Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-179"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-179"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, various people have already complained about the Council’s reduction of the money for Afghanistan. I think that this is primarily also an example of the short-term vision of many governments, who seem to be engaged in ‘crisis hopping’. From Kosovo to Serbia – the money transferred along too – and from Afghanistan to Iraq. The Member States will therefore not keep the promises they made at the donor conference for Afghanistan, despite the fact that it is increasingly turning out that these promises were on the low side anyway. I assume that common sense will prevail in this House and that we will fix a higher amount than the Council has in mind.
I would like to ask the Commissioner another question, this time concerning a different amendment from the one on Afghanistan, namely an amendment from the PPE. They suggest putting an amount aside until they stop growing poppies and start growing legal agricultural products. Is it not true, however, that the aid provided by the EU hardly reaches the remote areas where these poppies are grown? How do you intend solving this problem? I also note that the committees and groups have submitted amendments for external policy which amount to EUR 841 million more than the Commission’s proposals. I would like the Commissioner to tell me how she can explain this discrepancy. Is it true that we simply agree massive amounts, or do you in fact adhere rigidly to the ceiling of the financial forecasts after all, conflicting with the EU’s priorities in the process, because there are many more needs in the area of external policy than you suggest?
My last question – very brief – is about North Korea. The money for the KEDO project has been frozen and we are doing absolutely nothing else about energy provision there. Is it possible to use the money or part of the money which was previously intended for nuclear energy provision to subsidise alternative energy sources in North Korea?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples