Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.2.3-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I do not wish to repeat or intend to repeat what the presidency has just said about recent discussions on the Middle East by the Council or how it has reacted to the statement made by President Bush in Washington last week after his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon. The statement surprised many people, whether understandably or not, and one cannot disguise the fact that it seems to have caused great concern in the Arab world. Some have subsequently argued that it should not have done so. They have said that it offers a way into the implementation of that roadmap, rather than a tearing-up of the roadmap. They have argued that we should seek out the positive, like the promised and welcomed Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, rather than focus on the negative.
I have no more to say on the subject, save to pay tribute to my officials who have tried to implement a difficult policy honestly, transparently and with integrity. When I look at what has happened in the last few years I can see all too little else that has achieved as much as they have.
Turning to the future, it is said by some – perhaps a trifle glibly – that after the promised withdrawal we will rebuild Gaza and try to create the foundations for a new Palestine. What they presumably have in mind is a Palestine which is genuinely viable, not a collection of isolated bantustans divided by tanks, settlements and walls.
We are certainly prepared to continue our humanitarian assistance and to support the rebuilding of the infrastructure of those areas from which the Israeli defence forces withdraw. But I have to say that this time we should seek certain guarantees from the Israeli defence forces that they will not destroy again what we build. They should take into account the five points made by the European Council of 25 and 26 March, notably, the anchoring of the withdrawal within the roadmap and the facilitation of economic life in the territory that the Israeli defence forces leave.
It was the World Bank that noted that the biggest obstacle to economic revival is lack of access and a lack of sufficient freedom of movement of persons and goods. Access to the outside world is essential for reviving the Palestinian economy. We should also seek to ensure that humanitarian assistance can be provided as it would be elsewhere. At present it costs more to provide the assistance than in most other places because of the behaviour and activities of the security forces.
If we are to find a way back into implementation of the roadmap then we need to discuss very carefully with the Israeli Government the terms of withdrawal and see how we can associate the management of the withdrawal with the objectives of the roadmap. Our aim must be that Israelis recognise again the Palestinian Authority as their partner in the peace process. The objective should be to hand over Gaza and parts of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, not to Hamas, and to ensure that the handover takes place in an orderly fashion, not in a way that leads to more chaos and more violence.
Finally, there are still – thank heaven – some moderates in Palestine, Israel and the Arab world. I ask this question as quietly and diplomatically as I can: how much support are we giving those moderates today? If we are not prepared to be courageous for moderation, how can we expect them to be?
It is not hyperbolic to say that the outlook today in the region is more worrying than it has been for some time. It certainly seems to me a good deal more disturbing than it looked, for example, at the beginning of last year when we were being told that the road to peace in the Middle East lay in the military liberation of Baghdad and the installation of democracy in Iraq. Maybe one day Iraq will be stable and democratic and maybe it will be a beacon for other countries in the region. How could one hope for anything else? Whatever one's views about the past, what else is there to work for? However, if we are to have any chance of achieving that outcome and of encouraging modernisation and democracy in the whole region, then we have to avoid words and policies that alienate large parts of the Islamic world and threaten the very clash of civilisations which all sane men and women should want to avoid at all costs.
It has been a deeply depressing feature of my five years as a Commissioner that the world I look out onto today seems to be far more dangerous than it was in 1999. We must always try to work for a better world and not throw in our hand in introverted despair. Today, among other things, we must see what we can rescue from what is left of the Middle East peace process. It is not a very encouraging prospect, but what alternative is there?
So be it. I do not seek to second-guess the doubtless well-intentioned interpretations of others or to undermine efforts to make the most of the present, exceptionally difficult, situation. Some of course always see a glass as half full when others believe it is half empty. Others find it rather challenging to believe that a glass is half full when they cannot see very much liquid in the glass at all. I guess that like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder. I do not wish to dwell on those matters. I will just make five points which we must address if we are to draw anything positive from the present grim situation.
First, as the General Affairs and External Relations Council and the European Council has said again and again, a final settlement can only be achieved as a result of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, resulting in two viable sovereign and independent states based on the borders of 1967, perhaps amended by agreement, living side by side in peace and security as laid out, for example, in the roadmap.
This has been the main thread of European thinking, from Venice in 1980 to Berlin in 1999, to Seville in 2002 and right up to the latest European Council conclusions of last month. It is not surprising that we have agreed with what for 37 years has been the consistent American position, that settlements beyond the 1967 borders are illegal and represent 'obstacles to peace'. We all know what the ingredients for a final settlement will be. They are contained in the Mitchell report and in subsequent documents, including the Arab League peace initiative of 2002. They are also in the roadmap that has been endorsed by the international community.
A settlement does not await some heavenly insight. It awaits the exercise of political will by both sides – Israeli and Palestinian. It is in my judgment a tragedy that the courageous proposals of the representatives of civil society who negotiated the Geneva initiative do not seem to be shared by the political leadership in their communities.
Second, we deplore the violence which postpones reconciliation and any chance whatsoever of peace. We have always deplored without reservation and condemned with all our strength the suicide bombings that take innocent lives and the dark propaganda that clouds the minds of so many. We are also profoundly critical of heavy-handed military retaliation which destroys lives, homes and livelihoods, the sort of retaliation which increases extremism and does not increase security. We believe that targeted assassinations are wrong, illegal and counter-productive.
One of the Palestinian politicians whom I most admire, a voice of sanity and reason, referred recently to the deafening sound of war drums on both sides and to the bitter fact that both communities seem to be locked in an embrace in which all that seems to matter is causing pain to the other side. There is plenty of pain on offer, but not much promise of peace.
Third, whatever the criticisms of the European approach to the dispute, we can say that we have sustained, throughout the weeks, months and years of bloodshed and hopelessness, institutions which can one day form the basis for a reformed Palestinian Government. That has been the policy of the European Council, endorsed by this Parliament. We have been congratulated for what we have done by, among others, the World Bank. Only recently I received a letter from the Palestinian Finance Minister, Salam Fayad, which noted that with the help of the European Union the Palestinian Authority has now delivered on all of the reform commitments it had made to the Palestinian Legislative Council a year and a half ago. There is now a high degree of accountability, with transparent budget procedures. There are no more cash payments to Palestinian security personnel, whose salaries are now transferred through bank accounts.
We have been encouraged, in private, to do more – to give more help. We have been criticised in public for doing anything at all. Some have argued that there could actually be a no more serious accusation than that the attempt to promote reform and sustain some sort of life in Palestine has bankrolled terrorism. Parliament has held its own inquiry into these matters and OLAF has investigated these allegations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples