Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-237"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.5.3-237"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I shall start by saying very clearly that I can agree 100% with the statement just made by Mr Haarder. That is a good clear description of the reality. It is also a reminder of what the Union needs to do and how it needs to do it.
I have listened very carefully to all the contributions. I shall repeat what I have said before in Parliament when discussing the problem of Chechnya. The division of responsibility in the Commission is quite meaningful. If we were not careful in defining the tasks and responsibilities of the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid, we would blur the whole issue, especially when it comes to ensuring that access to delivering humanitarian aid is respected.
That is why I am very careful to give a clearcut definition of my responsibilities as the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid. If I were to fall into the temptation of engaging in political discussion on this issue, I would reduce the legitimacy and efficiency of my efforts to protect the access of humanitarian workers in places like Chechnya. That is why I resist becoming involved in political manoeuvres or political projects, even if I might sympathise with them. It is for the Commissioner on external relations to do that, and it is important, especially in this case, for us to be careful in our use of the instruments and commissioners available. If, with my responsibilities, I fell into the temptation of politicising, we would reduce the weight of our efforts and our attempts to insist on having access. I have, on the other hand, publicly criticised the Russians on that issue, and do so quite frequently. I feed elements of this kind into every summit that we have with Russia.
Unfortunately there has been no progress. There are the well-known issues of work permits for humanitarian workers, the ability to use the UN VHF radio system which is important for the safety of people moving around there and the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in the camps. All these issues are raised over and over again, and I would repeat my call for Parliament to view the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid as keeping to a relatively narrowly-defined remit, which is what I do.
We have others who deal with the political side of the discussion. This is important not only as regards Chechnya, but also for many other places. You will see the same approach when we talk about accessing victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being a political animal myself, I will not engage in a more substantive political discussion on the nature of the conflict and these other issues, however tempting that might be.
Mr Paasilinna and a few others raised the question of the energy dialogue with Russia, and especially cooperation in the area of natural gas. It is quite difficult to rush into a conclusion in an area where negotiating realities also have to reflect who engages commercially and who does not. The issue of the gas pipeline negotiation is a long-term one. There is a risk of contradictions between establishing the very long-term basis of those kinds of deals and the liberalisation of the gas market inside the Union, to which we would give priority. Against that background it is not that simple to accommodate the desire shown by the other side to have a very long-term, stable kind of contract as a basis.
In any case, it would not be for us but for the companies and the market to establish such a contract, which is another reason why things are not that simple. Furthermore there are other interesting strategic issues concerning the geopolitics of Europe's energy supply in the years to come, including issues relating to natural gas, and it is no surprise that this is a complicated and demanding question. For tactical reasons I would urge some caution as to how Members of Parliament pursue this issue. It may be worthwhile and important to ensure that we have long-term cooperation and supplies from Russia, but it is also important not to jump into negotiations that ultimately meant our not getting as good a deal as everyone thought we should. I would therefore advocate caution.
Finally, as regards Mr Oostlander's clear question about whether Lithuania can join Schengen after this agreement on Kaliningrad, this has been one of the defining points in our approach to negotiations. This is why we find the solution in which there are no complications of that nature to be a good one.
I will end by commending the cooperation between the Council and the Commission on this issue. This is one of the areas in which we have been quite successful. It is also something which has been duly recognised by Lithuania and which has certainly demonstrated to the other candidate countries that we take their situation seriously."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples