Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-11-Speech-3-116"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20091111.16.3-116"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Madam President, debates on Russia very often divide us into ideologists and pragmatists, confrontational geo-strategists and conciliatorists, Cold War veterans and new utilitarian opportunists. I think that it is high time to move away from these dilemmatic Manichaeisms and to make clear points concerning our wish to engage in a constructive and efficient dialogue with Russia. As far as I am concerned, we should always show firmness from the strategic point of view, but flexibility from the tactical point of view, in our relations with Russia. We should always defend our values and interests, but we should also show empathy and respect for the aspirations and interests of Russia. This is the only basis on which we could develop confidence and mutual trust and find mutually efficient and acceptable solutions. On a more concrete point, we must transform our eastern neighbourhood from an area of rivalries into an area of common strategies and common projects. A common strategy for the Black Sea area should perhaps slowly complement our synergy and give more substance to our present approach. Within this context, we have to approach the issue of frozen conflicts in a very fair and open way and leave aside any taboos in trying to find solutions on a pragmatic basis. We must also help Russia to meet its objective need to avoid being trapped as a possible oil- and gas-dependent power, while we have to achieve our independence from an energy point of view. We have to look for something more imaginative in order to find true cooperation, technological cooperation and exploitation cooperation, opening the markets in the field of energy. We must look together with Russia to a new global security arrangement or agreement. I think that the Medvedev initiative should not be immediately rejected. Some think that there is an agenda behind this initiative which we cannot accept. Others think that there is no agenda and it is a mere test of our reactions. Whatever is behind it, our current security arrangements are rooted in different times and we have to update them. We have to see what is still valid and we have to add something new to them. My last point is that we have to take advantage of the new transatlantic relations in order to perhaps achieve a trilateral Russia-United States-Europe dialogue. We also have to think of such a trilateral approach in order at least to be sure that Russia and the United States will not cut deals without our participation."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph