Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-29-Speech-4-005"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040129.1.4-005"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what do the European Union and the United Nations have in common? Why has Parliament produced a report on the subject? Is there nothing more pressing? Does a parliament really have to look at every single subject, even at those that are not particularly high on the agenda? That was what people said in 2002, when it was first suggested that Parliament should produce a report on the relationship between the European Union and the United Nations.
We had hardly had any political debates about the relationship between the two institutions – there were seven lines in reports of European Council meetings when at some point in the text there was a passing reference to the United Nations; and the only active institution was the Commission which, in the quiet, calm, effective manner familiar to all of us, paid 60% of the budget for development programmes for humanitarian aid. Of course, there were no major political implications or demands involved: it was very effective, but not related to any political message.
Then came the Iraq crisis, during which the US President described the UN as irrelevant. That was when Parliament began to say that this was perhaps an interesting subject after all, that we wanted to make relations between the European Union and the United Nations more political in nature, and that we wanted to produce a report in order to ask the other institutions to consider introducing more politics in our relations with the United Nations. Today, nearly one year after Parliament made that decision, we can now say that the United Nations is not irrelevant. Even the most powerful country in the world has realised that the legitimacy of the United Nations is needed in order to rebuild a state, to establish democracy and to create a nation. Here in Europe, the Commission issued a very significant communication in September – a political communication first and foremost – which defined relations between the European institutions, and also their future, in terms of a European Constitution. The Council is also much more active nowadays in seeking agreement with the United Nations, and I believe that today’s visit to this House by the Secretary-General of the United Nations marks the start of greater political cooperation.
What, then, are the main subjects we need to discuss? One should be today’s message: the fact that the European Parliament is speaking out in favour of multilateralism. Not because, as Robert Kagan once claimed, the European Union favours multilateralism only because it is incapable of acting unilaterally. No, that is not the reason. Our reason is that the European Union is multilateral in structure and in nature. The horrific wars in the twentieth century taught us that multilateral cooperation is the right way to build a peaceful and just future, and the lesson we have learnt in the European Union holds true for the United Nations too – that is why we favour a multilateral approach.
This is the message that Parliament should send out today, and if we do so, if we want to play our part in the world, then we have to start by doing our homework. The Heads of State and Government did not do that in December, because the tasks included creating a legal status for the European Union to put an end to the situation whereby the Commission can go over the Community’s head because it is a member of the FAO, with a seat and vote, and whereby in political matters, we have no legal personality in Nairobi, Geneva or Vienna and so cannot act. The European Union needs a legal personality. We also need a European Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will have to bring together our policies with those of the Council and the Commission and represent us all internationally. That means we need a European Union representative at the UN offices, not a Commission office, a Council office and an office for the Presidency. No, we need a representative for foreign affairs, and that is what Parliament is proposing.
We should also continue discussions after Kofi Annan’s visit. We need the Commission to produce an annual report that will get Parliament discussing the political priorities in order to establish how to proceed, what we have achieved and what we have not achieved. We need clarity in the budget, so that we know which institutions, agencies, and funds receive money from us, and which do not. I think, too, that Jean Monnet’s comment – that Europe should help make a better world – ties in very well with Kofi Annan’s message at the last General Assembly, where he said that the United Nations makes the world a better place. That we are combining the two today is ideal, and means that today is very significant both for Europe and for the United Nations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples