Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.12.2-148"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@cs1
"Hr. formand, bare en bemærkning for god ordens skyld. Et medlem nævnte, at vi skulle yde mere humanitær bistand. Det indgår ikke i den politiske ligning. Vi yder humanitær bistand, når og hvor der er behov for det uden at tage hensyn til politik. Det er et meget vigtigt punkt, og det er vigtigt, at jeg bruger tid på at gentage vores holdning. Vi er i Cuba, når der er et humanitært behov for det. Det gælder også alle andre steder, herunder Nordkorea osv. Jeg er sikker på, at det ikke er til diskussion her. Jeg siger det ikke, fordi jeg betragter det som et reelt problem her i Parlamentet, men fordi det er vigtigt aldrig at begå den fejltagelse.
Jeg er enig med dem, der har sagt, at den fælles holdning ikke har givet resultater. Problemet er imidlertid, hvilke andre instrumenter, der giver resultater, vi har til rådighed? Det er ikke nemt og der er altid risiko for at blive skuffet. Som jeg ser det, er der en løbende kamp i ledelsen i Havana mellem høgene og de mere konstruktivt og åbent orienterede. Denne kamp bølger frem og tilbage helt uforudsigeligt og er en rekation på både interne begivenheder og pres fra Cubas store nabo.
Der er behov for at gøre mere end blot at køre frem med retorikken på automatpilot - bl.a. ved at nævne de grundlæggende principper for menneskerettigheder. Jeg mener ikke, at en sådan diskussion hører hjemme i Europa-Parlamentet. Her skal vi ikke diskutere for og imod menneskerettigheder. Det er ikke det rigtige sted til det. Hvis vi vil være seriøse i denne sag, er vi nødt til at være pragmatiske. Den anden fremgangsmåde er den nemme, og vi er nødt til at spille med, vi skal tættere på realpolitik med ændringer og fremskridt i Cuba, hvis det er muligt. Der er ingen garantier. I 2003 forsøgte jeg at finde ud af, hvad der kunne gøres, og jeg blev skuffet. Det var dog en reaktion, som efter min mening skyldes den meget uforudsigelige inderkreds i Havana.
En anden frustration, som Europa oplever igen og igen, er, at Cuba som et modefænomen sætter os i bås med USA, når det passer ind i deres kram. Det gør det meget nemt for høgene i Havana at gøre dette, som støtter deres - paranoide - synspunkt om, at hele verden er imod dem. Det er forkert. Europa er ikke imod Cuba og bestemt ikke imod cubanerne. Vi bryder os ikke om regimet og heller ikke om den gammeldags, diktatoriske måde at styre et samfund på, men vi vil heller ikke slås i hartkorn med den måde, som USA håndterer forbindelserne med sin nabo på.
Europa er anderledes, vores måde at betragte Cuba på er anderledes, og vi skal på en eller anden måde investere i at gøre det til en uundgåelig realitet i de interne drøftelser i Havana. Vi skal være villige til at løbe en vis risiko for at gøre det umuligt for høgene at slå Europa i hartkorn med USA. Det er det, som vi skal være modige, konstruktive og selvsikre nok til at investere i. Hvis vi ikke er klar til at investere i at skabe et reelt grundlag for en dialog - som er defineret af os og ikke af høgene i Havanas paranoide syn på resten af verden - kører vi blot frem med retorikken på automatpilot, kort sagt som i den gamle fælles holdning.
Vi skal ikke gøre det til en spændetrøje. Husk at den selv samme fælles holdning i adskillige år ikke hindrede Europa i at gå ind i en dristigere, tættere og mere kritisk dialog med Cuba om menneskerettigheder. Det gjorde vi på samme baggrund, hvad angår den fælles holdning. Europæiske investeringer i den cubanske økonomi steg også markant, mens vi havde den samme fælles holdning. Den blokerede ikke for investeringsvækst. Vi bør ikke fortolke den så snævert, at den bliver en spændetrøje. Konklusionen er, at der er brug for en mere innovativ fremgangsmåde."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Lediglich eine Bemerkung, um ein paar Dinge richtig zu stellen. Ein Mitglied erwähnte, dass wir mehr humanitäre Hilfe leisten sollten: Dies gehört nicht in den Bereich der politischen Erwägungen. Wir leisten humanitäre Hilfe bei Erfordernis und leisten sie, wo sie benötigt wird, ohne auf die Politik zu achten. Dies ist ein sehr wichtiger Punkt, und es ist wichtig, dass ich mir die Zeit nehme, unseren Standpunkt zu bekräftigen. Wir sind in Kuba, wenn wir wegen der humanitären Lage gebraucht werden, so wie überall auf der Welt, auch in Ländern wie Nordkorea. Ich bin ziemlich sicher, dass das hier nicht zur Debatte steht. Ich sage es nicht, weil ich meine, dass dies ein echtes Problem in diesem Haus ist, sondern weil es gilt, diesen Fehler nie zu begehen.
Ich neige dazu, denjenigen zuzustimmen, die hier zum Ausdruck brachten, dass der gemeinsame Standpunkt zu keinem Ergebnis geführt hat. Die Frage ist jedoch, was gibt es sonst noch für Instrumente, die zu Ergebnissen führen werden? Es ist nicht einfach, und das Risiko, enttäuscht zu werden, besteht immer. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass es innerhalb der Führungselite in Havanna einen ständigen Kampf zwischen Hardlinern und konstruktiveren, aufgeschlosseneren Menschen gibt. Er schwankt auf unvorhersehbare Weise hin und her und ist eine Reaktion auf interne Ereignisse und auf den Druck, den Kubas großer Nachbar ausübt.
Wir müssen mehr tun, als einfach gebetsmühlenartig unsere Phrasen herunterzubeten, indem wir z. B. auf die Grundprinzipien der Menschenrechte verweisen oder Ähnliches. Ich denke nicht, dass diese Debatte im Parlament geführt werden muss. Für mich ist das Parlament kein Ort, an dem eine Diskussion für oder gegen die Menschenrechte geführt werden muss. Dies ist wirklich nicht der richtige Ort. Wenn wir es ernst damit meinen, müssen wir pragmatisch vorgehen. Der andere Ansatz ist der einfachere, und wir müssen nun ins Spiel kommen, wir müssen möglichst nahe an die reale Politik des Wandels und des Fortschritts in Kuba herankommen. Niemand kann für irgendetwas garantieren. Im Jahr 2003 wollte ich sehen, was man tun könne, und ich wurde enttäuscht. Dies war meiner Ansicht nach jedoch eine Reaktion, die dem äußerst unberechenbaren inneren Machtzirkel in Havanna entsprang.
Eine weitere Enttäuschung, die wir in Europa immer wieder erleben mussten, ist die Angewohnheit der Kubaner, uns nach Belieben mit den USA in einen Topf zu werfen. Dies macht die Dinge für Hardliner in Havanna sehr einfach, ja sogar äußerst bequem, da es ihre auf Paranoia gründende Ansicht unterstützt, die ganze Welt sei gegen sie. Das stimmt nicht, Europa ist nicht gegen Kuba und schon gar nicht gegen die Kubaner. Wir halten nichts von diesem Regime, von der rückständigen diktatorischen Art, eine Gesellschaft zu verwalten, aber wir wollen auch nicht mit den USA und ihrer Art, die Beziehungen zu ihrem Nachbarn zu gestalten, in Verbindung gebracht werden.
Europa ist anders, unsere Einstellung gegenüber Kuba ist anders, und wir müssen etwas investieren, damit dies in den internen Diskussionen in Havanna zu einer unleugbaren Tatsache wird. Wir müssen gewillt sein, ein gewisses Risiko einzugehen, damit es für die Hardliner unmöglich wird, Europa so darzustellen, als ob Europa und die USA das gleiche wären. Das ist die Investition, für die es gilt, genügend Mut, Konstruktivität und Selbstbewusstsein aufzubringen. Wenn wir nicht bereit sind, in eine echte Gesprächsbasis zu investieren – eine, die durch uns und nicht durch das paranoide Weltbild der Hardliner bestimmt ist, – stützen wir uns nur auf gebetsmühlenartig vorgetragene Floskeln, also auf den alten gemeinsamen Standpunkt.
Wir sollten daraus keine Zwangsjacke machen. Erinnern Sie sich bitte daran, dass derselbe gemeinsame Standpunkt Europa jahrelang nicht davon abgehalten hat, mit Kuba einen mutigeren, engeren und kritischeren Dialog über Menschenrechte zu führen. Wir taten dies vor demselben Hintergrund, was den gemeinsamen Standpunkt betrifft. Europäische Investitionen in Kubas Wirtschaft stiegen ebenfalls bemerkenswert an, während wir denselben gemeinsamen Standpunkt vertraten. Er machte einen Anstieg der Investitionen nicht unmöglich. Wir sollten ihn nicht so eng auslegen, dass er zu einer Zwangsjacke wird. Abschließend lassen Sie mich betonen, dass ein innovativerer Ansatz gefunden werden muss."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να κάνω μία μόνο παρατήρηση για χάρη της τάξης. Κάποιος βουλευτής ανέφερε ότι θα πρέπει να αποστείλουμε περισσότερη ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια: αυτό δεν είναι μέρος της πολιτικής εξίσωσης. Παρέχουμε ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια όταν παρίσταται ανάγκη και εκεί που παρίσταται ανάγκη, χωρίς να σκεφτόμαστε την πολιτική. Αυτή η παρατήρηση είναι πολύ σημαντική, και είναι σημαντικό να έχω τον χρόνο να επαναλάβω τη θέση μας. Είμαστε στην Κούβα όταν υπάρχουν ανθρωπιστικοί λόγοι, όπως και σε άλλα μέρη, όπως η Νότια Κορέα κλπ. Είμαι βέβαιος ότι δεν τίθεται προς συζήτηση αυτό το θέμα σήμερα. Δεν το λέω αυτό επειδή αισθάνομαι ότι πρόκειται για πραγματικό πρόβλημα σε αυτό το Σώμα, αλλά διότι είναι σημαντικό να μην κάνουμε ποτέ αυτό το λάθος.
Τείνω να συμφωνήσω με όσους είπαν ότι η κοινή θέση δεν είχε αποτελέσματα. Ωστόσο, το πρόβλημα είναι ποια άλλα μέσα υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα ώστε να δώσουν αποτελέσματα. Δεν είναι εύκολο και ο κίνδυνος απογοήτευσης είναι πάντα υπαρκτός. Κατά τη γνώμη μου, υπάρχει μια συνεχής πάλη μεταξύ των αδιάλλακτων και των πιο εποικοδομητικών, ανοιχτόμυαλων ανθρώπων στην ηγεσία της Αβάνας. Αυτό προκαλεί άλλοτε πρόοδο και άλλοτε πισωγυρίσματα με απρόβλεπτο τρόπο και είναι μια αντίδραση τόσο στα εσωτερικά γεγονότα όσο και στην πίεση που ασκείται από τον μεγάλο γείτονα της Κούβας.
Πρέπει να κάνουμε περισσότερα από το να βάζουμε τη ρητορική μας στον αυτόματο πιλότο – αναφερόμενοι σε βασικές αρχές των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων κλπ. Δεν φρονώ ότι αυτή η συζήτηση είναι αναγκαία στο Κοινοβούλιο. Δεν θεωρώ ότι αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο είναι ένα μέρος όπου θα πρέπει να διεξάγεται συζήτηση υπέρ ή κατά των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Δεν είναι πραγματικά ο κατάλληλος χώρος. Εάν θέλουμε να είμαστε σοβαροί όσον αφορά το θέμα, πρέπει να είμαστε πραγματιστές. Η άλλη προσέγγιση είναι εύκολη, και πρέπει να μπούμε στο παιχνίδι, πρέπει να έρθουμε πιο κοντά στην πραγματική πολιτική αλλαγών και προόδου στην Κούβα, εάν αυτό είναι δυνατόν. Κανείς δεν μπορεί να δώσει εγγυήσεις. Το 2003, προσπάθησα να δω τι θα μπορούσε να γίνει και απογοητεύθηκα. Ωστόσο, ήταν μια αντίδραση που προερχόταν, κατά τη γνώμη μου, από τους πολύ απρόβλεπτους εσωτερικούς κύκλους της Αβάνας.
Μια ακόμα απογοήτευση που αντιμετωπίζουμε συνεχώς στην Ευρώπη είναι ότι, όποτε θεωρείται ωραίο, είναι μόδα στην Κούβα να μας θέτουν στην ίδια κατηγορία με τις ΗΠΑ. Είναι πολύ εύκολο –ακόμα και βολικό– για τους αδιάλλακτους στην Αβάνα, οι οποίοι στηρίζουν την άποψή τους –οδηγούμενοι από την παράνοια– ότι όλος ο κόσμος είναι εναντίον τους. Αυτό είναι λάθος, η Ευρώπη δεν είναι εναντίον της Κούβας και σίγουρα δεν είναι εναντίον των Κουβανών. Δεν μας αρέσει το καθεστώς, δεν μας αρέσει ο παλιομοδίτικος δικτατορικός τρόπος διαχείρισης της κοινωνίας, αλλά δεν θέλουμε να μας συνδέουν με τον τρόπο με τον οποίο οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες διαχειρίζονται τις σχέσεις τους με τους γείτονές τους.
Η Ευρώπη είναι διαφορετική, η άποψή μας για την Κούβα είναι διαφορετική και πρέπει να πληρώσουμε κάποιο είδος επένδυσης για να το καταστήσουμε αυτό αναπόφευκτη πραγματικότητα στις εσωτερικές συζητήσεις στην Αβάνα. Από την πλευρά μας, πρέπει να είμαστε πρόθυμοι να διατρέξουμε τον κίνδυνο να καταστήσουμε δυνατόν για τους αδιάλλακτους να περιγράφουν την Ευρώπη ως όμοια των ΗΠΑ. Αυτήν την επένδυση πρέπει να είμαστε πρόθυμοι, δημιουργικοί και αρκετά βέβαιοι να την κάνουμε. Εάν δεν είμαστε έτοιμοι να επενδύσουμε για τη δημιουργία μιας πραγματικής βάσης διαλόγου –που θα ορίζεται από εμάς και όχι από μια παρανοϊκή απεικόνιση του τρόπου με τον οποίο βλέπουν τον έξω κόσμο οι αδιάλλακτοι της Αβάνας– βασιζόμαστε μόνο σε μια αυτοοριζόμενη ρητορική ή, με άλλα λόγια, στην παλιά κοινή θέση.
Δεν πρέπει να την καταστήσουμε περιοριστικό παράγοντα. Σας παρακαλώ να θυμηθείτε ότι για πολλά χρόνια η ίδια κοινή θέση δεν απαγόρευε στην Ευρώπη τη συμμετοχή σε έναν πιο τολμηρό, στενό και σημαντικό διάλογο για τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα με την Κούβα. Το πράξαμε αυτό στο ίδιο πλαίσιο όσον αφορά την κοινή θέση. Οι ευρωπαϊκές επενδύσεις στην κουβανική οικονομία αυξήθηκαν επίσης σημαντικά, ενώ διατηρήσαμε την ίδια κοινή θέση. Δεν κατέστησε αδύνατη την ανάπτυξη των επενδύσεων. Δεν θα πρέπει να την ερμηνεύσουμε με τόσο περιορισμένο τρόπο ώστε να γίνει περιοριστικός παράγοντας. Εν κατακλείδι, είναι ανάγκη να υπάρξει μια πιο καινοτόμα προσέγγιση."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, solo un comentario para poner los puntos sobre las íes. Un diputado ha señalado que deberíamos prestar más ayuda humanitaria, pero eso no forma parte del planteamiento político. Prestamos ayuda humanitaria en respuesta a una necesidad, y la prestamos allí donde existe la necesidad, al margen de toda consideración política. Este punto es muy importante, como lo es que emplee algún tiempo en reiterar nuestra posición. Estamos en Cuba cuando se nos necesita por razones humanitarias, lo mismo que en todos los demás lugares, incluida Corea del Norte, etc. Estoy bastante seguro de que esto no es objeto de discusión aquí. No estoy diciendo esto porque piense que se trata de un problema real en esta Cámara, sino porque resulta importante no caer nunca en ese error.
Me inclino por coincidir con quienes han manifestado que la posición común no ha dado ningún resultado. El problema estriba, no obstante, en qué otros instrumentos tenemos que prometan algún resultado. No es fácil y el riesgo de frustración siempre está presente. Tal como lo veo, en el seno de la dirección en La Habana hay una lucha entre los partidarios de la línea dura y personas más constructivas y de mentalidad más abierta. Los avances y retrocesos son impredecibles y responden tanto a los acontecimientos internos como a la presión que ejerce el gran vecino de Cuba.
Es preciso hacer algo más que ponerle a nuestro discurso el piloto automático, insistiendo en los principios básicos de los derechos humanos, etcétera. No creo que este debate sea necesario en el Parlamento. Para mí este Parlamento no es el lugar en que deberíamos celebrar un debate a favor o en contra de los derechos humanos. No cabe ninguna duda de que no es el lugar. Si vamos en serio, hemos de ser pragmáticos. El otro enfoque es el más fácil y debemos incorporarnos al juego, hemos de acercarnos más a la política real de cambio y de progreso en Cuba, si es posible. Nadie puede garantizar nada. En 2003 intenté analizar qué se podía hacer y quedé decepcionado. Sin embargo, fue una reacción debida, a mi juicio, a los imprevisibles círculos internos en La Habana.
Otras de las frustraciones que sufrimos una y otra vez en Europa es que, siempre que les interesa, en Cuba acostumbran a colocarnos en la misma categoría que a los Estados Unidos. Esto es muy sencillo –incluso ventajoso– para los partidarios de la línea dura en La Habana, pues apoya su juicio –fruto de la paranoia– de que todo el mundo está contra ellos. Eso es falso, Europa no está en contra de Cuba y decididamente no en contra de los cubanos. No nos gusta el régimen, no nos gusta el anticuado estilo dictatorial de dirigir una sociedad, pero tampoco queremos que nos asocien a la manera en que los Estados Unidos llevan la relación con su vecino.
Europa es diferente; nuestra forma de pensar respecto de Cuba es distinta y hemos de realizar algún tipo de esfuerzo para convertir esto en una realidad ineludible en el contexto de los debates internos en La Habana. Por nuestra parte, hemos de estar dispuestos a correr cierto riesgo para impedir que los partidarios de la línea pinten a Europa como si Europa y los Estados Unidos fueran lo mismo. Ese es el esfuerzo que tenemos que hacer, y para ello hemos de ser suficientemente valientes y constructivos y confiar en nuestras propias fuerzas. Si no estamos dispuestos a hacer un esfuerzo con vistas a crear una base real para el diálogo –un diálogo que esté definido por nosotros y no por una representación paranoica de la visión que los partidarios de la línea dura en La Habana tienen del mundo exterior– estaremos basándonos en el discurso amarrado al piloto automático o, en otras palabras, en la vieja posición común.
No deberíamos convertirlo en una camisa de fuerza. Recuerden que durante una serie de años, esa misma posición común no prohibía a Europa entablar con Cuba un diálogo más franco, estrecho y crítico sobre los derechos humanos. Lo hicimos en ese mismo contexto en términos de la posición común. La inversión europea en la economía cubana también aumentó de forma notable mientras manteníamos la misma posición común. Esta no impedía el crecimiento de las inversiones. No debemos interpretarla de manera tan estricta como para convertirla en una camisa de fuerza. En resumen, es necesario un enfoque más innovador."@es20
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, haluan esittää vain yhden huomautuksen järjestyksen vuoksi. Eräs parlamentin jäsen mainitsi, että meidän tulisi panostaa enemmän humanitaariseen apuun: se ei kuulu poliittiseen yhtälöön. Annamme humanitaarista apua tarpeen mukaan sinne, missä sitä tarvitaan, emmekä huomioi sen yhteydessä politiikkaa. Tämä on erittäin tärkeä seikka, ja on tärkeää, että ehdin mainita kantamme. Toimimme Kuubassa humanitaarisista syistä silloin, kun sitä tarvitaan, kuten kaikkialla muuallakin, muun muassa Pohjois-Koreassa. Olen aivan varma, ettei tästä synny keskustelua parlamentissa. En ota asiaa esiin siksi, että se olisi minusta todellinen ongelma täällä parlamentissa, vaan siksi, että meidän ei pidä erehtyä tämän asian suhteen.
Olen yleisesti samalla kannalla niiden kanssa, jotka totesivat, ettei yhteisestä kannasta ole saatu tuloksia. Ongelma on kuitenkin siinä, mitä muita tuloksellisia välineitä meillä on käytettävissämme? Tilanne ei ole helppo, ja pettymyksen vaara on aina olemassa. Nähdäkseni Havannan johdossa on meneillään taistelu kovan linjan kannattajien ja rakentavampaa, avoimempaa kantaa edustavien tahojen kesken. Tilanne muuttuu suuntaan jos toiseenkin ennalta arvaamattomalla tavalla reaktiona sekä sisäisiin tapahtumiin että Kuuban suuren naapurin painostukseen.
Meidän on tehtävä enemmän – emme saa tyytyä säätämään puhekonettamme automaattiohjaukselle ja viitata ihmisoikeuksien perustaviin periaatteisiin ja muuhun vastaavaan. Nähdäkseni tällaista keskustelua ei tarvita parlamentissa. En pidä parlamenttia sopivana paikkana keskustelulle ihmisoikeuksien puolesta tai niitä vastaan. Tämä ei tosiaankaan ole oikea paikka siihen. Jos suhtaudumme asiaan vakavasti, meidän on lähdettävä käytännöstä. Toinen lähestymistapa on helppo, meidän on pantava itsemme peliin, päästävä lähemmäksi todellista muutoksen ja edistyksen politiikkaa Kuubassa, jos mahdollista. Kukaan ei pysty takaamaan mitään. Yritin selvittää vuonna 2003, mitä oli tehtävissä, ja koin pettymyksen. Tämä reaktio oli nähdäkseni kuitenkin tulosta Havannan sisäisistä piireistä, joiden toimia on erittäin vaikea ennakoida.
Toinen Euroopassa toistuvasti turhaumia aiheuttava seikka on se, että Kuubassa on tapana niputtaa meidät samaan ryhmään Yhdysvaltojen kanssa aina, kun siitä on hyötyä. Näin tekemällä Havannan kovan linjan kannattajien on hyvin helppo – suorastaan kätevä – tukea vainoharhaisuudesta kumpuavaa käsitystään, jonka mukaan koko maailma on heitä vastaan. Tämä ei ole totta, Eurooppa ei ole Kuubaa eikä missään nimessä kuubalaisiakaan vastaan. Me emme pidä sen järjestelmästä, emme pidä vanhanaikaisesta itsevaltaisesta tavasta johtaa yhteiskuntaa, mutta emme silti halua, että meidät yhdistetään tapaan, jolla Yhdysvallat hoitaa suhteitaan naapurivaltioonsa.
Eurooppa on erilainen; tapamme arvioida Kuubaa on erilainen, ja meidän on panostettava jollain tavoin siihen, että tästä tulee väistämätön totuus Havannan sisäisissä keskusteluissa. Meidän on puolestamme hyväksyttävä jonkinlainen riskitekijä, jos haluamme, etteivät kovan linjan kannattajat hahmota Eurooppaa samanlaiseksi kuin Yhdysvallat. Meidän on oltava tarpeeksi rohkeita, rakentavia ja itsevarmoja panostamaan tähän. Jollemme ole valmiita panostamaan vuoropuhelun todelliseen pohjaan – jonka me määrittelemme itse ja joka poikkeaa Havannan kovan linjan edustajien maalailemasta vainoharhaisesta maailmankäsityksestä – toistamme ainoastaan automaattiohjaukseen perustuvaa kaunopuhetta eli vanhaa yhteistä kantaa.
Emme saa tehdä siitä pakkopaitaa. Muistanette, ettei samainen yhteinen kanta estänyt moniin vuosiin Eurooppaa käymästä nykyistä rohkeampaan, tiiviimpään ja kriittisempään vuoropuheluun Kuuban kanssa ihmisoikeuksista. Kävimme vuoropuhelua saman yhteisen kannan sisällön pohjalta. Euroopan investoinnit Kuuban talouteen kasvoivat myös huomattavasti, vaikka pidimme voimassa saman yhteisen kannan. Se ei estänyt investointien kasvua. Meidän ei pidä tulkita sitä niin, että siitä tulee pakkopaita. Tarvitsemme kaiken kaikkiaan luovemman lähestymistavan."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, juste une remarque pour rétablir la clarté. Un député a affirmé que nous devrions en faire davantage en matière d’aide humanitaire. Cela ne fait pas partie de l’équation politique. Nous fournissons de l’aide humanitaire en fonction des besoins, là où ils se situent, sans aucune considération politique. Ce point est primordial, et il importe que je prenne le temps de réitérer notre position. Nous sommes à Cuba quand cela s’avère nécessaire pour des raisons humanitaires, comme dans tous les autres endroits de la planète, y compris la Corée du Nord, etc. Je suis certain que ce n’est pas ce dont nous voulons débattre aujourd’hui. Je ne le dis pas parce que je pense qu’il s’agit d’un réel problème dans cette Assemblée, mais parce qu’il est important de ne jamais commettre cette erreur.
Je tends à partager l’avis de ceux qui ont affirmé que la position commune n’avait produit aucun résultat. Le problème est cependant de savoir quels sont les autres instruments à notre disposition. La tâche n’est pas facile, et le risque d’une déception est toujours présent. Je pense qu’il y a à la tête du pays, à La Havane, une lutte permanente entre les tenants d’une ligne dure et les partisans d’une attitude plus ouverte et plus constructive. Ce mouvement de balancier totalement imprévisible est fonction à la fois des événements internationaux et des pressions du grand voisin de l’île.
Nous avons mieux à faire que de mettre notre rhétorique en pilotage automatique - c’est-à-dire de rappeler sans cesse les principes fondamentaux en matière de droits de l’homme. Je ne pense pas que cette discussion soit nécessaire au Parlement ni que ce soit l’endroit approprié pour entamer un débat pour ou contre les droits de l’homme. Si nous sommes si attachés aux droits de l’homme, nous devons nous montrer pragmatiques. L’autre approche est la plus facile. Nous devons nous impliquer dans la partie, nous rapprocher, si possible, des réelles politiques de changement et de progrès à Cuba. Personne ne peut donner la moindre garantie. En 2003, j’ai tenté de voir ce qui pouvait être fait, et j’ai été déçu. Cette réaction était cependant le fait, selon moi, des milieux très imprévisibles de La Havane.
Une autre frustration à laquelle nous devons continuellement faire face en Europe est que, dès que cela s’avère intéressant, Cuba a pour habitude de nous mettre dans le même sac que les États-Unis. C’est très pratique pour les tenants de la ligne dure à La Havane, qui étayent leur opinion paranoïaque que le monde entier s’acharne contre eux - pour ne pas dire que cela les arrange bien. C’est pourtant faux. L’Europe n’est pas opposée à Cuba et certainement pas aux Cubains. Nous n’avons aucune sympathie pour le régime, nous n’aimons pas cette vieille manière dictatoriale de gérer une société, mais nous ne voulons pas non plus être associés à la façon dont les États-Unis envisagent leurs relations avec leur voisin.
L’Europe est différente, notre raisonnement à l’égard de Cuba est différent, et nous devons investir d’une manière ou d’une autre pour que ceci devienne une réalité incontestable dans les débats internes à La Havane. De notre côté, nous devons être prêts à prendre certains risques pour qu’il devienne impossible aux tenants de la ligne dure de décrire l’Europe comme si celle-ci ne faisait qu’un avec les États-Unis. Nous devons être suffisamment courageux, constructifs et sûrs de nous pour réaliser cet investissement. Si nous ne sommes pas prêts à investir en vue de créer une réelle base de dialogue - une base définie par nous et non par la vision paranoïaque du monde extérieur tel que le perçoivent les durs du régime cubain -, nous ne nous appuierons que sur une rhétorique en pilotage automatique ou, en d’autres termes, sur notre vieille position commune.
Celle-ci ne doit pas être un carcan. Gardez à l’esprit que, pendant plusieurs années, cette même position commune n’a pas empêché l’Europe de s’engager dans un dialogue plus général, plus étroit et plus critique sur les droits de l’homme avec Cuba. Nous l’avons fait dans un contexte semblable. Les investissements européens dans l’économie cubaine ont également connu une croissance remarquable alors que nous affichions cette même position commune. Celle-ci n’a pas empêché la croissance des investissements. Nous ne devons donc pas l’interpréter de manière trop restrictive et la transformer ainsi en carcan. En conclusion, il est nécessaire d’adopter une approche plus innovante."@fr8
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, solo un’osservazione per maggiore chiarezza. Un onorevole deputato ha detto che dovremmo fare di più nell’ambito degli aiuti umanitari: questo, però, non è un fattore dell’equazione politica. Noi forniamo aiuto umanitario in presenza di un bisogno, e lo forniamo dove questo bisogno esiste, a prescindere da ogni aspetto politico. E’ un punto molto importante, ed è importante che dedichi un po’ di tempo a ribadire la nostra posizione. Noi siamo presenti a Cuba, quando è necessario, per ragioni umanitarie, come in tutti gli altri paesi, compresa la Corea del Nord, e così via. Sono certo che non sia questo l’oggetto della nostra discussione odierna. Non lo dico perché credo che si tratti di un problema reale in seno al Parlamento europeo, ma perché è importante non commettere mai questo errore.
Sono tendenzialmente d’accordo con chi ha affermato che la posizione comune non ha prodotto risultati. Il problema è tuttavia stabilire quali altri strumenti in grado di produrre risultati sono disponibili. Non è semplice e il rischio di rimanere delusi è sempre presente. A mio modo di vedere, è in atto una lotta continua tra i sostenitori della linea dura e i rappresentanti più costruttivi e aperti della
all’Avana, che ha fasi e movimenti alterni, imprevedibili, ed è influenzata sia dagli eventi interni che dalla pressione esercitata dal grande vicino di Cuba.
E’ necessario fare di più che ricorrere a una retorica con il pilota automatico e parlare di principi fondamentali dei diritti umani, e via di seguito. Non credo che questa discussione sia necessaria al Parlamento. Non ritengo che questo Parlamento sia la sede idonea per una discussione a favore o contro i diritti umani. Non è davvero la sede più adeguata. Se le nostre intenzioni sono serie, dobbiamo essere pragmatici. L’altro approccio è quello semplice: dobbiamo entrare nel gioco, dobbiamo avvicinarci alla reale politica di cambiamento e di progresso a Cuba, se possibile. Nessuno può dare garanzie. Nel 2003 ho cercato di vedere che cosa si potesse fare e sono rimasto deluso. Questa reazione, però, a mio avviso traeva origine dai circoli ristretti dell’Avana, che sono estremamente imprevedibili.
Un’altra frustrazione che rischiamo ripetutamente di subire in Europa è che, ogniqualvolta lo reputi interessante, Cuba cede alla moda di metterci nella stessa categoria degli Stati Uniti. Diventa molto facile – addirittura comodo – per i sostenitori della linea dura all’Avana comportarsi in questo modo e sostenere il proprio punto di vista – spinti dalla paranoia – secondo cui tutto il mondo è contro di loro. E’ sbagliato, l’Europa non è contro Cuba e sicuramente non contro i cubani. Non ci piace il regime, non ci piace il vecchio stile dittatoriale di gestire la società, ma non vogliamo nemmeno essere associati al modo in cui gli Stati Uniti gestiscono i rapporti con il loro vicino.
L’Europa è diversa, il nostro parere su Cuba è diverso e noi dobbiamo fare un investimento perché diventi una realtà ineludibile nelle discussioni interne all’Avana. Da parte nostra, dobbiamo essere disposti ad assumerci qualche rischio per impedire ai sostenitori della linea dura di ritrarre l’Europa come se l’Europa e gli Stati Uniti fossero la stessa cosa. Dobbiamo essere abbastanza coraggiosi, costruttivi e sicuri di noi stessi da fare questo investimento. Se non siamo disposti a investire nella creazione di una base concreta di dialogo – una base definita da noi e non da una rappresentazione paranoica del modo in cui i sostenitori della linea dura all’Avana vedono il mondo esterno – non faremo che affidarci a una retorica impostata con il pilota automatico, in altri termini, alla vecchia posizione comune.
Non dovremmo trasformarla in una costrizione. Vi prego di ricordare che per alcuni anni questa stessa posizione comune non ha impedito all’Europa di avviare un dialogo più audace, più stretto e più critico sui diritti umani con Cuba. Lo abbiamo fatto nello stesso contesto in termini di posizione comune. L’investimento europeo nell’economia cubana è anche aumentato considerevolmente, mentre abbiamo mantenuto la stessa posizione comune che pertanto non ha impedito la crescita dell’investimento. Non dovremmo interpretarla in modo così restrittivo da trasformarla in una costrizione. In conclusione, è necessario un approccio più innovativo."@it12
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@lt14
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@lv13
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil voor de goede orde graag één opmerking maken. Eén afgevaardigde zei dat we meer zouden moeten doen aan humanitaire hulp; dit is echter geen politieke afweging. We verlenen humanitaire hulp in reactie op behoefte en we verlenen dergelijke hulp overal waar deze behoefte bestaat, zonder daarbij verdere politieke afwegingen te maken. Dit is een zeer belangrijk punt en het is belangrijk de tijd te nemen om ons standpunt te herhalen. We zijn in Cuba als we daar om humanitaire redenen nodig zijn, zoals dat ook het geval is op andere plaatsen, met inbegrip van Noord-Korea, enzovoorts. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat dit hier niet ter discussie staat. Ik zeg dit niet omdat ik het gevoel heb dat dit in dit Parlement een groot probleem is, maar omdat het belangrijk is die fout nooit te maken.
Ik ben geneigd het eens te zijn met degenen die gezegd hebben dat het gemeenschappelijk standpunt geen resultaten heeft opgeleverd. Het probleem is echter: welke andere instrumenten zijn er die wel resultaat opleveren? Dat is geen eenvoudige vraag en het risico teleurgesteld te worden ligt altijd op de loer. Naar mijn mening is er binnen de top in Havana een voortdurende strijd gaande tussen een groep haviken en mensen die wat constructiever en ruimdenkender zijn. Deze strijd golft op onvoorspelbare wijze heen en weer, in reactie op interne gebeurtenissen en op druk van Cuba’s grote buur.
Het is noodzakelijk meer te doen dan alleen onze retoriek op de automatische piloot te zetten en te verwijzen naar de fundamentele beginselen van de mensenrechten, enzovoorts. Het lijkt me niet noodzakelijk deze discussie in het Parlement te voeren. Ik zie dit Parlement immers niet als een plek waar gepleit moet worden voor of tegen de mensenrechten. Daarvoor is dit niet de aangewezen plek. Als we deze kwestie serieus nemen, moeten we pragmatisch zijn. De andere benadering is de eenvoudigste, maar we zullen het spel toch weer moeten meespelen, we zullen, indien mogelijk, nauwer bij de daadwerkelijke politiek van verandering en vooruitgang op Cuba betrokken moeten raken. Niemand kan echter garanties geven. In 2003 heb ik geprobeerd te bekijken wat er gedaan zou kunnen worden en ik was teleurgesteld. Dit kwam volgens mij vooral door het uiterst onvoorspelbare gedrag van de regeringskringen in Havana.
Een andere frustratie waar we in Europa keer op keer tegenaan lopen is dat het op Cuba mode is om, telkens wanneer dat goed uitkomt, ons in dezelfde categorie te plaatsen als de VS. Het is voor de haviken in Havana zeer eenvoudig – zelfs handig – om dit te doen, omdat zij zo hun – door paranoia ingegeven – idee kunnen onderstrepen dat de hele wereld tegen hen is. Dit klopt niet, Europa is niet tegen Cuba en al helemaal niet tegen de Cubanen. Het regime staat ons niet aan, de ouderwetse, dictatoriale wijze waarop het de maatschappij domineert staat ons niet aan, maar we willen ook niet geassocieerd worden met de manier waarop de Verenigde Staten de betrekkingen met hun buurland vormgeven.
Europa is anders; ons denken over Cuba is anders en we zullen een zekere investering moeten doen om dit tot een onontkoombaar feit te maken binnen de interne discussies in Havana. Wij zullen van onze kant bereid moeten zijn een zeker risico te nemen om het de haviken onmogelijk te maken Europa en de VS af te schilderen als twee handen op één buik. We moeten moedig, constructief en zelfverzekerd genoeg zijn om deze investering te doen. Als we niet bereid zijn te investeren in het opzetten van een daadwerkelijke basis voor dialoog – een basis die door ons wordt bepaald en niet door de paranoïde perceptie van de buitenwereld waardoor de haviken in Havana zich laten leiden – vertrouwen we enkel op door de automatische piloot geproduceerde retoriek of, met andere woorden, op het oude gemeenschappelijk standpunt.
We moeten van dit standpunt geen keurslijf maken. Vergeet u alstublieft niet dat precies ditzelfde gemeenschappelijk standpunt Europa er jarenlang totaal niet van heeft weerhouden een doortastende, intensieve en kritische dialoog te voeren over de mensenrechten met Cuba. Dat deden we toen, wat het gemeenschappelijk standpunt betreft, tegen precies dezelfde achtergrond. Ook de Europese investeringen in de Cubaanse economie groeiden destijds aanzienlijk, terwijl we hetzelfde gemeenschappelijk standpunt onderschreven. Het stond de groei van onze investeringen dus niet in de weg. We moeten het gemeenschappelijk standpunt niet zo strikt interpreteren dat het een keurslijf wordt. Er is kortom behoefte aan een innovatievere benadering."@nl3
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, apenas uma observação para que as coisas fiquem esclarecidas. Um dos senhores deputados disse que devíamos fazer mais no domínio da ajuda humanitária: isto não faz parte da equação política. Prestamos ajuda humanitária em resposta às necessidades que se apresentam e onde ela é necessária, sem considerações de ordem política. Este aspecto é muito importante e é igualmente importante que reitere a nossa posição. Estamos em Cuba sempre as situação humanitária o exige, como sucede noutros lugares, incluindo a Coreia do Norte, etc. Tenho a certeza de que esta não é uma matéria para ser aqui discutida. Não digo isto por achar que é um problema real nesta Assembleia, mas porque importa nunca cometer esse erro.
Estou inclinado a concordar com aqueles oradores que disseram que a posição comum não produziu quaisquer resultados. O problema, contudo, está em saber quais são os outros instrumentos disponíveis capazes de produzir resultados. Não é uma questão fácil e o risco de desapontamento está sempre presente. Na minha percepção, há um conflito permanente entre os elementos da linha dura e os elementos com espírito mais construtivo e aberto que detêm a liderança em Havana. A situação avança e recua de modo imprevisível e é uma reacção tanto aos acontecimentos internos como à pressão exercida pelo grande vizinho de Cuba.
É necessário fazer mais do que pôr a nossa retórica em piloto automático – fazendo referências aos princípios dos direitos humanos e assim por diante. Não penso que esta discussão seja necessária no Parlamento. Não vejo este Parlamento como um lugar onde tenhamos de discutir a favor ou contra os direitos humanos. De facto, este não é o lugar para isso. Se levamos isto a sério, temos de ser pragmáticos. A outra abordagem é a fácil e temos de entrar no jogo, temos de nos aproximar mais da política real de mudança e progresso em Cuba, caso seja possível. Ninguém pode dar quaisquer garantias. Em 2003, tentei ver o que se poderia fazer e fiquei desapontado. No entanto, isso foi uma reacção resultante, a meu ver, dos círculos internos de Havana, que são muito imprevisíveis.
Outra frustração em que incorremos frequentemente na Europa decorre do facto de ser moda, em Cuba, incluir-nos na mesma categoria que os EUA, sempre que essa atitude apresenta algum atractivo. Tal facto torna muito fácil – e até conveniente – para os da linha dura em Havana aderirem a essa atitude, reforçando a sua opinião – movida pela paranóia – de que todo o mundo está contra eles. Isso é um erro, a Europa não está contra Cuba e, decididamente, não está contra os cubanos. Nós não gostamos do regime, não gostamos da maneira ditatorial e antiquado como gere a sociedade, mas também não queremos ser associados ao modo como os Estados Unidos conduzem as relações com o seu vizinho.
A Europa é diferente; a nossa maneira de pensar sobre Cuba é diferente, e temos de fazer algum tipo de investimento para que isso se torne uma realidade incontornável nas discussões internas em Havana. Pela parte que nos toca, temos de estar dispostos a correr algum risco para impedir que os da linha dura façam um retrato da Europa igual ao dos EUA. Para fazer esse investimento, temos de ser suficientemente corajosos, construtivos e seguros de nós próprios. Se não estivermos prontos para investir na criação de uma base real para um diálogo – um diálogo que seja definido por nós e não por uma percepção paranóica que os da linha dura de Havana têm do mundo exterior – contaremos apenas com uma retórica definida em piloto automático, ou seja, a velha posição comum.
Não devemos transformá-la num colete-de-forças. Lembrem-se, por favor, de que durante alguns anos essa mesma posição comum não impediu a Europa de encetar com Cuba um diálogo mais ousado, mais estreito e mais crítico sobre os direitos humanos. E isso aconteceu, tendo justamente como pano de fundo a posição comum. O investimento europeu na economia cubana também aumentou de forma assinalável enquanto mantínhamos a mesma posição comum. Esta não impediu o aumento do investimento. Não devíamos interpretá-la num sentido tão restrito a ponto de a transformar num colete-de-forças. Concluindo, há que adoptar uma abordagem mais inovadora."@pt17
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@sk18
"Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Bara en anmärkning för ordningens skull. En ledamot nämnde att vi borde satsa mer på humanitärt bistånd: Detta är inte ett led i den politiska ekvationen. Vi ger humanitärt bistånd som en reaktion på behov och ger det där behovet finns utan att blanda in politiken. Denna punkt är mycket viktig, och det är viktigt att jag ägnar tid åt att repetera vår ståndpunkt. Vi befinner oss på Kuba när det behövs av humanitära skäl liksom på alla andra platser inklusive Nordkorea etc. Jag är helt övertygad om att detta inte är uppe till diskussion här. Jag säger inte detta för att jag känner att det är ett reellt problem i kammaren utan för att det är viktigt att aldrig göra detta misstag.
Jag tenderar att hålla med dem som har sagt att den gemensamma ståndpunkten inte har gett några resultat. Men frågan är: Vilka andra instrument har vi som kommer att ge resultat? Det är inte lätt, och risken att bli besviken finns alltid. Som jag ser det pågår det en kamp mellan hökarna och de mer konstruktiva, vidsynta personerna inom ledarskiktet i Havanna. Den böljar fram och tillbaka på ett oförutsägbart sätt och är en reaktion både på interna händelser och pressen från Kubas stora granne.
Vi behöver göra mer än att ställa in vår retorik på autopilot – hänvisa till grundläggande principer om mänskliga rättigheter osv. Jag anser inte att denna diskussion är nödvändig i parlamentet. Jag ser inte parlamentet som en plats där vi bör ha en diskussion för eller emot mänskliga rättigheter. Detta är verkligen inte rätt plats. Om vi verkligen menar allvar måste vi vara pragmatiska. Det andra sättet att närma sig problemet är det lätta sättet, och vi måste ge oss in i spelet. Vi måste, om möjligt, närma oss den verkliga förändrings- och framstegspolitiken i Kuba. Ingen kan ge några garantier. Under 2003 försökte jag se vad som kunde göras, och jag blev besviken. Detta var dock en reaktion som kom från de, i mitt tycke, mycket oförutsägbara inre kretsarna i Havanna.
Ett annat problem som vi i Europa stöter på om och om igen är att det, närhelst det är lockande att göra så, är inne på Kuba att stoppa in oss i samma fack som USA. Det gör det mycket lätt, t.o.m. bekvämt, för hökarna i Havanna att göra detta och därmed stödja deras uppfattning, som styrs av paranoia, att hela världen är emot dem. Det är fel. Europa är inte emot Kuba och definitivt inte emot kubanerna. Vi tycker inte om regimen. Vi tycker inte om det gammalmodiga diktatoriska sättet att sköta ett samhälle, men vi vill inte heller förknippas med det sätt som Förenta staterna hanterar förbindelserna till sina grannar på.
Europa är annorlunda, vårt tänkande när det gäller Kuba är annorlunda, och vi måste göra någon sorts investering för att göra detta till en ofrånkomlig realitet vid de interna diskussionerna i Havanna. Vi på vår sida måste vara villiga att ta en viss risk för att göra det omöjligt för hökarna att framställa Europa som om Europa och USA vore samma sak. Det är denna investering som vi måste vara tillräckligt modiga, konstruktiva och självsäkra för att göra. Om vi inte är redo att göra en investering för att skapa en reell bas för en dialog – en dialog som definieras av oss och inte av en paranoid framställning av omvärlden så som hökarna i Havanna ser den – så förlitar vi oss bara på autopilotinställd retorik eller, uttryckt på ett annat sätt, den gamla gemensamma ståndpunkten.
Vi skall inte ha den som en tvångströja. Kom ihåg att under många år hindrade inte samma gemensamma ståndpunkt Europa från att ha en djärvare, närmare och mer kritisk dialog om mänskliga rättigheter med Kuba. Vi gjorde det fastän vi hade samma riktlinjer i den gemensamma ståndpunkten. Europeiska investeringar i den kubanska ekonomin ökade också anmärkningsvärt samtidigt som vi upprätthöll samma gemensamma ståndpunkt. Det omöjliggjorde inte en ökning av investeringarna. Vi skall inte ge den en så inskränkt tolkning att den blir till en tvångströja. Sammanfattningsvis behövs en mer nyskapande syn på problemet."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"Nielson,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples