Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-380"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060118.24.3-380"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Tannock is right to devote some of his interesting report to the current situation in one of the EU’s neighbouring countries, namely Belarus. Particularly in Paragraph 56, he calls on all European institutions to increase their support for Belarus’s civil society activities and of its political opposition.
With that in mind, I should like to ask the Commissioner how the Brussels plans to post a delegation to Minsk are coming along. That delegation should be able to actually operate on the basis of its own objectives, on the basis of the shared commitment of the Union’s Member States to the democratic rule of law. An ideal channel for communication between the Commission and Belarusian civil society, it could, eventually, also be a
for adopting an active neighbourhood policy with Belarus.
I am afraid that President Lukashenko’s current authoritarian regime would not be very keen on this. It would probably prefer a toothless European delegation on its own territory as a means of legitimising itself in the eyes of the international community. I would ask the Commissioner if this attitude from Minsk might hinder the European delegation being posted to the Belarusian capital.
Mr Tannock also calls on all parties involved to come to a political settlement of the long-standing Transnistria issue. Ominously for Moldova, two of the parties involved, namely Russia and Ukraine, issued a joint declaration about the Transnistria conflict, without involving Chisinau, just a month ago, in mid-December 2005. In fact, Presidents Putin and Yushchenko did not involve the United States, the European Union or Romania either for that matter. Between the two of them, they appointed themselves as ‘guarantee powers’ in Moldova and Transnistria. Could this be a repeat of previous action taken by Yevgeni Primakov in 1997, which, in fact, received no international backing whatsoever and was emphatically rejected by Moldova?
In passing, Putin and Yushchenko have now also appointed themselves as being responsible for ‘peace, stability and the well-being of the people of Moldova, Russians and Ukrainians on both banks of the Dniester’. That is simply tantamount to a Russian-Ukrainian condominium. At the same time, on 15 December 2005, Kiev and Moscow accepted each other’s solutions for the Transnistria conflict as being ‘complementary’. These are transparent proposals which, in my view, amount to the confirmation of a geographical division of Moldova, of an international legitimacy of Russia’s military presence in Transnistria and of a ‘democratic, neutral state of Moldova’.
I would ask the Commissioner how he interprets this bilateral agreement between Putin and Yushchenko on Moldova’s future in the context of the European neighbourhood policy. I am looking forward to your response to my two questions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples