Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-15-Speech-3-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030115.10.3-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by welcoming the Greek Presidency, which is embarking on its duties here and also the election of a European Ombudsman, who is also Greek. This is all happening at a time when plenary is being led by a colleague of same nationality, which is making this sitting a veritable Greek political Olympiad, which I am delighted to share in.
Mr President, the European Parliament today has the task of delivering its opinion on the conclusion of the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States on the one hand and the Republic of Lebanon on the other. This agreement clearly forms part of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership launched by the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, whose progress we have a duty to promote, despite the uncertainties in the political situation in that region with regard to peace and security. One of the most noteworthy aspects of the process opened in Barcelona is that it enables complementarity to be established between the dimension of bilateral cooperation involving the Member States with Mediterranean connections, including Spain, France, Italy and Portugal – although Portugal borders the Atlantic, it has significant economic and geographical links with the Mediterranean countries of the Maghreb – and the multilateral dimension taken on by the European Community, which can and must mutually strengthen one another.
There is no doubt, Mr President, that, to a large extent, the stability of the Mediterranean region, and in particular of the Middle East, depends on appropriate partnerships for economic, political, social and cultural development, for which the Union is particularly suited. Other types of problem remain, however, which are today entirely undeniable, especially concerning security and the fight against terrorism, but also concerning the fight against corruption and money-laundering as well as promoting democracy and human rights which, in the particular case of Lebanon, are a cause for concern. This is why we believe the questions raised by Mr Brok, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, to be of the greatest relevance and to require tangible and consistent answers from both the Council and the Commission.
We cannot ignore the fact that the political leanings of the Lebanese authorities are still dominated by Syria and that Damascus has a decisive influence over the position of the Lebanese Government in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, despite the Israeli army’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in May 2000. Unlike Lebanon, whose government has fortunately been moving towards democracy and the separation of powers, despite its obvious institutional weaknesses and intricate political and religious imbalances, Syria is a dictatorship, with a singularly Monarchist bias, which has remained technically at war with Israel since the Six-Day War, with all the dangers that this situation entails for the Middle East peace process. Even worse, it maintains a significant military force in Lebanon, of around 30 000 men, in addition to the 300 000 immigrants there, who work mainly in farming and construction.
If we add to this presence – or perhaps we should call it an ‘occupation’ several more Palestinian refugees, who are by and large poor and poorly integrated into Lebanese society, constituting around 3.5 million people, and the presence in the country’s parliament of Hezbullah, the extremist movement – since it cannot be called anything else – it is easy to understand Lebanon’s delicate situation, to which the Union must be attentive and in which it must play a moderating role in order to achieve peace, security and development. This Euro-Mediterranean partnership is all the more important at a time when the Union is enlarging into Central and Eastern Europe and will be focusing the lion’s share of its financial resources there.
We must not forget that Europe is or should be polycentric: it is Nordic, Mediterranean, and Atlantic; it is also ultraperipheral and certainly continental. It is, however, by balancing its components and respect for its diversity that it will become a Europe that is more democratic, safer, more developed and definitely more respected on the international scene."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples