Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-06-Speech-3-718-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110406.40.3-718-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I appreciate one very important element, namely, that we, the Commission and Parliament, are approaching the review of our Neighbourhood Policy in parallel. It is not a situation, as with many other policies, where we come here with a product that has already been finalised and then have a discussion. We entered into the process some time ago and, through interaction, we have been able to take a number of Parliament’s good ideas on board already and to explain a number of our ideas. The long list of speakers who have made a number of valuable suggestions and asked good questions is proof that this approach was the right one.
It is not going to be an easy process. No change is easy but, compared to its predecessor, this is to be an ongoing process where the review capabilities or, if you like, a capacity for feedback or a reality check, will be an important quality incorporated in this review of the ENP.
Many of you talked about money. The higher our ambitions are, the more resources they will require. The logic here is very clear. But is it only about money? Absolutely not. It is also about our creativity, our coherence, taking seriously the interests of our partners and being ambitious as far as opening our trade market and tackling the mobility issue are concerned.
The Jasmine Revolution was very much about dignity and equity. Let us then turn these two issues – dignity and equity – into the principles our policy will be based upon. Parliament has a very important role to play in this regard.
In the Lisbon Treaty, which was also agreed and voted in this House, we set high ambitions. We agreed to have the European Union as a global player. Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and I are both of the opinion that we could hardly deliver on this expectation without, first of all, playing a truly constructive role in our neighbourhood and that we could hardly play such a role without addressing the challenges of our neighbourhood, including the protracted conflict.
It was with that in mind that together, we started the review process in June last year. At that time, our ambitions were, firstly, to reflect on the new instruments brought in by the Lisbon Treaty. There are big changes with regard to external action with the substitution of the six months’ Presidency and its priorities in external relations by the consistent and coherent policy that is guaranteed by a person with a dual role, combining the CFSP Community instrument, and also having for the first time capacities in the External Action Service. Embassies have also been upgraded in order to represent not only the Commission but also the European Union. These are huge things.
I know that there are a lot of challenges, questions and even criticisms here and there, but I am confident that these changes will deliver on a more coherent EU policy on external action. We wanted that to be reflected in our Neighbourhood Policy. We also wanted to do one of the important things that we sensed was missing. Looking at neighbourhood, we were lacking the feeling of ownership of these countries in the Neighbourhood Policy. Some of our partners were saying that the Neighbourhood Policy had been imposed on them and that they had actually never been consulted. So, they believe that their views were not being taken into account and that there was one scheme that was being applied to all, without taking the specificities into account. But then the Arab Revolution came. It has offered us a mirror – which, I think, was very much needed – for asking important questions, such as how ready we are to complement the aspirations of emerging democracies, how far we are ready to go to deal with the situations like the one we face in Libya, and how long we should make compromises here and there and associate stability with autocracy, accepting that we have not always had the values in the same place as our interests.
Our communication of 8 March was an attempt to answer some of those questions – to be absolutely frank with you, the easy questions – because we have actually answered only those that related to the emerging democracies. We left the more difficult questions for the strategic ENP review. Many of them still need to be answered.
In that communication of 8 March, we defined three basic pillars, which you will also see reflected in the strategic review. The first one supports the democratic transformation and institution building in our neighbouring states. In the second, the focus is on the relationship with societies and support for civil societies. The third gives support to inclusive and sustainable growth among our neighbours.
Many countries in the South are changing, change which is not limited to those countries but to the whole region. They are also changing us and the way we react to the situation – the way in which we will proactively react and pursue these new phenomena in our neighbourhood. It will have repercussions in the East and there is a lesson-learned process in our joint thinking with our Eastern partners. This reflection on the East is not taking place at the expense of the South and the events in the South and our current interest and focus on the South are not at the expense of our interest in the East. The ENP review process will strengthen the need for a balanced approach to our neighbourhood, whether it is the East or the South.
There is a new momentum to substitute, sometimes, preferred real politics in our neighbourhood by an ambitious and much more proactive policy based on our values. There is also a momentum to be clear on what we want to achieve with, or through, the instruments of the Neighbourhood Policy. A couple of years ago, we referred to the peace, stability and prosperity zone. It is an important concept, which is still valid, but the partners want more. In the East, some of them are very clear as far as European aspirations are concerned. Those in the South want to have a more institutionally defined framework for economic integration. Should we shy away from offering our thoughts on these issues? I do not think so. I think we should make it clear that the Eastern Partnership is not a way to keep EU membership from the countries in the East but it is a way for them to build more of the European Union inside their countries. I think we need to make an offer to those most advanced countries in the South – a kind of framework for them to be a part, not of decision making, but decision shaping.
Do not expect a very technical straightjacket for bilateral relations with our neighbours. Expect only very few, but very clear and very important benchmarks. Expect, as a result of this ENP review, a flexible and individually tailored structure and an interaction which works well between political steering on one side and our programmes and technical and financial assistance on the other."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples