Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.4.3-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too am utterly at a loss to understand the murder of Mr Djindjić, the prime minister of Serbia. Only a few months ago, I was able to have a long conversation with him in his official residence in Belgrade. Despite all the criticisms that could be levelled at him – as they can at any statesman – he was a symbol of economic progress, political reform and also of cooperation with the tribunal in The Hague. He took significant steps to bring Serbia closer to Western fundamental values, not only in terms of its political system, but also of its society. Whatever it is in Serbia and Montenegro that lies behind this assassination, this demonstrates how precarious the situation there is.
In Macedonia, too, the position remains unstable, as, indeed, we saw at the time of its elections, even though the new coalition, with its collaboration between the Albanian and Macedonian Slav forces – it is always difficult to find a way to express that – has so far proved to be thoroughly durable. Even former combatants – whose inclusion I had strongly criticised – are, at least for the time being, very convincing in their declarations of willingness to work together, at least in theory, and to play a part in parliamentary life.
There is also a precarious situation in the surrounding areas, as the killings in the Presevo valley remind us. Peace has not yet been established. The assassination of Mr Djindjić has yet again made that abundantly clear to us.
I also very much endorse the progressive Europeanisation – yes, let us call it that – of current security policy and of the military intervention in the Balkans. Whilst there are a number of things of which we are right to accuse America – some other charges laid against them may be misguided, but many are justified – we must ourselves take on responsibilities in our own backyard. That is why I regard this course of action as absolutely right and crucial, trivial though it may at present appear to be. It is also advantageous that this is being done in a country in which there is no crisis at present, one where there may be sporadic conflicts, but where it is also possible to make a good job of the task in hand.
I would like to follow on from what Mr von Wogau said by again emphasising that those in command locally must have sufficient flexibility for their operations, as this is not just about a military unit coming into the situation, but about that unit supporting the population and helping them to coexist with one another and resolve disputes peacefully, without their degenerating into conflict and certainly not by resorting to force of arms.
For my final point, there is something of which I feel I must remind you: foreign policy also presupposes that we possess good and effective instruments with the appropriate capacity. Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, you are aware of that. Let me just list the ways in which the European Union is currently represented in Macedonia, which is a small country: it is represented by the Presidency, by a representative of the Commission, by a High Representative, by the Agency for Reconstruction, and now also by a military unit. If these all work well together, then that is a good thing, but I really do ask that you should consider how we might tighten up our instruments somewhat in order, instead of giving a small country the impression that we do not ourselves know where we are going, to be able to get our foreign policy accepted by using one shared European language and shared European resources."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples