Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-26-Speech-4-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040226.1.4-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the intent of this proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU-Russia relations is clear – a partnership that is truly worthy of the name. Accordingly, a strengthening of these mutual relations rather than growing mutual separation is what is required. Looked at in a matter-of-fact way, that is also what our many common interests require. In all fairness, however, relations between the EU and the Russian Federation are anything but ideal, and for this both parties are to blame. That is, therefore, the angle of this proposal for a recommendation: European self-criticism and criticism levelled at Moscow. In the autumn of last year, that is the very course on which this House’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy embarked. To our satisfaction, we can conclude today that the Commission, according to its communication of 10 February, is more or less on the same wavelength, and so, apparently, is the Council. Incidentally, the Council should, in the view of this House, aspire to achieve more transparency in such an important and comprehensive area of policy as relations with Russia.
This current European consensus with regard to Russia is undisputed, but what matters is its concrete implementation, and that is where Europe's self-criticism comes in. Differing positions have been adopted on Kaliningrad, Chechnya and the Yukos affair. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that is why I cannot wait to hear about new agreements for new consistent policy. Yesterday, the press once again confronted me with confusing accounts from a prominent European statesman.
A second point of important self-criticism is broached in Recital S and paragraph 2 of the proposal for a recommendation. The EU-Russia partnership is based on common values of respect for democratic principles and human rights. Parliament has expressly advised the Council and the Commission to apply this guiding principle consistently to all areas of cooperation with the Kremlin.
In any event, the situation in Chechnya is completely at odds with the principle of the EU-Russia partnership. This is a wholly depressing situation of rampant violence and lawlessness at the expense of, in the main, a defenceless civilian population. At the same time, the Chechen tragedy is a problem that is avoided in international politics, as the title of a thorough recent study aptly suggests. In paragraph 13, this House recommends the Council in all seriousness to emphatically refute this shameful analysis. In the final analysis, the internal and external effects of the Chechen impasse affect the European Union's values and interests just as much. To start with, the Council should lodge a vigorous protest with President Putin against the disappearances, tortures or, worse, the killings of Chechen citizens who had the courage to lodge complaints with the European Court for Human Rights.
Talking of disappearances in the Chechen region, I would refer to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the fate of my compatriot Arjan Erkel. I fully subscribe to the amendment tabled as No 25, which I will quote: ‘reiterates its deep concern once again about the fact that to date, no political solution has been found in the case of Arjan Erkel and regrets the fact that no progress whatsoever has been made in the direction of a solution, insists therefore on a determined political move on the part of the federal and local authorities in Russia, the Commission and the Council to ensure that Mr Erkel is released safe and well’.
Much more so than Chechnya, there is another obstacle to the EU-Russia partnership that is receiving political and public attention: the extension of the partnership and cooperation agreements to include all new EU Member States from 1 May 2004. Parliament is supporting the Council unconditionally in its position, according to which it will not enter into any negotiations with the Russians in this respect. Could the Council perhaps tell us whether a provisional solution to this difference is in the offing? Good neighbourly relations and, above all, good partnership, should be accompanied by Russian foreign policy that reinforces stability on the continent. If anything, though, the failure to sign or ratify the border agreements between Russia and its Baltic neighbours, Estonia and Latvia, has a destabilising effect, as do, and to an even greater degree, Russia's unfulfilled obligations to withdraw its troops from Transnistria and Georgia at long last. The present proposal for a recommendation urges the Council to stand firm on these sensitive security issues.
I could mention many other areas of concern with regard to the development of the EU-Russia partnership, as is evident from a careful scrutiny of the proposal for a recommendation, but I would add that it was certainly not our intention to draft a catalogue of complaints. The intention is quite simply to define the mutual frictions, to facilitate and maintain debate on them and join together in seeking a solution. It is logical in this connection that the European Union should set out its priorities unambiguously and repeatedly and should indicate its so-called red lines during negotiations. This practical approach is reflected in the Commission communication. This gives me, as rapporteur, real satisfaction. The relatively considerable attention received to date in the Russian media by the proposal for a recommendation gives ample reason to rejoice. It appears that our message is well received by the Russian Federation, to whom it is also addressed. I am indebted to you, the MEPs concerned, for this response. I found your thoughts and contributions indispensable. I would repeat this praise for the excellent assistance from the secretariat of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in the person of Mr Dag Sourander. Together with him and my personal assistant, Henk-Jan van Schothorst, we have, over the past few months, poured over these complicated EU-Russia relations with much dedication, because this House sets great store by a partnership that functions right across the board."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples