Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-12-Speech-4-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040212.2.4-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
I do not want to delay the House unduly as it quietly prepares to go about its democratic duty. However, I should like to respond to one or two questions from what has been an important and useful debate.
I was asked how our proposals had been received by our partners. The fairest diplomatic answer is that the ideas have been received rather cautiously in some countries but much more positively in others – Jordan and Morocco spring to mind. Whatever the response, the ideas that we have put forward are now a central part of the debate, a central part of the dialogue with these countries.
It is important to remember that what we are talking about is not negative conditionality, but positive encouragement. We are talking about setting aside part of our MEDA funds each year and allocating them to those countries which enter into specific partnerships with us to develop democracy and human rights. That is an important shift of emphasis and an important way of trying to use our development assistance and cooperation to promote political objectives which we all know are crucial, not only to the stability and wellbeing of societies, but also to their long-term economic development.
In pressing our views on issues such as human rights in Tunisia – to which the honourable Member rightly referred – we have to be vigorous and avoid being counterproductive. A couple of weeks ago in another part of the world – when pressing the case for the rule of law and civil liberty – I was accused of being neo-colonial. I had to point out that as far as I was concerned that was a terrible insult: I had been the real thing; I had been a real colonial oppressor and not simply a neo-colonial has-been.
We have to be careful about how we proceed with the debate. It is also important to recognise that it is a long process and that, as Mrs Bonino said, we need to be consistent. We need to show that we mean what we say. We have to be mindful of our credibility and we have to make sure that this is a debate we conduct on the basis of mutual esteem, on the basis that we are on an equal footing.
I was also asked how our arguments and ideas tied in with those of the United States on democracy and the wider Middle East. It is fair to say that this is a subject about which we have a decade of experience. We welcome the United States' interest. I am sure there will be a lot of discussions, as there were last weekend at the Munich security conference.
I hope that we do not lose the distinctiveness of our own approach. I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that this is a long-term process and I hope that, as the honourable Member said late in the debate, that we do not lose sight of the relevance of the Middle East dispute, of the relationship between Israel and Palestine, to the discussion about democracy in the wider region, because at the moment undoubtedly some in the Arab world doubt our credentials and goodwill because they do not think we are doing enough to resolve the problems of Palestine.
Lastly I would like to repeat again to Mr McMillan-Scott that we go into these debates with an open mind. We recognise the experience and the wisdom of Parliament and we are sure that together Parliament, Commission and Council will be able to frame a policy which will not only continue to command the attention of the whole House, but will actually lead to the sort of beneficial consequences that we wish to see."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples