Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-01-20-Speech-4-103-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110120.6.4-103-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the Black Sea is a gate to and from Europe, and therefore it should be addressed as such. It is not a far distant place of little relevance which occasionally comes to our attention.
The truth is that the area has already put – and will continue to put – items on our agenda, be it through the interruption of gas transit as in 2006 and 2008, or the Georgian war in 2008. However, in spite of the evidence and its recognised importance, the Black Sea area still does not enjoy the attention it deserves from the EU – an EU which was, in a way, compelled to address these problems once Bulgaria and Romania had become members in 2007.
The Black Sea Synergy, elaborated not long after the admission of those two countries, appears to have been, in retrospect, a hastily put together document designed to cover a ‘blank spot’ or ‘black hole’ – depending on your preference – which the EU had to deal with almost overnight. The fact that nothing of importance has happened since the first review of the initiative in 2008 – and we are not very far advanced in its implementation as mentioned in the report – is indicative of that.
To my mind, there are two main reasons for this. First, there is an apparent disinterest and unwillingness on the part of EU Members to address the area decisively. Moreover, now that money is short, there is even less willingness to do so than before.
Secondly, the initial assumption on which the synergy was based, namely, that the area should become a coherent and cooperative region in order to qualify for EU attention and material support, has ignored the simple truth that just 20 years ago, the area looked completely different. To expect an area so complex and different to become coherent and get an individual identity in such a short time is either unrealistic or – I hate to say – ill-intended. Perhaps, in the context of a revisiting of the Eastern Partnership, things would improve."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples