Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-01-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090401.12.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to start by complimenting Mrs Oomen-Ruijten on what she has just said. I wholeheartedly agree with her arguments, and I also hope that they will influence her group tomorrow when it votes on our amendments to this report. I wish her every success in this.
My group has great difficulties with this report by Mr Onyszkiewicz, which is why we voted against it in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is comprehensive, and rightly so; the agenda for relations between the EU and Russia is indeed extensive. It is true that the rapporteur has endeavoured to address all these fields in his report, for which I commend him. Yet the report takes the wrong tone. One cannot say that these relations are crucial, as the rapporteur does, and then just include examples of everything that is wrong, or going wrong, in Russia, without also noting the mistakes we ourselves have made in the past – over the last 20 years – in relation to the Russian Federation.
Russia is not a candidate country, but rather a strategic partner that wishes to cooperate in areas of common interest. This necessitates constructive, rational behaviour, and I fully agree with Mr Vondra that this must form the basis of our approach. Contrary to the impression given, the Copenhagen criteria do not apply here. I am in favour of a pragmatic approach based on interdependence. They need us and we need them. Whether it be in the field of trade, energy cooperation, climate or nuclear non-proliferation, we can find solutions only if we work together. That is the strategic interest – we persist in using the word ‘strategic’ in this debate – behind the negotiations on a new agreement. We must conduct these in good faith whilst also respecting Russia’s interests.
Our rapporteur rightly devotes a good deal of attention to the neighbours that the European Union has in common with Russia. Here, too, the principle holds that cooperation is more productive than confrontation. We want to avoid at all costs fighting over spheres of influence. Instead, the European Union should focus on reviving a weakened Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Within this framework, we can then look at improving the approach to the frozen conflicts we still have in Europe, whether they be in Georgia, Azerbaijan or Moldova.
Not everything is hunky-dory in EU-Russia relations, of course. The report rightly discusses this. We have condemned Russia’s invasion of Georgia and continue to do so. We are concerned about authoritarian tendencies in Russia. Thus the dialogue cannot only be positive and, as a member of the Council of Europe, Russia can do better. Nevertheless, with all due respect to the rapporteur, he would do well to press the reset button. Persisting with a polarising attitude now the United States Government has chosen a different approach to Russia is counterproductive. Our problems are global, and everyone’s involvement is needed to solve them."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples