be a structured network, made up of organisations representing civil society, established at European level. The organisations making up that network would be kept officially informed of the activities of the convention and their written contributions would form part of the official documentation forwarded to members of the convention. They would be heard by the convention, in accordance with procedures to be defined, and, where appropriate, they could also be consulted by the convention on specific issues. If that option were adopted, it would probably be advisable to appoint a coordinator at political level, who could be chosen either by the Laeken European Council or by the convention itself.
That is the additional information I wanted to give you on the convention and you are, of course, welcome to come back to us with any ideas this might suggest to you or inspire in you, since that is the purpose of this kind of exchange of views. I am entirely open to any comments, ideas or suggestions on the subject."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples