Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-19-Speech-2-359"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080219.32.2-359"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for devoting so much time and effort to the preparation of this report. However, regrettably I am obliged to follow this positive statement with the observation that the proposal in question is extremely rambling and poorly structured, with many elements repeated throughout. My main question is: to whom is it actually addressed?
I am afraid that there will be a sense of unease within the targeted nations about this text. It will be a headache for these countries’ diplomats, as they grapple with the task of navigating the criticisms contained in the report. I think that for future reference it would be appropriate to separate the resolution and explanatory report. I would like to quote the example of one of the countries in question, Kazakhstan. At the end of 2006 the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbajev, came to Brussels. I think that the Commissioner was present with us at the time. On that occasion words of appreciation and praise were spoken. On reading the report, however, the overall impression is that the acclamations were not serious or sincere. Is the rate of gas and oil supply the measure of our objectiveness? Do we not know that Kazakhstan has been actually carrying out a program entitled ‘Pass to Europe’, which reflects this Republic’s sincere desire to move closer to the EU in the fields concerned? I feel that the report does not offer an honest answer to the Kazakhs’ question as to whether Kazakhstan can be considered in geographical as well as in more general terms part of Europe. I also feel that the traditionally patronising tone of the report with which the EU addresses its illiterate poor relatives is inappropriate.
The text does not distinguish at all between the different countries in the region, be it in relation to human rights or issues of economic and social development. The obligation to include among them the countries of Central Asia and Mongolia appears comprehensible only as an effort to unite under one umbrella states regarded by the rapporteurs as places of similar geopolitical importance, presumably as potential platforms against Russia and China. Some of the wording in the motion for a resolution is questionable. What does recital R mean it states that a number of different countries, have had, historically or more recently, vested interests in the region? Does it express our support of the colonial ambitions of some European powers in the past or is it an expression of concern for the interests of some oil companies? In addition, the statement that Russia and China tried to increase their spheres of influence in Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation does not make sense to me.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the admirable intentions of improving the EU’s relations with the countries of Central Asia and the efforts to support local democratic and socio-political development have been, in the drafting of the resolution, obscured by the highly problematic interests of certain ambitious groups. Considering the actual objectives and needs of the EU, the resulting text is, in my view, unacceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples