Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-225"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.5.3-225"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are becoming increasingly aware – and we are also acting accordingly – that fundamental changes have taken place in Russia. Fortunately we can now talk of constructive cooperation. We mention the northern dimension in this regard and all kinds of things that are in our mutual interest. We hear a great deal about this from our Finnish fellow MEPs in particular. Rightly so. There is also talk of the pursuit of a common European economic area. I think that this is a good thing, because with the enlargement of the European Union with so many Central European countries on the horizon, we must also look at what is happening on our borders. Do we have a clear policy with regard to adjoining areas, in particular Russia, the Ukraine and Moldova? We are going to have to devote some attention to this, so that we can continue to talk of regular cooperation.
The problems of Russia are mostly very clear to us. We have done our utmost to help bring the Kaliningrad problem to a successful conclusion. The Lithuanian Government in particular was of course very interested in this. I am therefore very pleased that President-in-Office, Mr Haarder – we did not expect anything else – in particular underlines the sovereignty of Lithuania. Yet I would also really like to know how things are going with the development of the solution of the Kaliningrad problem? If I have read the situation correctly, it is all tied up with an enormous number of technical issues. At a certain point Schengen comes into play and really we have to know at any point whether or not the arrangements with Russia are a hindrance for Lithuania. I think that we must make this a priority. Russia is large enough, it can look after itself. You have to stand up for a small country, especially if it has a history with Russia that is as tragic as that of Lithuania. I should like to see a situation in which, ultimately and in all fairness, the guidelines that continue to apply permanently give priority to Lithuania's sovereignty and interests.
I should also like to raise the problem of borders. The borders with Russia and for example Latvia. On this point ratification continues to be a long time coming. The reason why is unclear and at delegation meetings in Moscow we are told that it has no priority. This too is, in my view, another example of a big-country strategy: ‘the small fry will just have to wait’. I think that we as a European Community are well past this kind of thinking and that we must make clear to Russia that this authoritarian approach, even to the outside world, – internally it is already far too prevalent – comes across to us as very distasteful. If we help Russia with all kinds of problems, then Russia itself must be constructive too and say: okay, we are going to solve a problem with this candidate country immediately, we will ratify. In fact nothing else needs to happen.
I should now like to turn to the problem with Chechnya. It is very clear that even in Russian politics they are at a complete loss as to what to do. It has indeed changed to being first and foremost a war on terrorism, but the damage for the civilian population is so disproportionate that we cannot take it lying down. I think that it is very important for military people, possibly those from NATO and Russia, to talk about it – to ask why are you doing that, is there not another way – and in particular to keep hammering away with the message that a political solution will in the end be the only one that can finally bring peace."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples