Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-20-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030320.2.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, as you said earlier, last week the Parliament debated the crisis in Iraq for almost four and a half hours. It was a very good and responsible debate. One week on, from the Commission's point of view, I am frankly not sure what I can usefully add to what I said last week, but that sort of consideration has very rarely encouraged politicians to keep quiet.
It is equally the case that most of the things that America wants are more likely to be achieved if America can work with the European Union.
And finally, it is unarguably the case that the world is better served in terms of prosperity, security and stability when America and the European Union work together.
So the future of transatlantic relations is a matter of real concern to all of us and it was of course entirely appropriate that the Foreign Minister referred so eloquently to that issue during his remarks.
The Greek Presidency made heroic efforts to maintain a common position. The European Council’s declaration of 17 February was, in my view, extremely well judged. Member States agree about the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; they agree on the need for full and effective disarmament of Iraq; they agree that the United Nations must remain at the centre of the international order; they agree, indeed, that force should only be used as a last resort. However, they disagreed – all too publicly – about when that point had been reached.
How can we now pull things together again? How can we emerge not just healed but strengthened from the trials of the last few weeks?
We should remind ourselves how closely and effectively we are cooperating - not just within the European Union but across the Atlantic - on a host of international issues. We should redouble our efforts.
In the Balkans, for example, we are working flat out for economic and political stabilisation. I was in Serbia last week and I witnessed the determination of men and women there to ensure that that the fragile stability that prevails should not be set back by the despicable murder of Zoran Djindjic. I hope that at the European Council later today and tomorrow, heads of government will renew their pledge to maintain the momentum of development and of association between these countries and the European Union.
We must also maintain unrelenting concentration on Afghanistan, on which we had a donors' meeting here in Brussels at the beginning of the week: a recognition of how prominent a part we are playing under UN auspices in the reconstruction in that country, which still faces appalling problems. After the fighting of 2001, the European Union pledged that it was there for the long haul, to help deliver stability and sound government. This House helped to ensure that we put resources behind that pledge. We must remain true to it.
I repeat what I said to this House last week, that we must also maintain the momentum of our own enlargement. The decision to bring in ten new Member States is not some whim, which might be called into question by unrelated events. It is a strategic choice for our continent. And it is a choice of historic proportions. We must press forward undaunted, just as we must press forward with the work we announced in our paper last week on Wider Europe. That communication set out a vision about how our neighbours, not just to the east but to the south, too, can expect to share in our prosperity and stability if they are ready to align themselves on our values and on our legislation. Our proposals for ‘Wider Europe’ mean the creation of a common economic and social space where all countries enjoy full membership of the internal market and, potentially, share in the four freedoms.
We must press forward, too, with the Middle East peace process. It is encouraging that the President of the United States is now ready to proceed with the road map towards a two-State solution that was prepared, I have to say, several months ago within the international quartet. But we must ensure that this means the urgent implementation of these ideas, not a long discussion with the parties about their validity. Such discussions have proved to be endlessly frustrating in the past, as the parties have sought to impose incompatible conditions upon their cooperation. We really cannot allow this peace process, once again, to be subject to conditional sequencing so that in practice there is no peace but more bloodshed.
More immediately, the whole European Union must strive to build on what we share in our approach to the conflict now beginning in Iraq. The Commission has been working hard behind the scenes, in cooperation with international agencies, to contribute to the humanitarian assistance that may be needed. I have discussed these issues myself in Jordan, Turkey and Iran in recent weeks.
ECHO, the Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office, has reinforced its presence in the region. There are now five permanent expatriate technical assistants in the Amman Regional office covering Iraq and the whole of the Middle East, an additional expert based in Jerusalem and a seventh one on standby in Amman. ECHO has also kept regular contact with the main humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Since January this year, ECHO has carried out three missions to Iraq itself to assess the situation and prepare for possible operations. It has also conducted several missions to neighbouring countries.
Besides the EUR 15 million that had been earmarked for humanitarian operations in Iraq in 2003, the Commission has, of course, delegated authority to approve fast track aid for a further EUR 3 million in less than 72 hours. If there were a crisis in a neighbouring country, it would be possible to agree another EUR 3 million for that purpose, too. Depending on the scale of the needs, we may need to apply for additional funds for humanitarian purposes from the emergency reserve.
On the basis of previous experience – ECHO has been providing humanitarian aid to Iraq since 1992 – we expect that the Commission’s contribution is likely to be focused on health, on water and on sanitation. Some international organisations and NGOs are also predicting food shortages, with disruption of the Oil for Food programme. That is something we may need to look at in due course, if the problem emerges.
In all this effort, ECHO will work closely with UN agencies, and will participate in on-the-spot information exchanges. I should like to add one point here. Nobody in this House, I am sure, under-estimates the courage and commitment of our humanitarian aid teams in the field. I think all of us have good reason to be proud of them, proud of the work they have already done in that region and proud of the work which, alas, they have to do in all too many parts of the world.
Or even university chancellors!
We must also do all that we can to help Turkey cope with the political pressures generated by recent events, and to help Iraq’s other neighbours, too – from Jordan and Syria to Iran. As I said earlier, during my recent trips to the region I had a chance to gain a better understanding of the impact that war on Iraq could have on these countries. The Commission will continue monitoring and assessing the situation closely and would look, with the Council, at possible EU responses.
In the present circumstances, I am bound to say that I am extremely pleased that we have taken the initiative to develop our relationship with Iran, not in an ill-informed way, not overlooking the disagreements we have with that country. I think trying to develop our relationship with Iran makes considerable sense.
In an article earlier this week a respected newspaper columnist reminded us that after the plagues and misfortunes had streamed from Pandora’s box, Hope remained behind to assuage the afflicted. So perhaps we should hold onto hope that the war will be over quickly, and with minimum casualties – a point felt especially strongly, whatever your views on the conflict, by all those with fellow countrymen and women engaged in the fight.
We should hope as well that it will be possible to deliver humanitarian aid quickly and effectively, under international auspices, where it is most needed. We should hope that the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq can begin soon, again under international auspices. A point I made explicitly last week – perhaps the House will excuse me for repeating it – was that if post-war Iraq is managed under a UN mandate like East Timor, Kosovo and Afghanistan, I hope that it will be recognised in those circumstances and that part of the credit for that should go to those who have insisted on it from the outset.
We should hope, then, that reconstruction under international auspices can begin, guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity and providing for Iraqi ownership of the process. We should also hope that those who believe that the real choice in the Arab world lies between pro-western despotism and anti-western democracy are wrong; hope that the regional repercussions will be benign – or, if they are damaging, that they will be contained; hope that the current crisis will serve to galvanise the Middle East peace process after a desperately bleak period in which things have drifted backwards; hope that those who believe that this war will strike a blow against international terrorism - rather than stoking the flames of it - are right; and hope, finally, that those many institutions and relationships which have been tested in the fire in recent weeks, including the European Union and the common foreign and security policy, will emerge strengthened by a renewed recognition of how badly we need the apparatus of international governance.
I should like to leave the House with this last thought: the challenge that we face today, the challenge that we will face in the coming weeks and months, goes far beyond what Winston Churchill once called 'the thankless deserts of Mesopotamia'. We face a very clear choice in the coming months. Are we to go back to the way the world was run, or not run, in the nineteenth century - a world of rival national sovereignties and balances of power? Or do we try to rebuild the institutions and habits of global governance which have been so painfully constructed in the last half-century? That is the clear choice which is going to face us. I know which side of the argument I come down on.
. – But at least I will spare the President this speech in Latin!
I can offer briefly one or two additional thoughts which I hope will provide some context for the rest of this debate and which, I am sure, Mr President, you were entirely right to call with the agreement of the presidents of the groups.
This debate takes place against an extremely sombre background. Whatever the outcome of the war that has started in Iraq – and we must all pray that the military phase will be as short and as bloodless as possible – there can be no denying that this has been a very bad passage for the common foreign and security policy; a very bad passage for the European Union as a whole; a very bad passage for the authority of the UN, for NATO and for transatlantic relations.
I just pause to make one point about transatlantic relations. Most of the things that we want to achieve as Europeans, we are more likely to be able to achieve if we are able to work with the United States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples