Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-26-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040226.2.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the problems of the South Caucasus are as easy to identify as they are difficult to solve. In addition to significant aid, we need an extremely ambitious European strategy and perhaps a broader mandate for Mr Heikki Talvitie, the European Union’s Special Representative for the South Caucasus. Commissioner Patten too has spoken about this, but I do not believe that the fight against corruption to reduce poverty and drug trafficking, or even the analysis of the elections can be enough to establish these measures as a strategy for the zone. It is clearly difficult to operate in a fragile situation in which at least three endemic disputes are simmering. Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more essential that a plan is presented. The usual procedure sometimes calls for global objectives to be achieved with just one conference. I do, however, believe that, in the case of the South Caucasus, we need to proceed gradually, step by step, in the disputes and in cooperation; otherwise we risk obtaining a very poor result.
The report by Mr Gahrton gives a very detailed description of both the situation and the needs, and I agree with the rapporteur that the South Caucasus region needs to be given a well-defined status in the context of the policy we call ‘Wider Europe’
If stability is to be achieved, then it is essential that Russia is involved. President Putin – having the day before yesterday dissolved a government that has always maintained considerable ambiguity towards the countries of the former Soviet Union, and in particular, towards the South Caucasus – will also have to indicate some direction for the Caucasus. The meeting between the European Union and Russia, which will take place next March, could be an opportunity for this to happen.
The interests and values that are all necessary for cooperation must be clarified in both form and substance. Furthermore, we must consider the fact that the opening, in two years, of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be of enormous strategic importance. We do not know if the billionaire Mr Khodorkovsky, for example with his company
intends to conclude agreements with the US company
and nor do we know to what extent the new President Putin would be in favour of such a development. Similarly, we do not know what the chain reaction would be in either case. Discrediting the pipelines for environmental reasons is merely a rhetorical exercise. The oil must, in any event, go from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. During the cold war, the planning of the pipelines sought to avoid Soviet territory, but the situation is now changing. I do, however, believe that the report by Mr Gahrton expresses appropriate concerns about this and other unknown factors in the region.
Thanks to oil resources, Azerbaijan will be rich and Georgia will have transit rights whilst Armenia will have nothing. This is how the new sources of wealth can create new imbalances, which can be smoothed out only though political mediation. One simply has to realise that the future situation will not allow a stalemate, or status quo, to continue for long in areas where conflicts rage."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Exxon"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples