Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011004.7.4-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The EU has strengthened its ties with the region since the entry into force of the partnership and cooperation agreements with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in 1999.
Since the EU Ministerial Troika's visit to the Southern Caucasus last February the EU has been looking for further ways to support efforts to prevent or resolve conflicts, as well as contributing to rehabilitation. A Political Directors Troika visit followed in September. The EU is also stepping up its dialogue with the relevant interlocutors, including Russia, Turkey and Iran.
It is true that what could be called "frozen conflicts" are a serious impediment to the development of the region. The EU is keen to see further and rapid progress made by the OSCE Minsk Group for Nagorno-Karabakh, the OSCE Joint Control Commission for South Ossetia and the UN Group of Friends of the Secretary-General for Abkhazia. The Commission has participated in the Joint Control Commission for South Ossetia since April 2001 and provides funds for rehabilitation projects.
External actors such as Russia, Iran and Turkey play a key role in the region. Any effort to stabilise the Caucasus will have to take their interests into account. In particular, the role of Russia is paramount. The EU has raised the issue of developments in the Caucasus in its political dialogue with Russia, supporting all efforts to defuse tensions and resolve conflicts.
In particular, we have encouraged Turkey to explore any opportunity for normalising its relations with Armenia.
Mr Dupuis mentioned the issue of our delegations. I agree that this is a problem but, unfortunately, not one which the Commission can do anything about. We are a victim of the decisions made in this House on this matter. It was not the Commission that wanted to limit the number of our delegations to 120. Our view is that it is normal for the EU to have delegations everywhere. We are told to open a delegation in one place or another, and at the same time we are asked to stick to that limit. This is an impossible job. Please make up your minds and help the Commission to expand the coverage of delegations. That is my response to the comment made by Mr Dupuis.
Concerning the impact of the work of the support group, we had our last meeting in Russia on 2 August. I am sorry to inform you that no progress was made there, and so the outlook is not very encouraging.
Turning to Mr Posselt's comment on the risk to this region of negative fallout from the events of 11 September and thereafter, this is something we will include in the analysis. We will try to release more money for ECHO this year from the emergency reserve. We are including this region because we fear and predict that humanitarian aid requirements will increase as a foreseeable, indirect consequence of the said events."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples