Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I too should like to thank everyone for their comments, views and positions, which send out a number of important messages, not just to the Council but to the general public and international players. As the President said, this is a very interesting debate and I should like to try and respond to 3 or 4 basic questions which all of you have raised in one way or another.
That brings me to the question of Europe’s presence. I think that the crisis in Iraq has highlighted important questions about what happens the day after the crisis, whenever that may be. First, in the Convention on the future of Europe, questions such as stepping up the debate about defence and our foreign policy and even, I think, the power of the European institutions, the authority of the European institutions and the democratic credentials of the European institutions, so that they can stand united and with an authority that truly represents the citizens of Europe.
Secondly, the question of our basic decision to develop our defence capabilities, the technological and industrial resources at our disposal and, more importantly, the question of Europe’s credibility, so that it can submit its own proposals for dealing with major issues, such as the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the issue of terrorism and so on. We have demonstrated our skills over recent years in foreign policy, witness the Balkans. We have a unified, cohesive, substantive policy which has an influence in the area. I think that we should take this as an example when deciding what to do next.
Finally, as far as a European voice is concerned, I have a couple of comments to make about enlargement. It is vital for enlargement to proceed and not to be affected by the present climate and for us to learn from the lessons this experience has taught us. First of all, we are a community of values which respects differences of opinion – and there are differences – and we want the new countries joining us to join a democratic society. That is, if you like, the meaning of enlargement. It means integrating them into a democratic society of values; at the same time, the message to them is that democracy also means being able to combine these views into a common strategy on numerous issues.
My third point, and this was a question raised by a number of members, concerns the crisis in the United States. I agree with the numerous speakers who say that ‘anti-Americanism’ versus ‘pro-American policy’ is a false dilemma. It would be a big mistake to get tied up in conventions and stereotypes: new Europe versus old Europe, America as the baddies, Europe as the goodies or Europe as the baddies, weak Europe versus strong America. This would only obscure the real dialogue and the real debate needed.
It is high time we held a detailed debate about practicalities here on earth, about the real problems, as Mr Patten and Mr Pasqua and numerous other speakers said. What are the threats today? How are we going to deal with these issues? How are we going to deal with terrorism? We understand the scar left by September 11. But at the same time, as Mr Patten said, what is the reason for terrorism in Palestine? Is a strategic, policing approach the only way to wipe out terrorism? Or do we in fact need to win the hearts and minds of the people in the regions in which violence and conflict often foster terrorism?
This is where Europe has an important part to play. As Mr Patten said, we invest in humanitarian aid and development aid and we open our markets to regions throughout the world in order to boost their economies. We deal with problems such as poverty, the environment, equality, ethnic crises and fundamentalism. These are the issues we should be discussing with the United States, so that we can work out a new policy for dealing with these problems in a new era. And this is not a weak Europe talking. It is a Europe of values and experience.
I should like to say here that you, the European Parliament, have a very important part to play. It is not enough for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the presidency or Mr Solana or Mr Patten to meet Colin Powell or whoever happens to be the US Secretary of State at the time. We need to actively involve American society and talk to it and the European Parliament can play a very important role in this dialogue with American society, especially with the American Congress. I have spoken with the President of Parliament about his initiatives and I think he is in full agreement with this prospect.
Fourthly, I should like to say something about the Arab world. Many of you emphasised that this crisis must not be a clash of cultures or religions and highlighted a real fear that such might be the outcome of this crisis. I can tell you from my own experience and from my discussions with the Arab world that the action, role and voice of Europe have helped not only to prevent this but to strengthen our cooperation with the Arab world. Our partnership with them is very important. We share a common fate in our region when it comes to security in the region and numerous other issues, such as the economy and political cooperation and, as we have announced repeatedly, we are committed to resolving the Middle East conflict. We want to put relations between Israel and the European Union on a new footing, we too want to help bring about security in the region, but we feel that there will be a more basic, if you like permanent, guarantee of the security of Israel if the Middle East question is resolved, if a credible, organised, democratic Palestinian state is created and, of course, if the entire region then works with Israel, in accordance with the Arab League initiatives, recognising it and helping to guarantee its security.
So I think our position is very important and the Arabs certainly approve of it. However, as Mr Brok said, cultural dialogue is the top priority. The Arab League asked us to set up a cultural dialogue, we accepted this proposal, it is already under way and I personally mentioned to the Arab summit that we need to discuss issues such as terrorism, security, human rights, the involvement of civil society and democracy, the role of women in society and the UNDP report, which is highly instructive on the reforms needed in the Arab world.
First of all, is there any possibility of resolving the crisis diplomatically in the short time left. It seems to me that all of you, like the Council of the European Union and the unanimous Security Council, take the same position on disarming Iraq and the need for immediate and unrestricted cooperation with the Security Council on the part of Saddam Hussein. I think it is important – after all we are a democratic society; here we are in the European Parliament and we live in a democratic European Union – not to interpret our differences as sending out the wrong message to Saddam Hussein, a message that we are divided on the final objective. The final objective is quite specific and we are all agreed on it.
Mr Cohn-Bendit spoke about democracy in the Arab world. We do not disagree; I agree entirely and have emphasised the fact that democracy, the notion of democracy cannot be imposed. The word itself tells us that it originates in the public, the people, the citizenry, that it comes from the bottom up. We therefore have to cultivate democratic institutions. And here again the European Union has a very important part to play in the Arab world, in a dialogue to assist these very reforms, with respect for the Arab world and with respect for its understandable sensitivities. We have already decided to start the cultural dialogue at the political level, as well as with religious leaders and other intellectuals, to start a Euro-Arab dialogue and to start a debate on the role of women within the context of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. I should like to thank Mrs Diamantopoulou, who will make a special contribution to the forthcoming debate on the role of women with her report on the role of women to the meeting of Euro-Mediterranean partners.
Finally, here too Parliament has a very important role to play, especially the European Parliament, where we want to formalise the meeting of parliamentarians within the context of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. Before I finish, I should like to comment briefly on a matter which was raised. Turkey. Both Mr Watson and Mr Cohn-Bendit asked whether Cyprus and democratic developments in Turkey will be the first victims. There may indeed be a great deal of fallout from the crisis and we shall have to deal with it, regardless of whether or not there is a war. We are deeply concerned about Turkey, it is a candidate country and, as the European Union, we have a special responsibility for it because it is a candidate country, we have a responsibility because in 2004 we have an important decision to take about Turkey’s progress towards Europe, a decision about its progress towards integration which, as I said earlier, means integration into a community of values. And it would, of course, be a double whammy if this very progress towards change and reform in Turkey were to fall foul of the crisis. I think that the Turkish parliament really is acquiring democratic momentum which we must respect and build on. Here again the European Parliament has an important role to play.
I think we all need to keep up our efforts to bring about democratic change in Turkey. We also need to understand why Turkey has a number of serious fears about Iraq, especially the integrity of Iraq. If Iraq’s integrity cannot be safeguarded, the Kurdish question will blow up in our faces. The European Union is committed to protecting the democratic and minority rights of the Kurds. Iraq may perhaps become a federation at a later date. However, the European Union is against any thought of changing the borders and threatening the territorial integrity of Iraq. I think this is an important message that needs to be underlined.
This crisis is also causing Turkey serious economic problems, which will be even worse if there is a war and we in the European Union must understand that. At the same time, Turkey’s progress towards the European Union calls for a solution to the Cyprus question. On behalf of the presidency, I should like to express our appreciation of all Kofi Annan’s efforts to resolve this problem. However, these efforts are not finished. This chapter has not closed and, of course, the Cyprus question will not be sacrificed to Iraq. I think there is still a great deal of momentum and there will be increasing momentum as Cyprus integrates into the European Union. We want the Turkish Cypriots with us. We want them here in this Chamber. We want them in the Council, we want them in the European institutions.
That means, however, the Cyprus question needs to be resolved. We want to see the Turkish Cypriot community with us. That means we also want Turkey’s help to ensure that the Turkish Cypriots do not remain excluded from this big family, this community of values.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have spoken for longer than the Rules of Procedure allow. My thanks to you and the President for your forbearance but, as I am sure you understand, this is a very important debate. I just want to finish with a couple of comments. We are indeed in the middle of a crisis but, as the Chinese say, a crisis is both a threat and an opportunity. The main opportunity here is to reform our own institutions and operations so that we have a more important voice on the international stage, a united voice. In turn, unity must be based on the democratic credentials of any new institutions we set up and on our addressing the democratic deficit, because our citizens want this common voice and have already said as much by taking to the streets of the European Union.
Secondly, it is an opportunity to restate our relations with the Arab world, as I said, through cultural dialogue. It is an opportunity for new relations with the United States, articulated around the issues of security, democracy and multilateral diplomacy. As Mrs Berès and several other members said about the UN, it is an opportunity to empower this organisation, because the interdependency of developments on the international stage, technological, economic, political and environmental developments, which give rise to interdependent interests, raises the problem of global intergovernmentalism. And the question of global intergovernmentalism raises the basic issue of what principles this global intergovernmentalism is to be based on, so that we live in a world which will have many problems, but which will resolve its problems peacefully, in a spirit of justice and respect for human beings and our environment.
Europe is a prototype for multilateral cooperation, the like of which the world has never seen. This teaching power is a decisive factor. And what we teach is the strength of law, not the law of the strong. This moral authority must be safeguarded if we want to live in a world of security and freedom.
The second point is that the summit Council basically instructed the Greek Presidency to take initiatives. First of all we have to exhaust and make every effort to exhaust diplomatic channels to resolve the Iraqi crisis. We have, of course, emphasised that Saddam Hussein himself is responsible for any consequences. However, and this is a personal opinion based on my own experience, after monitoring the Security Council and the General Affairs Council very closely over recent weeks, I believe, as Kofi Annan said, that we too bear a considerable responsibility. Our responsibility is to remain united, so that we can formulate a common position and speak with one voice here; our responsibility is to empower the UN with the authority and the resources at our disposal. That is what will make us more efficient, especially when it comes to resolving the problem peacefully.
Ladies and gentlemen, the presidency will make every effort to respond to the demands of the citizens of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Member States. At the same time, whatever the outcome of the crisis, I should like to call on you to work with us and use this opportunity to ensure that a stronger Europe emerges from this crisis and the voice of our values is heard loud and clear on the international stage, calling for greater democracy and security on our continent.
The European Union did not discount the possibility of using military force at the summit Council but, as Mr Anderson and Mr Cushnahan and many other members pointed out, this should be the last resort. We know what the consequences of war are; they are manifold and unpleasant and the Council has naturally insisted that every initiative should be exhausted. That is why we took the initiative of ongoing cooperation, conferences and meetings with the Arab world, that is why the Arab League will be making representations to Saddam Hussein over the next few days, in order to send out an important, clear message. However, the question posed by Mr Watson and, even more insistently by Mr Cohn-Bendit is, I think, a reasonable question. Mr Cohn-Bendit asked why the United States or the international community could not say that we have succeeded. Indeed, we did succeed in putting inspectors into Iraq, in getting inspections under way and in making progress with disarmament; but certain Member States of the European Union take a different view. And this is one of the problems we face. Whether the glass is half full or half empty. And when the Arabs ask for clarification as to what message they should send Baghdad, the current discussion in the Security Council about so-called benchmarks is extremely important. Are there specific targets which would allow us to assess whether Saddam Hussein has taken the strategic decision to disarm at the insistence of the Americans and the British? And if there are, how long should this assessment take? As Mr Titley pointed out, there comes a point at which enough is enough. The summit Council has already agreed that there has to be a cut-off point. Even in the Security Council, the two sides to the debate have already agreed that there has to be a cut-off point, but of course they differ as to where that cut-off point is. However, that proves that there is room for the two sides to meet half way, if they can agree on the cut-off point and the benchmarks for assessing Saddam Hussein’s credibility.
So I believe that we should not see war as a foregone conclusion. I would again point out that the European Council’s position is that war is not inevitable and I would emphasise again today that, until the first bomb is dropped, war is not inevitable. We need to continue in our diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully.
I also believe that a diplomatic solution is not only feasible, but that, even if we cannot find a diplomatic solution, we still do not need to take unilateral action, as Mr Barón Crespo quite rightly said, and I think the European Union has an important role to play here.
That brings me to the second point I wished to make about a European voice, about a European presence, to quote Mr Poettering, about European unity.
Of course, as Mr Alavanos quite rightly pointed out, the presidency can only act within the framework of the decisions, the unanimous decisions taken by the Council. However, we do have a common position. We have common conclusions although we differ in our practical approach. What happens next? In my view, and again it is a personal view based on my own experience over recent weeks, there is the will for rapprochement and unity within the Council and we should build on this momentum over the next few days in order to see if we can find a common stand, including on specific action. Of course, the final decision as to what we are going to do about Iraq does not rest with the European Union. It rests with the Security Council.
I should also like to comment on something Chris Patten quite rightly said about the unity of the European Union. My feeling is that often the larger Member States do not realise that in these times, in the present era of globalisation, even they do not have the weight needed to make a difference on the international political stage on their own. We can play a part on the political stage if we work hard – large, small and medium-sized countries together, with a strong, united, European voice."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples