Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.5.2-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, may I first thank Parliament for making time for this debate. There are so many other things which Parliament has to discuss, but it is exceptionally important that today we should have a chance to discuss the Mediterranean and the Middle East because the directions we set for our policies in this region in the coming months should be thoroughly discussed and debated here; they involve fundamental decisions on how we are going to develop our relationship with our neighbours; and they involve fundamental decisions which will affect the whole relationship for the first part of this century between Europe and the Islamic world.
I also hope that our friends across the Atlantic are recognising that our long-term, consensus-building approach has some value, based, as it is, on building common agendas that respect differences of approach in different countries and regions. The Greater Middle East initiative from the United States generated controversy in the region, mainly because the objectives appeared to have been set without any real consultation process with the region. In the furore surrounding this, few paid attention to the substance. In content, what they are suggesting could involve the development of American policy towards the region based on the kind of comprehensive and long-term engagement which we have been advocating and trying to implement for many years. We have much to talk about with officials in Washington if they are prepared to match this commitment with appropriate levels of resources.
Time will tell, but whatever the results, the European Union should focus on developing its own strategic partnership with the region. If we are successful, I believe we can make a significant contribution to fighting terrorism in Europe and in the region, one that is as important as the proposals to strengthen the European Union's internal security that I know will be discussed by Parliament tomorrow. It will take us another step down the road towards a central objective of the EU’s Security Strategy, namely: 'to promote a ring of well-governed countries … on the borders of the Mediterranean with whom we can enjoy close and cooperative relations'.
I make one final point which builds on what I have just said. We spent last Thursday and Friday in the Council discussing what this extraordinary circle of democracies in Europe can do to protect our way of life, our prosperity, our values, our belief in the rule of law and in civil liberties and the lives of our citizens; and what we can do in Europe to prevent more of the terrorist atrocities which have driven daggers into the hearts of many European families.
There are many things we have to do internally. There are many things we have to do in the areas of police and judicial cooperation. I have no doubt whatsoever that one of the most important things we have to do is to work more energetically, more creatively, day and night, to try to bring peace to the Middle East. The conflict does not justify anything any terrorist ever does and a number of terrorists and those who support terrorists use the plight of Palestinians and use the position in the Middle East as a wicked justification for the misery and mayhem they create. That is true. It is also true that one should not appease terrorism. It is true that there are important security aspects involved. But we all recognise as well that to bring peace to the Middle East would remove one of the causes of alienation in country after country which helps to provide a breeding ground for terrorism and for the murderous ideas that terrorists espouse.
So I hope that we will be able to work more enthusiastically and more successfully to bring peace to the Middle East, and that the beneficiaries of that peace will not only be the people of Israel and the people of Palestine, but the people of Europe and the wider world as well.
My friend and colleague from the presidency has explained very clearly the principles in the interim report adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the European Union last week and he explained how, through a series of intensive consultations with the region, they will form the basis of a concrete work programme to be presented to the European Council in June.
I would like, however, to underline that we are not starting from scratch: rather, we are building on a comprehensive partnership with the Mediterranean countries and a set of bilateral relations with the countries east of Jordan. We will continue to develop our partnership on the basis of these existing instruments. I would add here that Europe is the most significant player in the region. The Community now spends close to EUR 1 billion a year in the region in promoting economic reforms, sectoral reform, institutional and political reform and in supporting sustainable development across the region, including our specific funds for supporting the Palestinians and for the reconstruction of Iraq. If one adds in the lending from the European Investment Bank, it makes a total of around EUR 2.5 billion a year. Furthermore, the European Union is the biggest trading partner for every country in the region except Jordan.
So with this level of involvement, why has economic development and political reform been so slow to take off around the Mediterranean? Why is the human development gap still so great? The answer is two-fold: first of all, our approach is a long-term one which bears fruit incrementally, but I would venture that working on the basis of partnership, consultation and ownership of the reform process by reformers in the region will give us more solid and sustainable results than any attempts to impose democracy from the outside, whether through lectures or through the barrel of a gun. But secondly, and crucially, it is important to remember that the Barcelona process was formulated in an atmosphere of optimism, in the aftermath of the Oslo agreements. Stalemate in the peace process in the Middle East has time and again stymied progress on reform. Recent events are another sad but powerful confirmation that, as our report put it, it will not be possible to build a common zone of peace, prosperity and progress unless a just and lasting settlement of the conflict is in place.
Once again – and I am afraid I have had to say this all too often in speeches in this Chamber – we stand before the smoking ruins of the peace process. And this at a time when we had some hope of movement: the cancelled Arab League Summit was expected to provide a positive impetus to the peace process by relaunching its Beirut peace initiative.
How, I wonder – and I expect this question comes to the minds of many honourable Members – has Sheikh Yassin's assassination helped to improve the security of the Israeli people? How has it contributed to even the stated goal of a peaceful and consensual withdrawal from Gaza? I thought, and I still hope, that we had already seen the worst of the atrocities carried out by suicide bombers. But what we have witnessed lately is wickedness beyond imagination: for example, a frightened adolescent, explosives strapped to his body, is told that he will go to heaven and is sent out to kill himself and others at a military checkpoint. It is despicable and it is cowardly. What kind of world have we created when 12-year-olds are out on murder missions like that rather than playing football or doing their homework? And what are the circumstances? What is the environment that creates this culture of death and murderous recrimination?
My broader point is that if we are serious about wanting reform in the Arab World then, as the European Security Strategy states, resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict remains a strategic priority. It is what philosophers would call a necessary but not sufficient condition. Progress cannot be a pre-condition for confronting the challenges of reform, nor vice versa. But to attempt one without the other is, in my view, only too likely to prove a recipe for failure on both counts.
I regret, then, that the Arab League summit could not take place as planned, not least because it was expected to adopt a common declaration on domestic reform which would have been an important staging post in developing our common agenda. But working in this part of the world means, almost by definition, that one has to remain hopeful, so I hope that our Arab partners will be able to come together again soon. We are certainly prepared to do what we can to help.
I also believe that we now have a European Union position which we can take into consultations with the region with some confidence of generating new momentum in our relations with our Mediterranean and Middle Eastern neighbours. Insofar as that is true, we are very grateful to the Irish presidency for the creative work it has done, both intellectually and diplomatically."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples