Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-26-Speech-4-010"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-Russia relations2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040226.1.4-010"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-26-Speech-4-0112
lpv:speaker	lp:Reino Paasilinna2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue/Finlands Socialdemokratiska Parti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Russia has to accept the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The European Commission has decided to threaten Russia with a trade boycott if it does not agree to extending this agreement to the future Member States. There will not be much cooperation left if we end up squabbling over the partnership in this manner! Our policy on Russia has failed badly. Nothing concrete has been achieved for several years, apart from the Kaliningrad question. The eastward expansion of the EU and NATO will reduce Russia’s sphere of influence and its trade by hundreds of millions of dollars. Given this situation, Moscow has mentioned 14 areas of concern, such as transition periods for customs tariffs. We, the old Member States, are now imposing transition periods with regard to the workforce in the new Member States. The Union has not agreed to one of these. To reciprocate, Russia will not sanction the Kyoto Agreement and is putting pressure on relations with the minority in the Baltic region. A trade boycott would cause great harm to certain Member States as a result of an increase in the costs of raw materials. Other countries would suffer less, some not at all, but my country, for example, would, as the share of trade with Russia is enormous there and we also have some experience in a history of dealing with difficult relations. Now Russia is actually up against the wall as a result of this trade policy threat, while at the same time there are two kinds of expansion taking place. We are pushing our way into Russia’s trading zones. The country has just voted in a more nationalistic parliament than ever and the current presidential election campaign smacks of the same. The EU ministerial troika now has to take the initiative and make a suitable proposal to resolve this issue prior to the summit, because this is an area of cooperation where we have to find new approaches. We cannot force democracy on Russia: it will come about through wider channels of cooperation. The best and most effective approach of all is to try to have an influence directly on President Putin, who has a key role in everything that happens, as was said just now. This again will require cooperation, not boycotts. I understand the criticism regarding Chechnya and Sasnovibor, for example, but they are part of the very cooperation that we must now build and eventually obtain results from, so that the benefits are discernible on both sides and in order to end all these peculiar threats, which are inappropriate with regard to the sort of cooperation we need in this day and age."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph