Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.5.3-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that both the European Union's history and its contemporary outlook provide great proof of its capacity for peacemaking, in the form of the development and enlargement of the European Union itself. It is an area of stability, democracy and prosperity, which will be extended by the enlargement of the European Union. I consider this a crucial justification for a specifically European policy of making further progress in these areas.
We have to use it to build bridges to those parts of our continent that even now are not able or due to join the European Union, as well as with those who do not want to. Relations with Russia are, for example, made crucially important by the enlargement of the European Union; a positive interaction must come into being, and we must not set up new boundaries, but rather these boundaries must be turned into bridges. Commissioner Patten, what the Commission has now proposed in connection with Kaliningrad strikes me as a step in the right direction when it comes to finding a starting point that takes into account small countries' interests, their sensitivities and their claims to sovereignty, and also enables them to implement Schengen whilst at the same time accepting that Russia has a certain interest in the matter. I hope that these negotiations lead to a constructive result that incorporates both points of view. I know that the Danish Council Presidency has a particular interest in this issue.
The European Union is also on the right track in other areas, for example in the Barcelona process. We are proud that we are able to say that we spend three times as much of our budget on preventive action in the area of external policy than does the United States of America. We should also have something to say about the positive elements. But – and this is the big ‘but’ – Europe still lacks a voice when it comes to the real issues of war and peace. The significance of what has happened over recent weeks in connection with Iraq, whether it be the uncritical tagging along behind Washington, whether it be an uncritical rejection of its demands for electoral reasons, is that there is no common European position. Yet it is only together that we can exert the pressure that is needed to keep the dictator's hands away from weapons of mass destruction, and, on the other hand, to be able to enforce a process of consultation with the United States of America, one that will give consideration not only to the risks of a military intervention but also to all the options for a peaceful solution to the problem of how to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has in his possession, and does so in tandem with the United Nations.
In neither of these directions have we demonstrated our capacity to give our citizens security, and we have known since 11 September that security is no longer clearly bounded by certain frontiers, but that it is also possible for a mere handful of terrorists to be operating with dangerous weapons in the midst of our own countries and to be capable of killing people in their thousands.
This has to do with the fact that most people in our Member States have not yet grasped that the small size and weakness of our Member States means that national interests can only be safeguarded if we pool our capacities. What is needed is for us to really grasp that and also get it through to our citizens – or rather, it is the citizens that will get it across to the governments, as 70% of the public in the European Union favour a European Security and Defence Policy! Only in the foreign ministries of our countries is that not yet understood!
It also ties in with military capabilities. That the 60 000-strong rapid reaction force will be set up on paper by next year, is something of which I am certain, but will it be at all effective, being blind and lame for lack of any logistics capability or satellite facilities? Is it truly operational and capable of making a contribution to a secure peace? Are we in a position to devise an arms policy that will make us independent and give us the technological capabilities that are also of great importance for competitiveness in non-military spheres? Mr Titley's report will go into this in greater depth. Have we sorted out the problems we had with Operation Amber Fox and Macedonia? Do we have rules to prevent the European Union and Turkey from being at loggerheads? All this shows that national posturing and egoism have prevented us from making really decisive progress in matters of war and peace.
I do believe that much of the good that was said in the aftermath of 11 September is now forgotten and was locked away in governments' desk drawers not long after it saw the light of day. Let us take, for example, the issue of external and internal security. Let us just retrieve the great speeches our Heads of State or Government delivered after 11 September, and let us see how much was put into practice. If we do, we will see this for the low point that it is. I believe that our projects will only succeed insofar as we fashion a vessel in which a common European will can develop in the area of foreign, security and defence policy. That is what makes the Convention so very important. We have to bring about a reform of the institutions, one in which Europe speaks with one voice, with a voice, moreover, that is subject to Parliamentary control, and whose Budget is subject to Parliamentary control, in other words, with a voice originating from the Commission, although any such external affairs commissioner should of course be legitimised by having a special link with the Council.
The creation of dual structures, which is currently being talked up so much, has, however, nothing to do with the people involved at the top, who do outstanding work. It costs money, and 80% of its energy is expended on infighting instead of being used to develop European positions in external affairs. That is only human nature, but I do think it is something we should overcome. We are shortly to have twenty-five Member States, and then that really will not work any more! What this shows is that, when it comes to these issues, the European Union must at last come to realise where its interests lie. I believe that the public have moved on from what we are doing politically, and so we in this Parliament should pursue this campaign rigorously. It is the governments of the Member States that are enfeebling Europe, while we should be restoring her strength!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples