Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.5.3-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I listened to Mr Brok's comments just now with great interest and very much appreciate what he said. Let me start with this point: Mr
Brok is quite right in saying that a new situation has recently emerged with regard to the Iraq crisis, which has had such an enormous and unprecedented impact on our common foreign policy that some observers believe it casts doubt on the very survival of the CFSP. Against this backdrop, I wish to say that I totally disagree with the notion that Iraq has destroyed our Common Foreign and Security Policy. Quite the opposite, in fact: the ill ease felt by Member States about the divisions created by the Iraq crisis and the commitment that we have made to overcoming the existing deadlock have demonstrated, if anything, the extent to which all of us in Europe are firmly committed to a common foreign policy.
This is the successful model on which we have built the European Union, and it is for this reason that we are convinced it is a model worth recommending to our external partners. In particular, I would like to mention the Western Balkans, a sensitive region that deserves special attention. We are endeavouring to step up our cooperation activities in respect of that region, and also in respect of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, and, let me remind you, in respect of the Latin American subcontinent. On the same subject, I would like to point out that the benefit of establishing treaty relations with the European Union is, in fact, one of the main incentives for regional groupings. Our security policy therefore dovetails with our policy on development aid in terms of goals, but we should certainly not imagine that it can be a substitute for development aid policy or be allowed to drain resources away from it.
As we know, Mr Brok's report stresses that the Union's interest should focus on its neighbouring regions. Although I have mentioned the Balkans and the Mediterranean region, I wish to emphasise that the difficulties still prevailing in the Middle East have not weakened our resolve: the Union can and must make an important contribution to identifying a peaceful solution and to international guarantees for peace. The Presidency, the High Representative and the Commission are constantly striving to achieve this outcome, and they were encouraged by the final conclusions of last week's European Council. The Council also confirmed the Union's stance on two other international issues currently of vital importance: Iraq, where the Union is committed to contributing to the reconstruction effort, and Iran, which we have very actively encouraged to take the decisive step of complying with all the International Atomic Energy Agency's requirements. Just yesterday, the Republic of Iran took the very positive step of accepting these commitments, with the full support of the presidency. This is obviously something that we have encouraged and welcome.
Another area of interest for the enlarged Europe is its eastern borders. I have in mind our good-neighbour policy towards Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and slightly further east, the Russian Federation, which I shall return to this afternoon when we discuss the forthcoming Rome Summit on 6 November.
I would like to conclude my comments by referring to a strategic relationship that is still of fundamental importance for us in Europe: the transatlantic relationship. It is evident that all the Member States continue to attach great importance to relations with the United States. I, personally, also believe that we can overcome the recent breakdowns in understanding. The renewal of this relationship has been confirmed by the recent, hard-won decisions taken within the United Nations. I am convinced this is the case, because Euro-Atlantic relations are nourished by a common history, by an enormous indebtedness in terms of liberation and liberty – particularly for us Italians – and also by shared values and ideals and by common action reflected in the CFSP. Our common commitment in the Balkans, combating terrorism and combating proliferation: these are examples and evidence of common action.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Brok has drawn up proposals for future work. I would like to thank him once again, and I agree with his suggestions and proposals. The building of Europe is unprecedented in history, both as regards its political ambition and its institutional mechanisms. I would like to conclude my speech by saying that there are essentially four areas in which we can work, which, for the sake of brevity I shall simply identify.
The first area is to develop the political will to achieve integration, the hallmark of which will increasingly be foreign policy and the common European defence policy. In this area, the parliamentarians of the Member States will have an essential role to play, and I therefore hope that this Chamber will continue to provide encouragement and drive.
The second area is a strategy for the Union's external activities, to be based on the document we shall be presenting by December.
The third area relates to appropriate and effective decision-making mechanisms. We will be going into that in depth at the Intergovernmental Conference.
The fourth and final area is that of resources. Although I have left it until last, it is crucial. We must provide ourselves with the necessary resources to achieve the foreign policy we need. The alternative, which I do not like, would be to scale down our ambitions. We have limited budgetary provisions for financing the CFSP, and although we had a small increase in 2003, we certainly need to do a great deal more.
The Italian Presidency understands and supports the European Parliament's request that it should be given punctual and timely, if not absolutely pre-emptive, information about activities that the European Council is preparing to embark upon. I remain committed to supporting you on this.
My second point is that the Common Foreign and Security Policy now faces a real systemic challenge in the form of enlargement, or, as we like to put it, the reunification of the European Union. If we are unable to find institutional solutions, there is a risk that the deadlock situations we have experienced will recur.
My third point concerns the role of the Union on the world stage. There is no denying that the Union has global interests, which are certainly not limited to economic interests, and that it should be willing to defend the values which inspire and are at the heart of our peoples' lives and rules of life. My question, however, is this: is the Union able and willing to be considered a global power? I believe that, even if we have limited resources at our disposal and should, therefore, be selective about where we intervene, it is, nevertheless, in Europe's wider interest to adopt a global approach as regards both our analysis and our foreign policy endeavour.
What conclusions can we draw from our awareness of these three problems, which undeniably exist? It is important to recognise that the Union's record in the field of foreign policy is a positive one, and the Brok report confirms this. I shall restrict myself to mentioning the progress made in establishing a European military capacity and our initial experiences with this both in conjunction with NATO – an example of this being the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – and also acting on our own, as in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo. I would also like to mention the Union’s contribution to stabilising the Balkans and to the process of both economic and democratic reconstruction of the countries in that region. I would further remind you about the support given to the United Nations at a point when the role of that organisation was being called into question.
We, as Europeans, have reiterated the validity of a multilateral approach to crisis resolution, and, as a more ambitious objective, the implementation of effective multilateralism as a means of preventing, and, if necessary, opposing breaches of international law. I would also like to mention the significant action taken by the Union and its Member States in response to the global challenges we face today: combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
I have just mentioned a few important areas by way of example, to demonstrate that we have, in a number of cases, succeeded in following words and commitments with deeds. Of course, and I agree with Mr Brok's report on this point, this is not enough to satisfy the demands that the citizens of Europe and the third countries are making of us. The Council of Ministers is aware of this, and we are working towards solutions in two areas: institutional effectiveness and the clear, precise setting of strategic priorities.
As regards institutional effectiveness – which President Berlusconi has already talked about here in this Chamber today – I can confirm that, in the Intergovernmental Conference, we will be defending the framework presented by the Convention, without any backsliding, as a good basis for the work of the IGC. With regard to the second area, strategy, as you know, the European Council scheduled for December 2003 will be called upon to adopt a document that will include the Union's security strategy. It is an ambitious text that will provide a framework for all the interest and commitment invested in our Common Foreign and Security Policy.
The strategy will outline the threats currently facing the European Union, but it also needs to identify those areas on whose stability our security depends. This strategy will be able to guide us in identifying the resources needed for us to become producers of security, as we like to say, and no longer just consumers of security. That is why the Italian Presidency is anxious to foster fruitful cooperation between our common foreign policy and the activities of international organisations active in the field of security. I have in mind, first and foremost, NATO and the OSCE, but what is absolutely vital for us is the role of the United Nations. On 24 September, the Italian Presidency and the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, signed a UN-EU joint declaration in New York as a basis for cooperation in both military and civilian areas of crisis management.
I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that everyone should now recognise that there is a need to take pre-emptive action, rather than just repairing the damage resulting from a crisis that has already exploded. Prevention is therefore becoming a key component in the Union's external relations. This derives from and is characterised by the coordinated use of both the resources of the Member States, which are made available in the common interest, and the Union's own resources, which are managed by the European Commission. We accordingly need to take advantage of the full range of resources that the Union can harness in crisis situations. We have instruments that enable us to exert cultural, economic, political and, now, also military influence. More than any other international organisation, the Union can and should commit itself to tackling the underlying causes of conflicts by helping to eliminate them through pre-emptive action. We are adopting a policy based on influence and incentivation in order to try and encourage progress in regional integration and to overcome situations caused by lack of understanding and by instability."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples