Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-09-Speech-3-595-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110309.24.3-595-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I will try to deal with as many of the issues that were raised as possible but, as always, when we debate the Middle East peace process, there is a real sense of urgency and a strong desire in this House to see us make progress. Let me just tell you that this is reflected a thousandfold in the work that I try to do to see what we are able to achieve as the European Union.
Mr Belder, we have to get, as you say, to direct negotiations, but we have to do it by making sure the positions of the parties are credible and credible with each other as well. It is really important that the Palestinians are able to go to the negotiating table with the support of the Arab League. I speak with Amr Moussa on this subject. I will see him again in Cairo. He will be leaving the Arab League in May, I think on 14 May. He is becoming a presidential candidate in Egypt, as I understand it. It is very important that the Palestinians can carry the people with them. That is important for them and it is also important for Israel and for the security of both. So all of this is tied up with trying to make sure that progress is linked to a certainty about being able to carry the people and the other partners who need to be engaged with that.
Mr Lambsdorff, thank you for your comments. I think the Quartet is a really important vehicle, but it is not everything. I am trying to make sure that we make progress on that. I feel very strongly that we have played an important part. I think we have played an extremely important part over the past weeks and months in how we have been able to keep momentum going. We need to get further and faster. With the Quartet envoys meetings that are taking place, we need to use that opportunity. When the envoys arrived last week in Brussels, I sat with them for an hour to discuss how I saw the possibilities and to impress upon them the importance of using these meetings with the Israelis and the Palestinians. I do not mind where we meet the envoys. I understand with the Palestinians and with the Israelis that sometimes, they are very nervous about what is happening. So if we go to Jerusalem to meet the Israeli negotiator, I do not care where we go. Let us just have the meetings and actually, for the very first time, get the envoys meeting with the negotiators and having the chance to explore the positions in a way that we have not done before. For me, that really matters.
When I talked about Gaza and Kerem Shalom, I really was not trying to suggest that there is only one crossing. We did a complete piece of work on looking at the whole of the infrastructure on the crossings because, when I went into Gaza and met with businesses, particularly, but also in talking to the young people – and I went to the summer schools last year which we fund – it did seem to me that one of the most important issues for Gaza was to get the economy moving as quickly as possible. I respect the fact – and I meet with the Israeli general who is in charge of opening the crossing each time I go and get an update – that there is some movement. I appreciate that. However, we wanted to make sure that we enabled exports in particular, which is vital for the crossings and vital for the economy, because getting more goods in if you do not have an economy does not help you as much as if you can do both. So, getting that to happen mattered.
Kerem Shalom was the one where we saw that we could do three things. First of all, we could put in the infrastructure – the road that would enable it to be used more frequently – and, secondly, we could put in the equipment that would enable the scanning to be done much more quickly to get the flow of goods moving. Thirdly, we could also train the Palestinian people as part of our mission. EUR 5.3 million is what it will cost. We can do it and we are ready to roll. The reason that matters is because, although of course I want to see a much bigger solution for Gaza, it is important that we offer our support to enable things to happen quickly that can help to alleviate that situation. So that is my particular reference for Kerem Shalom. We looked at Karni. There are other crossings we have looked at, but that is the one where we can make a specific contribution right now. We will try to do so but it does not alter the basic premise of what we have said – that the crossings need to be open, that people need to move freely and be able to do that as quickly as possible.
I just want to say to Mr Campbell Bannerman that I do not mind you attacking me, but please, let us get the facts right. Most of the money that you are describing – and, in fact, there is more of it – is used for spending outside. It is not actually for my service. It is in order that we can build democracies, support human rights, the instrument for stability, development and so on, which I know you and other members of your group – and I think everyone in this House – absolutely supports one hundred percent. You want us to support the people of Egypt, the people of Tunisia and the people of Libya. Well, that is some money that we use to do it across the world over time. The budget for the European External Action Service is EUR 460 million. That funds 135 delegations, the central staff, everything that we do all over the world. It is less than 50% of the British Foreign Office’s budget. So if you want to attack me for that, that is fine, but please do not accuse me of having billions and billions of euro that somehow I am using for a sparkling building or anything else. That is the amount that I have for the moment to be able to spend under the budget that exists. I will try to spend it as well as I possibly can in the interests of the things that I believe in and which this House believes in. The rest of it is for us to give to other people who need it to achieve what we think is right.
I have been talking too long but, Mr Arlacchi, it is true that things in the Middle East are changing and the terms are changing. What is really interesting, as we build the platform on which we operate, is to be able to look at the potential in the region – whether it is in Lebanon and the possibilities of what could happen there, whether it is in terms of the Middle East peace process and certainly what is happening in Egypt and also in my conversations with Jordan, where I speak to the Foreign Minister frequently. We talk about the opportunities that we have there. So I think it is the moment where we can really make changes.
I want to just say something about the relationships that we have. I work very hard at the relationships with Israel and the Palestinians and I talk to a lot of people. I talk to the leaders of both, privately for many hours, and with other people in the meetings. I respect those conversations very much, but I tell you the European Union is respected in both countries and I intend to keep it that way because that is about a two-state solution. They will tell me about things they do not like. I am glad they do, but I think they have respect for the position that we are trying to take. We do not have a marginal role. We have a realistic role. The role that we are able to play is one that I understand and I use to the best effect I can. I cannot do what other countries can do. I do not have the power to do some things, but what we can do is use our economic and political muscle – in the best sense of that word – to be able to try and support this process going forward. I devote more energy to this probably than to anything else that we do.
Ms Dodds asked whether the neighbourhood policy had failed. It has not, but it definitely fits into the ‘could do better’ category. I said a long time ago that we need to review the policy. Stefan Füle and I have started that work. The events of the last few weeks have proved we need to do it, to make it more effective, more able to achieve what we want and to be flexible and recognise that in the different countries, we need a differentiated approach that will really deliver for the people on the ground the things that they want against the values and aspirations that we hold for them and for ourselves.
I have upgraded the post of special envoy to Deputy Secretary-General for the moment because I think it is so important that the Quartet envoy is somebody who is absolutely at the heart and who is our political director. I thank Marc Otte for his contribution. Once Helga Schmid has finished this piece of work and we see where we going, I will then look to see what we should do for the future to make sure that we are properly represented in the region.
Finally, Mr Swoboda, you asked me about the Iranian ship. As I understand it, the position is that the Iranians said they were doing a training mission in support of their work to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. Permission was given for it to go through on that basis. As far as I am aware – and that is the last information I had because, obviously, as soon as we heard, we asked for the information – as a training mission with that in mind, I do not think there was any reason for the Egyptians to deny them access. Whether that was what was happening or not is another thing altogether.
I absolutely want us to move away from ever hearing the phrase ‘payer, not a player’ again. I am sick of it. I have heard it enough. I do not criticise Members here for saying it. It is simply just a travesty of the role of the European Union, but I think it does reflect historically some of the ways in which we perhaps were perceived. I have worked really hard in the course of this year to change that, not least on the ground, and I will say more about that in a moment.
Honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate. I hope in my response I have covered as many of the issues as possible.
I want to begin with you, Mr Salafranca, because you asked me about some very specific points. We began with the issue of the veto of the Security Council by the United States – the 14 to 1 vote on the settlements proposal, the resolution that was put forward by Lebanon on the day, because they are part of the Security Council – which, as you know, created a huge amount of what we might call noise in the system and beyond. I was in the Middle East with the Palestinians during the course of those final days leading up to that vote. All the EU countries on the Security Council voted against the American position and voted for the resolution.
Our position is absolutely clear. We are all united in recognising that the settlements are illegal under international law. Those of you who, like me, have seen the settlements, will know that actually, they are not in anyone’s long-term interest and would have to be resolved ultimately by determination of the borders. Our proposals have been the 1967 borders with appropriate swapping of territory, which is for the parties to agree and not for us to say, but I am sure that would take into account the reality of people’s lives and where they live.
I do not think it has had a dramatic long-term effect on the relationship with the US, not least because the United States has worked very hard to explain its position – and I am not going to try to explain it for them – and to continue to work with the Palestinians. I think that the Palestinians have understood the position that the United States found itself in. So there is still a huge amount of work going on, but I do not want in any way to suggest that it was not a difficult time. I was very well aware of that.
You asked me about the Palestinian elections called for September, which Hamas has refused to participate in. You will also know – and you will have seen it – that Prime Minister Fayyad is busy looking at the possibilities for some sort of reconciliation. I will be speaking to him soon about that among many other things. I am not sure whether the elections will now go ahead. That will be for them to decide. I know that they are thinking about the best way forward.
You also asked me about the leaks that occurred from the Palestinian side. You know that Mr Erkat, who was the chief negotiator, is moving to a new position as a senior advisor for President Abbas on the grounds that it was from his office and he must take responsibility for it. I think it had two effects. One is, of course, great concern about what was going on. When you are trying to pull together a negotiating position, lots of things are said. Many of them do not end up in the final documents but people – and this is right and proper – spend time thinking about the different positions. So without doubt, there was concern in Ramallah and beyond, and on the West Bank and beyond, about what was being said. Interestingly, there was an equal and opposite reaction whereby, I think in parts of the Israeli press, when they saw what they thought was a Palestinian position, they asked, why are we not engaging with this? So it had an interesting effect on raising the debate. Perhaps in the longer term – although I am never a fan of leaking anything, because it prevents people from developing good policy – this might not have the effect that originally we might have seen.
Let me just kill off this association agreement discussion, which is why I kept shaking my head. What has not happened is a change in the existing framework and the position. Progress in the association agreement remains dependent upon progress in the Middle East peace process. What was being described was the aspiration to want to have those stronger relations, because we do believe in a two-state settlement and we do believe in the future of Israel. We want to see a strong Israel – economically, politically, all of those things – as we wish to see a strong Palestinian state, but we cannot make progress until we see progress in the Middle East peace process. I agree with Ms Neyts-Uyttebroeck that it is really important that we start to speed up. This has been a point that I have made consistently in Israel and to the Palestinian Authority. We have to get moving.
There are two reasons for this. One is that the region is changing and those changes demand it and, as Mr Arlacchi said, there is a change in the region that demands that we recognise that an Egypt – not that I believe that Egypt wishes to create a problem militarily with Israel, I do not at all – a democratic Egypt moving forward will want to look again at the issue that is on its doorstep. I think it is the interests of both. I genuinely believe it is in the interests of the people of Israel as much as of the Palestinian people to find a solution now. This could be a really important part of a secure, stable region. I have said that and will continue to say it, and will continue to say it to all our partners, including everybody in the Quartet."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples