Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-13-Speech-2-432"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071113.38.2-432"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Cornillet and congratulating him on his report, which identifies perfectly the challenges facing the humanitarian effort, and in particular on the fact that he also identifies perfectly the approaches to be taken in relation to European humanitarian action. This report is a vital contribution to the joint work by Parliament, the Council and the Commission to put in place the future European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. Our common objective is to formalise in a joint declaration by the three institutions our vision and our common approach to humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt in my mind that the active involvement of the European Parliament is essential for the success of this process to adopt the declaration.
Fourthly, there must be a voluntary commitment from the Member States to strengthen the complementarity and coordination of our humanitarian actions, and this is of course all the more necessary with enlargement bringing us up to 27 Member States. The future consensus will also have to provide a general framework to define the relationship between humanitarian aid and the EU’s other external policies. The ultimate goal is to make the EU’s humanitarian action more consistent and more effective. All of this will make a significant contribution to strengthening the international system under the aegis of the United Nations and this is a point that I would like to emphasise. The move to promote a European approach is evidently not aimed at weakening or competing with the central role of the United Nations. On the contrary: it will serve to reinforce this central role, and it is sad to see at times some reticence about this European consensus on the grounds that it would be in competition with the United Nations. That is absolutely not the case. The opposite is true: it aims to strengthen the European pillar within the framework of the United Nations, and this goes without saying.
The draft text of the declaration on the consensus clearly refers to the elements of the consensus that will to some extent form the European Union’s humanitarian doctrine in the future. I would like to thank Parliament and the Portuguese Presidency for their work during the negotiations on this text. We are now reaching the final stages of this trilateral procedure, which should enable us to fulfil the ambition of having all three institutions sign a joint declaration on 18 December.
This declaration on the consensus is but the beginning of a process. It not an end in itself, but the beginning of a process. We know that this approach is going to require considerable efforts to ensure that our words become actions. To this end, at the start of next year we are going to present an action plan for the implementation of the future humanitarian consensus. Over these months of debate to prepare the consensus, the European Parliament has put forward some very specific suggestions, and we feel that it is entirely appropriate to incorporate them in the action plan, such as your proposal to draw up a humanitarian aid atlas based on the model of the development atlas.
Allow me to add a few comments on two subjects of particular interest to the Members of this House. They relate to quasi-philosophical elements of humanitarian aid, which are today at the centre of certain debates and which are, moreover, elements of the goal of humanitarian aid itself.
The first is the issue of the ‘responsibility to protect’. Following Parliament’s suggestion, we highlighted in the draft text of the consensus the commitments made in this respect by countries within the framework of the UN and the international community. I should point out that humanitarian action and the responsibility to protect are based on two different approaches, even though they have an important point in common, namely stopping human suffering. We must avoid any confusion between these two approaches because it could damage the image of the humanitarian actors as neutral and independent, something that is vital for us to be able to help people affected by humanitarian crises.
The concept of the responsibility to protect is still relatively ambiguous. This concept, in the past and even today, is very closely linked to the idea of the right of interference and military intervention for humanitarian purposes in extreme circumstances, for example to prevent genocide. However, that interpretation is precisely the reason why some regimes reject the concept of the responsibility to protect: they see it as a political cover for Westerners to justify their imperialism, to justify interventions founded not on humanitarian interests but on a desire for power. At times there is confusion between this doctrine of the responsibility to protect and protective humanitarian action, which
is traditionally part of the mandate of the ICRC. We fully support the latter activity through our humanitarian aid.
Mr Cornillet’s report also raises a very relevant question regarding the institutional framework for debating humanitarian policy. Parliament has appointed a Permanent Rapporteur for Humanitarian Aid, and we congratulate it on that. The report rightly raises the issue of such representatives in the Council. On behalf of the Commission, we gratefully acknowledge the considerable efforts of the Portuguese Presidency to give the Council the time needed for the preparation of the consensus in the development working group. The institutional decision to set up a Council group to focus on humanitarian policy is of course down to the Member States, but I agree entirely with Mr Cornillet that it is vital to establish an appropriate body to tackle systematically humanitarian issues on an equal footing with the Union’s other external policies.
Humanitarian aid is neutral and independent of any political or other objectives but that does not mean that politics are not involved in any way. On the contrary, the elements and actors that threaten humanitarian values are political in nature. The Lisbon Treaty clearly recognises that humanitarian aid is a separate chapter of our international action and I feel that this should be reflected in an institutional structure.
In that regard, I must say that I feel that there is a growing trend – which I am not denouncing yet because there is no reason to denounce it when nothing dubious is going on – to believe, for example, that the logistical capacities of armies could quite easily, to some extent, be more closely involved in the humanitarian field.
I will not reject anything out of hand, but I will say, however, that we should reject any interference by a sector that does not have a humanitarian purpose. I can understand that in certain specific cases military logistics are used to assist humanitarian actions. However, I will not deny that I, personally, would prefer such actions to be the political responsibility of foreign ministers, as is the case in certain countries, instead of them being carried out under the aegis of one or more defence ministers.
Allow me to reiterate very briefly the reason for this political initiative: basically, the humanitarian context has changed in recent years and we need to adapt to it if we want our humanitarian action to continue to be coherent and effective.
This debate will continue, but I feel that it is more and more common to see in the humanitarian field sectors or logistics – corpora – that can undeniably cause confusion.
In conclusion, Mr President, Mr Cornillet, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased with the European Community’s considerable contribution to the humanitarian effort and in particular I pay tribute to all the men and women who work on the ground in very difficult circumstances to provide humanitarian aid to those who need it.
I firmly believe that this consensus should allow for more systematic, coordinated action. It is to some extent the basis of the doctrine, the founding principles and it genuinely offers a framework for permanent coordination at European level. On the basis of this future consensus, we can become much more effective, which is after all the objective.
What are the main changes and what are the main challenges? In my opinion, they can be summed up as follows. Firstly, there are more and more conflicts and natural disasters and their death toll is also rising. In particular, the natural disasters are often caused by climate change: the recent floods in Mexico reflect the reality and extent of this worrying trend.
Secondly, we are also witnessing an increase in complex crises and significant changes in the nature of conflicts. The methods and means used in armed conflicts, for example, make the work of humanitarian organisations more and more complicated. The risks of attacks and pillaging of aid are also unfortunate daily realities, be they in Darfur or Somalia, Sri Lanka or Myanmar, Colombia or eastern DRC. We are also increasingly the witnesses of systematic violations of international humanitarian law and, consequently, restrictions of humanitarian values.
There is a constant risk of confusion between the political and humanitarian agendas. I firmly believe that the European Union, as the largest global donor – I think it is important to reiterate that together we account for 40% of global humanitarian aid – but also as a political pillar of international law and multilateralism has, as far as I am concerned, a particular responsibility to ensure effective and adequate humanitarian aid. We can, and we must, act as a political catalyst and be a political benchmark and reference, too. That is the context in which, almost a year ago, we decided to launch the initiative to reach an explicit consensus on humanitarian aid at EU level.
These concerns are clearly reflected in Mr Cornillet’s report and I naturally support the key elements that the European Parliament wishes to underline and defend in the preparation of a European humanitarian consensus. This consensus and appropriate monitoring involving all 27 EU Member States and the Community will for the first time provide a common political core of values, objectives and principles, supported by the Member States and the Commission, which will help to improve the complementarity and coordination of the work of the Member States and the Commission.
What are the main elements of the draft consensus? The first is respect for humanitarian principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence. You are of course well aware of what is entailed.
The second is the need to strengthen respect for, and application of, international humanitarian aid law at international level. Let me tell you a brief anecdote in this respect. I will not mention the country but I remember, not too long ago, I was in a particularly dramatic theatre of operations from a humanitarian perspective. I was putting questions to one of the country’s senior figures, who was responsible for what was happening there, and I said to him: ‘You are not complying with international humanitarian law’. He gave me a truly terrible response: ‘That is true, but this is a time of war’. It is evident that international humanitarian law is designed precisely for times of war. You can therefore imagine the extent to which we are in fact moving further and further away from it, in some way without any reaction, or moving further and further away from the most basic standards in this respect.
Thirdly, we need to improve donors’ practices and methods as well as the quality of the partnership with the humanitarian organisations in order to make the aid provided more efficient."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples