Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-15-Speech-3-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041215.10.3-279"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's pro-democracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@cs1
"Hr. formand, jeg takker kommissæren for hendes indledende bemærkninger. Det glæder mig meget at se fru Morgantini her i salen, formanden for Udviklingsudvalget, samt fru Flautre, formand for Underudvalget om Menneskerettigheder, og skyggeordføreren og min medordfører i Udviklingsudvalget, hr. Fernández Martín.
Jeg har for nylig udarbejdet et dokument, som beskriver detaljerne i Europa-Parlamentets demokratifremmende aktiviteter, både inden for EU og eksternt. Vi medlemmer deltager i en myriade af interparlamentariske delegationer, rådgivende udvalg og uformelle grupper. Der bliver udført værdifuldt arbejde, men arbejdet er fragmenteret. Det samme kan man sige om det europæiske initiativ. Efter min mening bør vores engagement koordineres i et demokraticenter med basis i Parlamentet og med mandat til at fungere som en forskningsenhed, et organ, som har overblik over alle EU's demokratifremmende aktiviteter. For at tage et eksempel praler
's hjemmeside med, at USA har fulgt 87 landes overgang til demokratiske stater. Er det en statistik, som EU vil overlade til USA alene? G8-mødet i sidste weekend i Rabat, hvor kommissæren til min store glæde var med, og som EU er med til at finansiere, videreudviklede planerne for det såkaldte fremtidsforum, som første gang blev præsenteret på topmødet på Sea Island i juni 2004, til fremme af demokratiet i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika. Selv om EU bidrager økonomisk til en så vigtig begivenhed, er det amerikanerne og ikke EU, som leder denne aktivitet. Vi anerkender, at USA's program grundlæggende afspejler principperne i Barcelona-processen og nu den europæiske naboskabspolitik.
I 2005 overtager Det Forenede Kongerige formandskabet for både G8 og EU. Jeg håber virkelig, at der vil blive fokuseret mere på de 250 millioner arabere, som ønsker demokrati, som det blev vist i FN's udviklingsrapport fra 2002, og på de lande øst for os, som halter alvorligt bagefter.
Selv om jeg ikke foreslår, at Europa-Parlamentet skal forkaste forordningen eller de tilhørende budgetposter længere end højst nødvendigt, så vil jeg gerne afslutte med at sige, at jeg finder, at Kommissionens svar - brevet fra Kommissionen om de nye ordninger for dette program, som ikke henviser til kontakter på arbejdsniveau - og Rådet - som stadig bruger et arbejdshold, der består af udviklingsministre - på de bekymringer, som jeg og andre har givet udtryk for om demokratiinitiativet, mangler substans og er helt uegnet til nutidens behov og behovene hos millioner af ufrie mennesker lige uden for vores dør.
Der var to forordninger, og en af dem er allerede blevet vedtaget af Parlamentet. Den, vi behandler nu, er den, der omhandler tredjelande.
For 12 år siden var jeg ordfører og, som hr. Patten beskrev mig, "far" for det europæiske initiativ for demokrati og menneskerettigheder, som viste sig at være et nyttigt instrument til at hjælpe landene i den tidligere sovjetblok i deres overgang. Mange betragtede det som EU's flagskib for fremme af demokrati. Det gav mening til præamblen i Maastricht-traktaten om prioriteterne for EU's udenrigspolitik.
I den første fase blev det administreret af en lille fond med base i Bruxelles og med både Europa-Parlamentet og Kommissionen som aktive medspillere ved tildeling og supervision af projekterne. Da initiativet var på sit højdepunkt i 1997, finansierede og administrerede det omkring 1.200 projekter. I 1999 besøgte jeg nogle af dem i Beograd, deriblandt centrale prodemokratiske medier som f.eks. Radio B92. Samme år blev initiativet lagt ind under Kommissionen.
Jeg har længe været bekymret over, at initiativet er blevet bureaukratisk og sat, og ment, at Europa-Parlamentet som den eneste demokratisk valgte institution igen skulle have en større rolle at spille.
Selv om initiativet i dag har et budget på omkring 137 millioner euro, mangler det synlighed og effektivitet. Det er jeg endnu mere overbevist om efter møder i marken og samtaler med over 30 organisationer. Senest talte jeg med de belarussiske journalisters organisation, som er her i øjeblikket for at modtage Sakharov-prisen, og med den euroasiatiske direktør for et amerikansk demokratifremmende agentur. De var slet ikke klar over, at det europæiske initiativ for demokrati og menneskerettigheder eksisterede.
Der er tale om et meget værdifuldt program, som skal gøres mere effektivt. Det er vigtigt at fremhæve, at i modsætning til EU's sædvanlige hjælp kræver det europæiske initiativ ikke samtykke fra regeringen i værtslandet. I et land som Belarus, for ikke at tale om Tunesien eller Iran, hvor det er vanskeligt og ofte umuligt at operere gennem regeringskanalerne, er det en omstændighed, som ikke må undervurderes.
I et dokument om EU's sikkerhedspolitik understregede Javier Solana i 2003, hvor vigtige og følsomme Europas nye naboer er. Den resulterende politik inviterer vores naboer i øst og syd til at tage del i den fred, stabilitet og velstand, som vi nyder godt af i EU. Den sigter mod at skabe en kreds af venner rundt om grænserne for det nye udvidede EU. Desværre ser det ud til, at EU's demokratifremmende aktiviteter i de nye nabolande kun er synlige i form af korte observatørmissioner med medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet, som det skete for nylig i Ukraine. Jeg mener, at alle vigtige valg i de nye nabolande bør være genstand for fulde EU-observatørmissioner.
I Bruxelles har man en fornemmelse af, at demokrati ikke kan eksporteres, og at forandringer skal komme indefra. Imidlertid har USA's
siden 1982 vist, at de to ting kan kombineres. Det opererer som et uafhængigt ekspertbureau og bruger lokale ngo'er, og det er højt respekteret for sine programmer og metoder. Ligesom de amerikanske aktiviteter har f.eks.
eller de tyske
og andre ngo'er større synlighed og langt mindre bureaukrati end det europæiske initiativ."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich danke der Kommissarin für ihre einleitenden Worte. Ich freue mich sehr, dass Frau Morgantini, die Vorsitzende des Entwicklungsausschusses, Frau Flautre, die Vorsitzende des Unterausschusses Menschenrechte, der Schattenberichterstatter und mein Ko-Berichterstatter im Entwicklungsausschuss, Herr Fernández Martín, im Plenum anwesend sind.
Ich habe kürzlich ein Dokument zusammengestellt, in dem die Tätigkeiten des Europäischen Parlaments zur Demokratieförderung innerhalb wie außerhalb der EU einzeln aufgeführt sind. Als Abgeordnete nehmen wir an einer Unzahl von interparlamentarischen Delegationen, beratenden Ausschüssen und informellen Gruppen teil. Es wird wertvolle Arbeit geleistet, aber die Arbeit ist zersplittert. Das Gleiche kann über die Europäische Initiative gesagt werden. Nach meinem Dafürhalten sollte unser Engagement in einem Demokratiezentrum koordiniert werden, das in diesem Haus untergebracht ist und den Auftrag hat, als Forschungsstelle, als Überwachungsgremium für alle Tätigkeiten der EU zur Förderung von Demokratie zu fungieren. Um ein Beispiel zu nennen: Auf der Website des Büros für Demokratie, Menschenrechte und Arbeit des State Departments rühmt man sich damit, dass die USA den Übergang von 87 Ländern zu demokratischen Staaten begleitet haben. Ist dies eine Bilanz, die die EU allein den Vereinigten Staaten überlassen möchte? Auf der von der Europäischen Union mitfinanzierten G8-Konferenz in Rabat letzte Woche – und ich freue mich sehr, dass die Kommissarin anwesend war – wurden Pläne für ein Forum für die Zukunft weiterentwickelt, die erstmals im Juni 2004 auf dem Gipfel in Sea Island vorgestellt wurden und mit denen Demokratie im Nahen Osten und Nordafrika gefördert werden sollte. Trotz des Finanzbeitrags der Europäischen Gemeinschaft für eine so wichtige Unternehmung sind es die Amerikaner und nicht die Europäische Union, die bei dieser Aktion den Ton angeben. Wir erkennen, dass das Programm der Vereinigten Staaten im Wesentlichen die Prinzipien des Barcelona-Prozesses und nun auch der Europäischen Nachbarschaftspolitik widerspiegelt.
Im Jahr 2005 wird das Vereinigte Königreich sowohl in der G8 als auch in der Europäischen Union den Vorsitz übernehmen. Ich hoffe wirklich, dass dabei die 250 Millionen Araber, die Demokratie wollen, wie der Entwicklungsbericht 2002 der Vereinten Nationen veranschaulicht, wie auch die offenkundig angeschlagenen Länder östlich von uns stärker in den Mittelpunkt rücken.
Ein letzter Punkt: Ich schlage zwar nicht vor, dass das Europäische Parlament die Verordnung oder die damit zusammenhängenden Haushaltslinien länger als unbedingt erforderlich ablehnen sollte, bin allerdings der Meinung, dass es der Antwort der Kommission – das Schreiben der Kommissarin zu den neuen Vorkehrungen bei diesem Programm, in dem auf Kontakte auf Arbeitsebene kein Bezug genommen wird – und des Rates – bei dem weiterhin eine Arbeitsgruppe aus Entwicklungsministern zum Einsatz kommt – auf die Bedenken, die ich und andere zu der Initiative für Demokratie geäußert haben, an Substanz fehlt und dass sie den Bedürfnissen unserer Zeit und den Bedürfnissen von Millionen unfreier Menschen vor unserer Haustür in keiner Weise gerecht wird.
Es gab zwei Verordnungen, von denen eine bereits vom Hohen Haus angenommen wurde. Diejenige, mit der wir uns jetzt befassen, betrifft die Drittländer.
Vor zwölf Jahren war ich Berichterstatter und nach den Worten von Herrn Patten „Vater“ der Europäischen Initiative für Demokratie und Menschenrechte, die sich als entscheidende Hilfe für die Reformländer des ehemaligen Ostblocks erwiesen hat. Sie wurde von vielen als das Musterprogramm der Europäischen Union für die Förderung von Demokratie angesehen. Mit ihr erhielt die Präambel des Vertrags von Maastricht im Hinblick auf die außenpolitischen Prioritäten der EU einen Sinn.
In ihrer Anfangsphase wurde sie von einer kleinen Stiftung mit Sitz in Brüssel verwaltet, wobei sowohl das Europäische Parlament als auch die Kommission an der Zuteilung und Überwachung der Projekte aktiv beteiligt waren. In ihrer Hochphase 1997 wurden etwa 1 200 Projekte durch diese Initiative finanziert und verwaltet. 1999 besuchte ich einige davon in Belgrad, darunter auch im Kampf für die Demokratie wichtige Medien wie etwa Radio B92. Im selben Jahr wurde die Initiative von der Kommission übernommen.
Seit langem mache ich mir Gedanken darüber, dass die Initiative mittlerweile bürokratisch und unhinterfragt ausgeführt wird und dass das Europäische Parlament als einzig demokratisch gewähltes Organ wieder eine stärkere Rolle spielen sollte.
Obwohl die Initiative gegenwärtig über Mittel in Höhe von etwa 137 Millionen Euro verfügt, fehlt es ihr an Öffentlichkeitswirksamkeit und Effizienz. Davon bin ich nach Begegnungen vor Ort und Gesprächen mit mehr als 30 Organisationen mehr denn je überzeugt. Erst vor kurzem sprach ich mit dem belarussischen Journalistenverband – der gerade hier vertreten ist, um den Sacharow-Preis entgegenzunehmen – sowie mit dem Eurasien-Leiter einer US-amerikanischen Agentur, die sich für Demokratie einsetzt. Ihnen war nicht einmal bekannt, dass die Europäische Initiative für Demokratie überhaupt existiert.
Es handelt sich um ein sehr sinnvolles Programm, das wirksamer gestaltet werden muss. Hierbei ist es wichtig darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Europäische Initiative im Gegensatz zu routinemäßigen EU-Hilfen keinerlei Zustimmung der Regierung des Empfängerlandes erfordert. Für ein Land wie Belarus, ganz zu schweigen von Tunesien oder Iran, wo eine Abwicklung über Regierungskanäle schwierig und oft unmöglich ist, kann dies gar nicht hoch genug eingeschätzt werden.
In einem Papier über die Sicherheitsstrategie der EU aus dem Jahr 2003 unterstrich Javier Solana die Bedeutung der neuen Nachbarn Europas als neuralgische Punkte. Die sich daraus ergebende Politik lädt unsere östlichen und südlichen Nachbarn dazu ein, an Frieden, Stabilität und Wohlstand, die wir in der Europäischen Union genießen, teilzuhaben. Sie zielt darauf ab, entlang der Grenzen der neuen erweiterten Europäischen Union einen „Freundeskreis“ aufzubauen. Leider zeigen sich die Demokratisierungsaktivitäten der EU in den neuen Nachbarländern offenbar nur in Gestalt kurzer Beobachtungsmissionen von Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments, wie sie etwa kürzlich in der Ukraine stattfanden. Ich bin der Ansicht, dass bei allen bedeutenden Wahlen in den neuen Nachbarländern umfassende EU-Beobachtungsmissionen stattfinden sollten.
In Brüssel herrscht die Meinung vor, dass Demokratie nicht exportiert werden kann und dass Veränderung von innen kommen muss. Allerdings liefert das National Endowment for Democracy in den USA seit 1982 den Beweis, dass beides miteinander kombiniert werden kann. Es arbeitet als unabhängige Fachagentur, nutzt NRO vor Ort und ist aufgrund seiner Programme und Methodik überaus angesehen. Neben Einrichtungen in den USA haben beispielsweise die Westminster Foundation oder die deutschen Stiftungen und andere NRO eine größere Außenwirkung und sind deutlich unbürokratischer als die Europäische Initiative."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ την Επίτροπο για τις εναρκτήριες παρατηρήσεις της. Είμαι πολύ χαρούμενος που βλέπω στην αίθουσα την κ. Morgantini, πρόεδρο της Επιτροπής Ανάπτυξης, την κ. Flautre, πρόεδρο της Υποεπιτροπής Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων, τον σκιώδη εισηγητή και συνεισηγητή μου στην Επιτροπή Ανάπτυξης, κ. Fernández Martín.
Συνέταξα προσφάτως ένα έγγραφο το οποίο αναφέρει λεπτομερώς τις δραστηριότητες του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου για την προώθηση της δημοκρατίας τόσο εντός όσο και εκτός της ΕΕ. Ως βουλευτές συμμετέχουμε σε μια πλειάδα διακοινοβουλευτικών αντιπροσωπειών, επιτροπών διαβούλευσης και άτυπων ομάδων. Επιτελείται πολύτιμο έργο, αλλά το έργο είναι αποσπασματικό. Το ίδιο μπορεί να λεχθεί και για την Ευρωπαϊκή Πρωτοβουλία. Κατά τη γνώμη μου, η συμμετοχή μας θα έπρεπε να συντονίζεται σε ένα κέντρο για τη δημοκρατία, με έδρα αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο, με την εντολή να δρα ως μονάδα έρευνας, ένα όργανο εποπτείας όλων των δραστηριοτήτων της ΕΕ για την προώθηση της δημοκρατίας. Για παράδειγμα, η ιστοσελίδα του Γραφείου για τη Δημοκρατία του αμερικανικού Υπουργείου Εξωτερικών διατείνεται ότι οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες έχουν επιβλέψει τη μετάβαση 87 χωρών σε δημοκρατικά πολιτεύματα. Πρόκειται για στατιστικά στοιχεία τα οποία η ΕΕ επιθυμεί να αφήσει εξ ολοκλήρου στα χέρια των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών; Η διάσκεψη της “ομάδας των οκτώ” στο Ραμπάτ το περασμένο Σαββατοκύριακο –και χαίρομαι που η Επίτροπος ήταν παρούσα– η οποία συγχρηματοδοτείται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ανέπτυξε περαιτέρω σχέδια για το Φόρουμ για το Μέλλον, τα οποία εισήχθηκαν για πρώτη φορά στη διάσκεψη του Sea Island τον Ιούνιο του 2004, για την προώθηση της δημοκρατίας στην Εγγύς Ανατολή και τη Νότιο Αφρική. Παρά την οικονομική συνεισφορά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σε ένα τόσο σημαντικό γεγονός, μάλλον οι Αμερικανοί παρά η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ηγούνται αυτής της δραστηριότητας. Αναγνωρίζουμε ότι το πρόγραμμα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών ουσιαστικά απηχεί τις αρχές της διαδικασίας της Βαρκελώνης και τώρα της ευρωπαϊκής πολιτικής γειτονίας.
Το 2005, το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο θα αναλάβει την Προεδρία τόσο της “ομάδας των οκτώ” όσο και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Ελπίζω ειλικρινά ότι θα δοθεί μεγαλύτερη βαρύτητα στα 250 εκατομμύρια Αράβων που επιθυμούν τη δημοκρατία, όπως κατέδειξε η έκθεση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για την ανάπτυξη το 2002, καθώς και τις χώρες με προφανές δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα στα ανατολικά μας.
Τέλος, ενώ δεν προτείνω να απορρίψει το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο τον κανονισμό ή τα σχετικά κονδύλια του προϋπολογισμού για περισσότερο διάστημα από το εντελώς απαραίτητο, θεωρώ ότι η απάντηση της Επιτροπής –η επιστολή της Επιτρόπου σχετικά με τις νέες ρυθμίσεις για αυτό το πρόγραμμα, η οποία δεν αναφέρει επαφές σε επίπεδο εργασίας– αλλά και του Συμβουλίου –το οποίο χρησιμοποιεί ακόμη μια ομάδα εργασίας αποτελούμενη από τους υπουργούς Ανάπτυξης– στις ανησυχίες που εξέφρασα εγώ και άλλοι σχετικά με την πρωτοβουλία για τη δημοκρατία στερείται ουσίας και είναι εντελώς ακατάλληλη για τις ανάγκες της εποχής μας και τις ανάγκες εκατομμυρίων ανθρώπων στο κατώφλι μας που στερούνται την ελευθερία τους.
Υπήρχαν δύο κανονισμοί, ένας εκ των οποίων έχει ήδη εγκριθεί από αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο. Αυτός τον οποίο εξετάζουμε τώρα καλύπτει τις τρίτες χώρες.
Πριν από δώδεκα χρόνια, ήμουν εισηγητής και, όπως με περιέγραψε ο κ. Patten, “πατέρας” της ευρωπαϊκής πρωτοβουλίας για τη δημοκρατία και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, η οποία αποδείχθηκε ότι συνέβαλε αποφασιστικά στη μεταβατική φάση των χωρών του πρώην σοβιετικού συνασπισμού. Θεωρήθηκε από πολλούς ως το κύριο σχέδιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την προώθηση της δημοκρατίας. Προσέδωσε νόημα στο προοίμιο της Συνθήκης του Μάαστριχτ όσον αφορά τις προτεραιότητες της εξωτερικής πολιτικής της ΕΕ.
Στην αρχική του φάση διοικείτο από ένα μικρό ίδρυμα με έδρα τις Βρυξέλλες, με το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και την Επιτροπή να διαδραματίζουν και τα δύο ενεργό ρόλο στην κατανομή και την παρακολούθηση των σχεδίων. Στο απόγειό της το 1997, η πρωτοβουλία χρηματοδοτούσε και διαχειριζόταν περίπου 1200 σχέδια. Το 1999 επισκέφθηκα ορισμένα από αυτά στο Βελιγράδι, περιλαμβανομένων βασικών δημοκρατικών μέσων μαζικής ενημέρωσης, όπως ο ραδιοφωνικός σταθμός Radio B92. Το ίδιο έτος η πρωτοβουλία τέθηκε υπό την αιγίδα της Επιτροπής.
Για αρκετό καιρό ανησυχούσα ότι η πρωτοβουλία κατέστη γραφειοκρατική και ασφαλής και ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, ως το μόνο δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένο θεσμικό όργανο, θα έπρεπε να αναλάβει και πάλι μεγαλύτερο ρόλο.
Αν και η πρωτοβουλία έχει επί του παρόντος έναν προϋπολογισμό περίπου 137 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ, στερείται διαφάνειας και αποτελεσματικότητας. Και πείθομαι ολοένα και περισσότερο γι’ αυτό κατόπιν επιτόπιων συναντήσεων και συζητήσεων με περισσότερες από 30 οργανώσεις. Πολύ πρόσφατα, μίλησα στην Ένωση Δημοσιογράφων της Λευκορωσίας –που βρίσκεται αυτές τις μέρες εδώ για να παραλάβει το Βραβείο Ζαχάρωφ– καθώς και με τον υπεύθυνο Διευθυντή για την Ευρασία ενός οργανισμού των ΗΠΑ για την προώθηση της δημοκρατίας. Δεν γνώριζαν καν την ύπαρξη της ευρωπαϊκής πρωτοβουλίας για τη δημοκρατία.
Πρόκειται για ένα πολύτιμο πρόγραμμα το οποίο πρέπει να γίνει αποτελεσματικότερο. Ένα σπουδαίο σημείο είναι ότι, αντίθετα με την καθιερωμένη βοήθεια της ΕΕ, η Ευρωπαϊκή Πρωτοβουλία δεν απαιτεί τη συγκατάθεση της κυβέρνησης της φιλοξενούσας χώρας. Σε μια χώρα όπως η Λευκορωσία, για να μην μιλήσω για την Τυνησία ή το Ιράν, στις οποίες η λειτουργία μέσω των κυβερνητικών διαύλων είναι δύσκολη και συχνά αδύνατη, αυτό δεν πρέπει να υποτιμάται.
Σε ένα έγγραφο σχετικά με τη στρατηγική ασφαλείας της ΕΕ το 2003, ο Χαβιέ Σολάνα υπογράμμισε τη σημασία και την ευαισθησία τη νέας γειτονιάς της Ευρώπης. Η συναφής πολιτική καλεί τους ανατολικούς και νότιους γείτονές μας να μοιραστούν και εκείνοι την ειρήνη, τη σταθερότητα και την ευημερία που απολαμβάνουμε εμείς στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Αποσκοπεί στη δημιουργία ενός “δακτυλίου φίλων” γύρω από τα σύνορα της νέας διευρυμένης Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Δυστυχώς, η μόνη ορατότητα των δημοκρατικών δραστηριοτήτων της ΕΕ στη νέα γειτονιά φαίνεται ότι είναι σύντομες αποστολές παρατήρησης βουλευτών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, όπως αυτές που πραγματοποιήθηκαν προσφάτως στην Ουκρανία. Πιστεύω ότι όλες οι σημαντικές εκλογές στη νέα γειτονιά πρέπει να γίνουν αντικείμενο ολοκληρωμένων αποστολών παρατήρησης της ΕΕ.
Υπάρχει η αίσθηση στις Βρυξέλλες ότι η δημοκρατία δεν μπορεί να εξαχθεί και ότι η αλλαγή πρέπει να έλθει εκ των έσω. Ωστόσο, το Εθνικό Κληροδότημα για τη Δημοκρατία των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών έχει δείξει από το 1982 ότι αυτά τα δύο μπορούν να συνδυαστούν. Λειτουργεί ως ανεξάρτητη αντιπροσωπεία πραγματογνωμόνων, χρησιμοποιώντας τοπικές ΜΚΟ, και χαίρει του σεβασμού για τα προγράμματά του και τη μεθοδολογία του. Όπως οι δραστηριότητες των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, το Ίδρυμα Westminster, ή τα γερμανικά Stiftungen, και άλλες ΜΚΟ έχουν μεγαλύτερη ορατότητα και πολύ λιγότερη γραφειοκρατία από την Ευρωπαϊκή Πρωτοβουλία."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, agradezco a la Comisaria sus observaciones iniciales. Es un placer ver en la Cámara a la señora Morgantini, presidenta de la Comisión de Desarrollo, a la señora Flautre, presidenta de la Subcomisión de Derechos Humanos, y al ponente alternativo y coponente mío de la Comisión de Desarrollo, el señor Fernández Martín.
Hace poco he redactado un documento que detalla las actividades del Parlamento Europeo a favor de la democracia, tanto dentro de la Unión Europea como fuera de ella. Los diputados participamos como tales en una miríada de delegaciones interparlamentarias, comités consultivos y grupos informales. Se está haciendo una labor importante, pero fragmentaria. Lo mismo cabe decir de la iniciativa europea. En mi opinión, nuestra participación debería estar coordinada en un centro por la democracia, radicado en esta Cámara, que tuviera el mandato de actuar como unidad de investigación, un organismo supervisor de todas las actividades de la Unión Europea en pro de la democracia. Por citar un ejemplo, la página web de la Oficina para la Democracia, los Derechos Humanos y el Trabajo del Departamento de Estado presume de que los Estados Unidos han supervisado la transición a la democracia de 87 países. ¿Desea la Unión Europea dejar esta estadística exclusivamente en manos de los Estados Unidos? La Conferencia del G8 de la semana pasada, celebrada en Rabat –y me complace mucho que la señora Comisaria estuviera presente– y cofinanciada por la Unión Europea, desarrolló planes para el Foro del Futuro, presentado por primera vez en la Cumbre de Isla del Mar, en junio de 2004, a fin de promover la democracia en Oriente Próximo y el norte de África. A pesar de la contribución financiera de la Unión Europea a un acto tan importante, son los Estados Unidos y no la Unión Europea quienes lideran esta actividad. Reconocemos que el programa de los Estados Unidos se hace eco básicamente de los principios del proceso de Barcelona y ahora de la Política de Vecindad Europea.
En 2005, el Reino Unido asumirá la presidencia del G8 y de la Unión Europea. Espero sinceramente que se preste más atención a los 250 millones de árabes que quieren democracia, tal y como ilustra el Informe de Desarrollo de 2002 de las Naciones Unidas, así como a los Estados en manifiesto proceso de desestructuración al este de Europa.
Por último, si bien no propongo que el Parlamento Europeo rechace el reglamento o las líneas presupuestarias asociadas durante más tiempo que el estrictamente necesario, me parece que la respuesta de la Comisión –la carta de la Comisaria relativa a los nuevos ajustes de este programa, que no hace referencia a contactos de nivel de trabajo– y del Consejo –que todavía emplea a un grupo de trabajo formado por Ministros de Desarrollo– a las preocupaciones que otros y yo hemos expresado en torno a la iniciativa para la democracia tiene carencias de fondo y no se ajusta en absoluto a las necesidades de nuestro tiempo y de millones de personas que carecen de libertad al otro lado de nuestras fronteras.
Existen dos reglamentos, uno de los cuales ya ha sido aprobado por esta Asamblea. El que ahora tenemos entre manos es el que se refiere a terceros países.
Hace doce años fui ponente y, como me ha llamado el señor Patten, «padre» de la iniciativa europea para la democracia y los derechos humanos, que resultó ser muy útil a la hora de ayudar a los países en transición del antiguo bloque soviético. Muchos la consideraban el plan insignia de la Unión Europea para promover la democracia. Dio sentido al preámbulo del Tratado de Maastricht relativo a las prioridades de política exterior de la Unión Europea.
En su fase inicial fue gestionada por una pequeña fundación radicada en Bruselas, con la participación activa del Parlamento Europeo y de la Comisión en la asignación y supervisión de proyectos. En su mejor momento, en 1997, la iniciativa financiaba y gestionaba unos 1 200 proyectos. En 1999 visité algunos de ellos en Belgrado, incluidos algunos medios fundamentales para la defensa de la democracia, como Radio B92. Ese mismo año la gestión de la iniciativa se integró en el seno de la Comisión.
Durante muchos años me ha preocupado que la iniciativa se haya tornado burocrática y prudente, y pienso que el Parlamento Europeo, la única institución elegida democráticamente, debería desempeñar de nuevo un papel más importante.
Aunque la iniciativa tiene actualmente un presupuesto de unos 137 millones de euros, carece de visibilidad y eficacia. Estoy convencido de ello sobre todo después de asistir a reuniones sobre el terreno y debatir con más de 30 organizaciones. Hace muy poco hablé con la Asociación de Periodistas Bielorrusos, que en estos momentos se encuentran aquí para recibir el Premio Sajárov, así como con el Director para Eurasia de una agencia de defensa de la democracia de los Estados Unidos. Ni siquiera conocían la existencia de la iniciativa europea para la democracia.
Es un programa muy valioso y que necesita mayor efectividad. Es importante señalar que a diferencia de la ayuda rutinaria de la Unión Europea, la iniciativa europea no precisa el consentimiento del Gobierno anfitrión. Esto no puede subestimarse en un país como Belarús, por no hablar de Túnez o Irán, donde es difícil, y a menudo imposible, actuar a través de canales gubernamentales.
En 2003, Javier Solana esbozó en un documento sobre la estrategia de seguridad de la Unión Europea la importancia y la sensibilidad de la nueva vecindad de Europa. La política resultante invita a nuestros vecinos del este y del sur a compartir la paz, la estabilidad y la prosperidad que disfrutamos en la Unión Europea. Su objetivo es crear un «grupo de amigos» en torno a las fronteras de la recién ampliada Unión Europea. Por desgracia, las únicas actividades democráticas de la Unión Europea que son visibles en el nuevo vecindario parecen ser breves misiones de observación de diputados al Parlamento Europeo, por ejemplo las emprendidas recientemente en Ucrania. Me parece que todas las elecciones importantes en el nuevo vecindario deberían ser objeto de misiones de observación de la Unión Europea en el pleno sentido de la palabra.
En Bruselas se tiene la sensación de que la democracia no puede exportarse y de que el cambio debe venir de dentro. Sin embargo, la National Endowment for Democracy de los Estados Unidos ha demostrado desde 1982 que ambas cosas pueden combinarse. Funciona como una agencia especializada independiente, que utiliza a ONG sobre el terreno y que goza de gran respeto por sus programas y su metodología. Aparte de las actividades de los Estados Unidos, la Westminster Foundation, por ejemplo, o las
alemanas y otras ONG tienen una mayor visibilidad y mucho menos burocracia que la iniciativa europea."@es20
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, kiitän komission jäsentä avauspuheenvuorosta. Olen iloinen nähdessäni salissa kehitysyhteistyövaliokunnan puheenjohtajan Morgantinin, ihmisoikeuksien alivaliokunnan puheenjohtajan Flautren, varjoesittelijän ja kehitysyhteistyövaliokunnan yhteisesittelijän Fernández Martínin.
Laadin hiljattain asiakirjan, jossa kuvailtiin Euroopan parlamentin demokratiaa edistäviä toimia EU:ssa ja sen ulkopuolella. Parlamentin jäseninä me osallistumme lukemattomiin parlamenttien välisiin valtuuskuntiin, neuvoa-antaviin valiokuntiin ja epävirallisiin ryhmiin. Teemme arvokasta työtä, mutta se on sirpaleista. Samaa voidaan sanoa eurooppalaisesta aloitteesta. Minusta toimintaamme olisi koordinoitava demokratiakeskuksesta, joka toimisi täällä parlamentissa ja joka voisi toimia tutkimusyksikkönä ja valvovana elimenä kaikkien EU:n demokratiaa edistävien toimien yhteydessä. Esimerkiksi Yhdysvaltojen ulkoministeriön demokratiaa, ihmisoikeuksia ja työllisyyttä käsittelevä virasto kehuu Internet-sivustollaan, että Yhdysvallat on valvonut 87 valtion siirtymistä demokratiaan. Ovatko nämä sellaisia tilastoja, jotka EU haluaa jättää yksin Yhdysvaltojen käsiin? Viime viikonloppuna Rabatissa pidetyssä G8-maiden konferenssissa, jota Euroopan unioni oli mukana rahoittamassa – ja olen iloinen, että komission jäsen oli paikalla – esitettiin lisäsuunnitelmia tulevaisuusfoorumille, joka perustettiin Sea Islandin huippukokouksessa kesäkuussa 2004 edistämään demokratiaa Lähi-idässä ja Pohjois-Afrikassa. Huolimatta Euroopan unionin rahoituksesta tälle merkittävälle tapahtumalle toimintaa johtavat Euroopan unionin sijaan pikemminkin amerikkalaiset. Havaitsemme, että Yhdysvaltojen ohjelmassa toistetaan Barcelonan prosessin ja sittemmin myös Euroopan naapuruuspolitiikan yhteydessä vahvistetut periaatteet.
Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta ottaa vuonna 2005 vastaan sekä G8-maiden että Euroopan unionin puheenjohtajan tehtävät. Toivon todellakin, että silloin keskitytään enemmän niihin 250 miljoonaan arabiin, jotka toivovat demokratiaa, kuten Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien kehitysraportissa esitetään, sekä itäpuolellamme sijaitseviin selvästi horjuviin valtioihin.
Lopuksi, vaikka en ehdota, että Euroopan parlamentin olisi lykättävä asetusta tai siihen liittyviä budjettikohtia enää yhtään pidempään kuin on välttämätöntä, katson, että komission vastaus – komission jäsenen toimittama ohjelman uusia järjestelyjä koskeva kirje, jossa ei viitata yhteyksiin työskentelyn tasolla – ja neuvoston vastaus – neuvosto edelleen käyttää kehitysministereistä koostuvaa työryhmää – minun ja muiden esittämiin huoliin demokratia-aloitteesta ovat substanssia vailla ja täysin sopimattomia aikamme tarpeisiin sekä ovellamme jonottavien vapautta kaipaavien miljoonien ihmisten tarpeisiin.
Oli kaksi asetusta, joista toisen parlamentti on jo hyväksynyt. Käsittelemme nyt kolmansia maita koskevaa asetusta.
Kaksitoista vuotta sitten toimin esittelijänä ja, kuten Patten minua kutsui, demokratiaa ja ihmisoikeuksia koskevan eurooppalaisen aloitteen "isänä". Aloite osoittautui hyödylliseksi autettaessa entisen Neuvostoliiton alueen valtioita. Monet pitivät sitä Euroopan unionin demokratian edistämisen lippulaivana. Se antoi sisällön Maastrichtin sopimuksen EU:n ulkopolitiikan ensisijaisia tavoitteita koskevalle johdanto-osalle.
Alkuvaiheessa aloitetta hallinnoi pieni Brysselissä toimiva säätiö, ja Euroopan parlamentti ja komissio osallistuivat aktiivisesti hankkeiden valintaan ja seurantaan. Huippuvuonna 1997 aloitteesta rahoitettiin ja hallinnoitiin noin 1 200:a hanketta. Tutustuin joihinkin niistä vuonna 1999 Belgradissa, muun muassa merkittäviin demokratiaa edistäviin tiedotusvälineisiin, kuten Radio B92:een. Samana vuonna komissio otti aloitteen omakseen.
Olen pitkään ollut huolissani siitä, että aloitteesta on tullut byrokraattinen ja turvallinen, ja Euroopan parlamentin olisi ainoana demokraattisesti valittuna toimielimenä saatava jälleen merkittävä asema sen ohjaamisessa.
Vaikka aloitteeseen osoitetut määrärahat ovat nykyisin noin 137 miljoonaa euroa, siltä puuttuu näkyvyyttä ja tehokkuutta. Olen tästä sitäkin vakuuttuneempi osallistuttuani tapaamisiin paikan päällä ja keskusteltuani yli 30 järjestön kanssa. Viimeksi puhuin Valko-Venäjän toimittajien liiton kanssa – joka on täällä edustettuna vastaanottamassa Saharov-palkintoa – sekä yhdysvaltalaisen demokratiaa edistävän yhdistyksen Euraasian johtajan kanssa. He eivät olleet edes tietoisia demokratiaa koskevan eurooppalaisen aloitteen olemassaolosta.
Tämä on hyvin arvokas ohjelma, ja siitä on tehtävä entistä tehokkaampi. On korostettava, että toisin kuin EU:n rutiininomaisessa tuessa, eurooppalaisessa aloitteessa ei edellytetä valtion hallituksen suostumusta. Valko-Venäjän kaltaisessa valtiossa, Tunisiasta tai Iranista puhumattakaan, jossa toimiminen hallituksen kanavien kautta on vaikeaa ja usein mahdotonta, tätä ei pidä aliarvioida.
Asiakirjassa EU:n turvallisuusstrategiasta Javier Solana korosti vuonna 2003 Euroopan uuden naapuruuden merkitystä ja haavoittuvuutta. Sen seurauksena laaditussa politiikassa kehotetaan naapureitamme idässä ja etelässä jakamaan Euroopan unionin kanssa rauha, vakaus ja vauraus. Sillä pyritään luomaan ystävärinki laajentuneen Euroopan unionin rajoille. Valitettavasti ainoa EU:n demokraattisen toiminnan näkyvä piirre on Euroopan parlamentin jäsenien vaalitarkkailutehtävät, kuten hiljattain Ukrainan tilanteessa. Minusta kaikki merkittävät vaalit uudessa naapurustossa edellyttäisivät täysimääräisten EU:n tarkkailuryhmien lähettämistä.
Brysselissä tuntuu siltä, että demokratiaa ei voida viedä ja että muutoksen on synnyttävä sisältäpäin. Yhdysvaltojen National Endowment for Democracy -järjestö on kuitenkin osoittanut jo vuodesta 1982, että nämä asiat voidaan yhdistää. Järjestö toimii riippumattomana asiantuntijana, käyttää apunaan paikallisia kansalaisjärjestöjä, ja sen ohjelmia ja menetelmiä arvostetaan suuresti. Yhdysvaltojen lisäksi myös esimerkiksi Westminster Foundation, saksalainen
ja muut kansalaisjärjestöt toimivat näkyvästi, eivätkä ne ole niin byrokraattisia kuin eurooppalainen aloite."@fi7
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, ringrazio la signora Commissario per l’intervento di apertura. Mi rallegro di vedere in Aula l’onorevole Morgantini, presidente della commissione per lo sviluppo, l’onorevole Flautre, presidente della sottocommissione per i diritti dell’uomo, il relatore per parere e mio correlatore della commissione per lo sviluppo, onorevole Fernández Martín.
Recentemente ho redatto un documento che presenta nel dettaglio le attività a favore della democrazia svolte dal Parlamento europeo, sia all’interno che all’esterno dell’Unione. In qualità di deputati, noi facciamo parte di una miriade di delegazioni interparlamentari, comitati consultivi e gruppi informali. Il lavoro svolto è utile, ma frammentario. Lo stesso vale per l’iniziativa europea. A mio parere, il nostro contributo dovrebbe essere coordinato da un centro democratico, con sede presso quest’Assemblea, con funzioni di unità di ricerca, di organo di supervisione di tutte le attività a favore della democrazia svolte dall’Unione europea. Per citare un esempio, il sito
del
sostiene con orgoglio che gli Stati Uniti hanno supervisionato la transizione di 87 paesi verso la democrazia. L’Unione europea è disposta a lasciare che questa statistica rimanga appannaggio degli Stati Uniti? La conferenza dei G8 cofinanziata dall’Unione europea che si è tenuta a Rabat la settimana scorsa – e mi rallegro vivamente della partecipazione della signora Commissario – ha messo ulteriormente a punto i piani del
per il futuro, presentato per la prima volta in occasione del Vertice di Sea Island, nel giugno 2004, al fine di promuovere la democrazia in Medio Oriente e nell’Africa settentrionale. Nonostante il contributo finanziario assicurato dall’Unione europea a questo avvenimento così importante, sono gli Stati Uniti che coordinano le attività, e non l’Unione europea. Riconosciamo che il programma degli Stati Uniti riflette essenzialmente i principi del processo di Barcellona e, adesso, della politica europea di buon vicinato.
Nel 2005 il Regno Unito assumerà la Presidenza sia del G8 che dell’Unione europea. Mi auguro sinceramente che ci si concentrerà maggiormente sui 250 milioni di arabi che vogliono la democrazia, come illustrato dalla relazione delle Nazioni Unite del 2002 sullo sviluppo, nonché sui paesi a est dell’Europa, in evidente difficoltà.
Infine, benché non proponga al Parlamento europeo di respingere il regolamento o le linee di bilancio associate per un periodo superiore allo stretto necessario, ritengo che la risposta della Commissione – la lettera del Commissario relativa alle nuove disposizioni su questo programma, che non fa riferimento ai contatti a livello operativo – e quella del Consiglio – che si avvale ancora di un gruppo di lavoro composto da ministri responsabili per lo sviluppo – alle preoccupazioni espresse da me e da altri sull’iniziativa per la democrazia siano entrambe prive di sostanza e assolutamente inadeguate alle necessità del nostro tempo e delle persone private della libertà, che si accalcano a milioni alle nostre porte.
Ci sono due regolamenti, uno dei quali è già stato approvato da questa Assemblea. Oggi stiamo discutendo quello che concerne i paesi terzi.
Dodici anni fa sono stato relatore e, secondo la descrizione dell’ex Commissario Patten, “padre” dell’iniziativa europea per la democrazia e i diritti dell’uomo, che si è dimostrata un valido ausilio per i paesi dell’ex blocco sovietico in transizione. E’ stata considerata da molti il fiore all’occhiello dell’Unione europea nel contesto della promozione della democrazia. Ha conferito un senso al preambolo del Trattato di Maastricht sulle priorità dell’Unione europea in materia di politica estera.
Nella sua fase iniziale era gestita da un piccolo nucleo con sede a Bruxelles, e sia il Parlamento europeo che la Commissione svolgevano un ruolo attivo nell’assegnazione e nella supervisione dei progetti. Al suo apice, nel 1997, l’iniziativa finanziava e gestiva circa 1 200 progetti. Nel 1999 ne ho visitati alcuni a Belgrado, tra cui importanti
che operavano a favore della democrazia, come Radio B92. Quello stesso anno l’iniziativa è stata assorbita all’interno della Commissione.
Ho temuto per molto tempo che l’iniziativa fosse divenuta burocratica e inoffensiva, auspicando che il Parlamento europeo, l’unica Istituzione eletta democraticamente, svolgesse di nuovo un ruolo di maggiore rilievo.
Benché attualmente l’iniziativa preveda una dotazione di bilancio di circa 137 milioni di euro, manca di visibilità e di efficacia. Ne sono ancora più convinto dopo aver seguito le riunioni sul campo e le discussioni con oltre 30 organizzazioni. Molto recentemente, ho consultato l’Associazione dei giornalisti bielorussi – che si trova attualmente qui per l’assegnazione del Premio Sacharov – e il direttore per l’Eurasia di un’agenzia statunitense che opera a favore della democrazia. Non erano neppure al corrente dell’esistenza dell’iniziativa europea per la democrazia.
Si tratta di un programma molto valido che deve essere reso più efficace. Un punto importante da sottolineare è che, a differenza dell’assistenza di
prestata dall’Unione europea, l’iniziativa europea non richiede il consenso del governo ospitante. In paesi come la Bielorussia, per non parlare della Tunisia o dell’Iran, dove è difficile e spesso impossibile operare tramite canali governativi, questo fattore non va sottovalutato.
In un documento sulla strategia di sicurezza dell’Unione europea nel 2003, Javier Solana ha sottolineato l’importanza e il carattere sensibile della nuova situazione di vicinato dell’Europa. La politica che ne è il frutto invita i nostri vicini a est e a sud a condividere la pace, la stabilità e la prosperità di cui godiamo nell’Unione europea. Mira a creare una “cerchia di amici” intorno alle frontiere della nuova Unione europea allargata. Purtroppo, la sola visibilità assicurata dalle attività dell’Unione a favore della democrazia nei nuovi paesi vicini sembra derivare dalle brevi missioni osservative degli eurodeputati, come quelle compiute recentemente in Ucraina. Penso che tutte le elezioni significative nei nuovi paesi vicini debbano essere oggetto di missioni osservative complete da parte dell’Unione europea.
A Bruxelles si tende a pensare che la democrazia non possa essere esportata e che i cambiamenti debbano scaturire dall’interno. Invece, il
ha dimostrato dal 1982 che i due fattori possono essere combinati. Questo organismo opera come agenzia specializzata indipendente, avvalendosi delle ONG sul campo, ed è molto rispettato per i suoi programmi e la sua metodologia. Così come per le attività statunitensi, anche la
per esempio, o le
tedesche e altre ONG godono di maggiore visibilità e sono appesantite da minore burocrazia rispetto all’iniziativa europea."@it12
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@lt14
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@lv13
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik dank de commissaris voor haar openingsopmerkingen. Ik ben blij mevrouw Morgantini, de voorzitter van de Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking, in dit Huis te zien, alsook mevrouw Flautre, de voorzitter van de Subcommissie mensenrechten, de schaduwrapporteur en mijn rapporteur voor advies in de Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking, de heer Fernández Martín.
Onlangs heb ik een document opgesteld waarin de activiteiten van het Europees Parlement voor democratie, zowel binnen de EU als daarbuiten, nauwkeurig worden beschreven. Als leden van het Parlement nemen we deel in een groot aantal interparlementaire delegaties, raadplegingscomités en informele groepen. Er wordt waardevol werk verricht, maar het werk is wel gefragmenteerd. Hetzelfde kan worden gezegd van het Europees initiatief. Naar mijn mening zou onze betrokkenheid moeten worden gecoördineerd in een democratiecentrum waarvan dit Huis basis is en dat een mandaat heeft om op te treden als onderzoekseenheid, een instantie die toeziet op alle activiteiten voor democratie van de EU. De website van het Bureau voor democratie, mensenrechten en arbeid van het Amerikaanse Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken vertelt bijvoorbeeld trots dat de Verenigde Staten toezicht hebben gehouden op de overgang van 87 landen naar democratische staten. Is dit een cijfer dat de EU in de handen van de Verenigde Staten alleen wil laten? Op de conferentie van de G8 afgelopen weekend in Rabat, die werd medegefinancierd door de Europese Unie – en ik ben blij dat de commissaris daar aanwezig was – zijn verdere plannen ontwikkeld voor het Forum voor de toekomst, dat voor het eerst werd geïntroduceerd op de Sea Island-Top in juni 2004, teneinde de democratie in het Midden-Oosten en Noord-Afrika te bevorderen. Ondanks de financiële bijdrage van de Europese Unie aan zo'n belangrijke gebeurtenis, wordt deze activiteit geleid door de Amerikanen en niet door de Europese Unie. En wij zien dat het programma van de Verenigde Staten in wezen de beginselen van het proces van Barcelona en nu het Europese nabuurschapbeleid weergeeft.
In 2005 zal het Verenigd Koninkrijk zowel het voorzitterschap van de G8 als dat van de Europese Unie overnemen. Ik hoop oprecht dat er meer aandacht zal zijn voor de 250 miljoen Arabieren die democratie willen, zoals blijkt uit het ontwikkelingsverslag 2002 van de Verenigde Naties, alsmede voor de landen ten oosten van ons die duidelijk tekortschieten.
Tot slot: ik stel niet voor dat het Europees Parlement het voorstel voor de verordening of de bijbehorende begrotingslijnen langer moet verwerpen dan strikt noodzakelijk is, maar ik vind dat het antwoord van de Commissie – dat wil zeggen, de brief van de commissaris over de nieuwe afspraken over dit programma, die niet verwijst naar de contacten op werkvloerniveau – en van de Raad – die nog steeds een werkgroep gebruikt bestaande uit ministers van Ontwikkelingssamenwerking – op de zorgen die ik en anderen hebben geuit over het initiatief voor democratie, te weinig substantie heeft en in het geheel niet is uitgerust voor de behoeften van onze tijd en de behoeften van miljoenen onvrije mensen vlakbij.
Er waren twee verordeningen, waarvan er een al door dit Huis is aanvaard. De verordening waar we het nu over hebben, is de verordening die van toepassing is op derde landen.
Twaalf jaar geleden was ik rapporteur en, zoals de heer Patten me heeft genoemd, de 'vader' van het Europees initiatief voor democratie en mensenrechten, dat van doorslaggevend nut is gebleken om de overgangslanden van het voormalige sovjetblok te helpen. Velen beschouwden het initiatief als het paradepaardje van de Europese Unie voor bevordering van de democratie. Het gaf inhoud aan de preambule van het Verdrag van Maastricht inzake de prioriteiten in het buitenlands beleid van de EU.
In zijn beginfase werd het initiatief beheerd door een kleine stichting die was gevestigd in Brussel, waarbij zowel het Europees Parlement als de Commissie een actieve rol speelden in de toewijzing van en het toezicht op projecten. Op het hoogtepunt in 1997 financierde en beheerde het initiatief ongeveer 1200 projecten. In 1999 heb ik enkele van deze projecten bezocht in Belgrado, waaronder projecten voor belangrijke democratisch gezinde media, zoals Radio B92. In hetzelfde jaar werd het initiatief intern opgenomen door de Commissie gehaald.
Ik maak me er al lange tijd zorgen over dat het initiatief bureaucratisch is geworden en te veel op safe speelt, en vraag me af of het Europees Parlement als enige democratisch gekozen instelling niet opnieuw een grotere rol zou moeten spelen.
Het initiatief heeft momenteel weliswaar een budget van circa 137 miljoen euro, maar het is te weinig zichtbaar en effectief. Ik ben hier des te meer van overtuigd geraakt na ontmoetingen op locatie en na gesprekken met meer dan dertig organisaties. Onlangs sprak ik met de Vereniging van Wit-Russische journalisten, die momenteel hier is om de Sacharovprijs in ontvangst te nemen, en met de voorzitter van de afdeling Eurazië van een Amerikaanse instelling voor democratie. Ze wisten niet eens van het bestaan van het Europees initiatief voor democratie.
Dit is een heel waardevol programma en het is een programma dat effectiever moet worden gemaakt. Een belangrijk punt dat moet worden opgemerkt, is dat voor het Europees initiatief, anders dan voor routinematige bijstand van de EU, geen toestemming van de regering van het gastheerland nodig is. In een land zoals Wit-Rusland, om maar niet te spreken van Tunesië of Iran, waar het moeilijk en vaak onmogelijk is om via overheidskanalen te werken, kan de waarde hiervan niet worden onderschat.
In een document over de veiligheidsstrategie van de EU in 2003 schetste Javier Solana het belang en de gevoeligheid van het nieuwe nabuurschap van Europa. Het resulterende beleid nodigt onze buren in het oosten en zuiden uit te delen in de vrede, stabiliteit en welvaart die we in de Europese Unie kennen. Het heeft tot doel een 'ring van vrienden' te creëren rond de grenzen van de nieuwe, uitgebreide Europese Unie. Helaas lijken de activiteiten voor democratie van de EU in het nieuwe nabuurschap alleen zichtbaar te zijn in de korte waarnemingsmissies door leden van het Europees Parlement, zoals de missies die onlangs zijn ondernomen in Oekraïne. Ik ben van mening dat alle belangrijke verkiezingen in het nieuwe nabuurschap onderwerp van brede waarnemingsmissies van de EU zouden moeten zijn.
In Brussel bestaat het gevoel dat democratie niet kan worden geëxporteerd en dat veranderingen van binnenuit moeten komen. De National Endowment for Democracy van de Verenigde Staten laat echter al sinds 1982 zien dat de twee kunnen worden gecombineerd. De National Endowment werkt als een onafhankelijk bureau van deskundigen en maakt gebruik van NGO's die ter plaatse actief zijn. De organisatie wordt zeer gewaardeerd vanwege zijn programma's en methodologie. Net als de activiteiten van de Verenigde Staten, zijn ook de Westminster Foundation of de Duitse
en andere NGO's beter zichtbaar en veel minder bureaucratisch dan het Europees initiatief."@nl3
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, agradeço à Senhora Comissária as suas observações introdutórias. Muito me congratulo por ver presente no Hemiciclo a senhora deputada Morgantini, presidente da Comissão do Desenvolvimento, a senhora deputada Flautre, presidente da Subcomissão dos Direitos do Homem, e o relator-sombra e meu co-relator na Comissão do Desenvolvimento, senhor deputado Fernández Martín.
Elaborei recentemente um documento onde se encontram pormenorizadamente descritas as actividades do Parlamento Europeu em prol da democracia, tanto no interior como no exterior da UE. Na nossa qualidade de deputados, participamos num sem número de delegações interparlamentares, comissões de consulta e grupos informais. Desenvolve-se um trabalho de grande valor, mas que é fragmentado. O mesmo se pode dizer da Iniciativa Europeia para a Democracia e os Direitos Humanos. Em minha opinião, o nosso envolvimento deveria ser coordenado a partir de um centro de democracia, baseado neste Parlamento, mandatado para actuar como unidade de investigação e órgão supervisor de todas as actividades levadas a cabo pela UE em prol da democracia. De assinalar, por exemplo, que o sítio web do Departamento de Estado norte-americano para a Democracia, os Direitos do Homem e o Trabalho se gaba do papel de supervisão assumido pelos Estados Unidos na transição para a democracia de 87 países. À leitura deste número, pergunto-me se a UE estará disposta a deixar todos os louros na matéria com os Estados Unidos. A Conferência do G8 que teve lugar no fim-de-semana passado em Rabat – onde folgo em saber que a Senhora Comissária esteve presente -, co-financiada pela União Europeia, traçou novos planos para o Fórum do Futuro, ideia inicialmente lançada na Cimeira de Sea Island, em Junho de 2004, visando promover a democracia no Médio Oriente e na África Setentrional. Apesar da contribuição financeira da União Europeia para este importante instrumento, são os Americanos e não a UE quem está a liderar as acções neste âmbito. E sabemos que o programa dos Estados Unidos reflecte basicamente os princípios do Processo de Barcelona e agora os da política europeia de vizinhança.
Em 2005, o Reino Unido assumirá a Presidência tanto do G8 como da União Europeia. Espero sinceramente que seja dada uma maior atenção aos 250 milhões de Árabes que aspiram à democracia, como o demonstra o Relatório sobre o Desenvolvimento publicado pela Nações Unidas em 2002, bem como aos países a leste da UE, manifestamente incumpridores a esse nível.
Por último, não proponho que o Parlamento Europeu rejeite o regulamento nem as rubricas orçamentais conexas por mais tempo que o estritamente necessário, mas a verdade é que considero a resposta da Comissão – a carta da Senhora Comissária sobre as novas disposições aplicáveis a este programa, que não faz referência aos contactos a nível operacional – bem como do Conselho – que continua a utilizar uma equipa de trabalho composta por Ministros do Desenvolvimento – às preocupações que eu e outros colegas expressámos relativamente à Iniciativa Europeia para a Democracia e os Direitos Humanos desprovida de conteúdo e completamente inadequada às necessidades do nosso tempo e às de milhões de pessoas à nossa porta que vivem privadas de liberdade.
Houve dois regulamentos, e um deles já foi aprovado por esta Assembleia. Aquele de que hoje nos ocupamos é o que diz respeito aos países terceiros.
Faz agora doze anos que fui relator e, nas palavras do Senhor Chris Patten, “pai” da Iniciativa Europeia para a Democracia e os Direitos Humanos, ou IEDDH, instrumento que se revelou uma ajuda valiosa para os países do antigo bloco soviético no seu processo de transição democrática. Muitos o consideraram a bandeira dos projectos europeus de promoção da democracia. O preâmbulo do Tratado de Maastricht respeitante às prioridades da política externa da União Europeia teve na IEDDH a sua razão de ser.
Na sua fase inicial, a Iniciativa Europeia para a Democracia e os Direitos Humanos era administrada por uma pequena fundação sedeada em Bruxelas, desempenhando o Parlamento Europeu e a Comissão um papel activo no financiamento e supervisão dos projectos. Na sua fase culminante, em 1997, a IEDDH financiava e administrava cerca de 1 200 projectos. Em 1999, visitei alguns deles em Belgrado, entre os quais importantes
pró-democráticos, como o Radio B92. Nesse mesmo ano, a Comissão integrou a IEDDH na sua estrutura interna.
De há muito tempo a esta parte que constato com preocupação que a Iniciativa Europeia para a Democracia e os Direitos Humanos se converteu num instrumento burocrático e pouco arrojado, sendo minha opinião que o Parlamento Europeu, única instituição democraticamente eleita, deveria voltar a desempenhar um papel de peso a esse nível.
Embora conte actualmente com uma dotação orçamental de 137 milhões de euros, a IEDDH carece de visibilidade e eficácia. As reuniões e discussões que mantive no terreno com mais de 30 organizações só vieram confirmar esta minha opinião. Também falei recentemente com a Associação de Jornalistas da Bielorússia – neste momento aqui presente para receber o Prémio Sakharov –, bem como com o Director para a Eurásia de uma agência noticiosa pró-democrática dos Estados Unidos, e nem um nem outro tinham sequer conhecimento da existência da Iniciativa Europeia para a Democracia e os Direitos Humanos.
A IEDDH é um programa muito válido, cuja eficácia tem de ser melhorada. Um aspecto importante a reter é que, contrariamente a outros instrumentos de ajuda comunitária com carácter de rotina, esta Iniciativa europeia não requer o consentimento do governo do país de acolhimento: uma particularidade que não é despicienda num país como a Bielorússia, para não falar da Tunísia ou do Irão, onde é difícil ou mesmo impossível funcionar através dos canais governamentais.
Num documento que apresentou em 2003 sobre a estratégia da UE no domínio da segurança, Javier Solana chamou a atenção para a importância e o carácter sensível da nova vizinhança da União Europeia. A política europeia de vizinhança, que nasceu a partir daí, convida os nossos países vizinhos orientais e meridionais a partilhar a paz, a estabilidade e o bem-estar de que gozam as populações da União. Esta política visa criar um “círculo de amigos” ao redor das fronteiras da nova União Europeia alargada. Lamentavelmente, a única visibilidade das actividades democráticas da UE na nova vizinhança parecem ser as curtas missões de observação integradas por deputados ao Parlamento Europeu, como as recentemente realizadas na Ucrânia. Sou de opinião que todas as eleições importantes que tenham lugar nos novos países nossos vizinhos deveriam ser acompanhadas por missões de observação plenamente representativas da UE.
Existe em Bruxelas o sentimento de que a democracia não pode ser exportada, devendo a mudança operar-se a partir de dentro. No entanto, desde 1982 que a agência norte-americana National Endowment for Democracy, ou NED, tem demonstrado que é possível conciliar as duas coisas. Funcionando como órgão especializado independente, o NED utiliza os serviços de ONG no terreno, sendo muito respeitado pelos seus programas e metodologia. À semelhança destas actividades nos Estados Unidos, também a Westminster Foundation e as
alemãs e diversas outras ONG são exemplo de organizações com maior visibilidade e muito menos burocracia que a Iniciativa europeia."@pt17
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@sk18
"Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her opening remarks. I am very pleased to see in the Chamber Mrs Morgantini, the chairman of the Committee on Development, Mrs Flautre, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, the shadow rapporteur and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Development, Mr Fernández Martín.
I recently put together a document detailing the European Parliament's prodemocracy activities, both within the EU and externally. As Members, we participate in a myriad of interparliamentary delegations, consultation committees and informal groups. Valuable work is being done, but the work is fragmented. The same can be said about the European initiative. To my mind, our involvement should be coordinated in a democracy centre, based in this House, mandated to act as a research unit, an oversight body on all the EU's pro-democracy activities. To take an example, the website of the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor boasts that the United States has overseen the transition of 87 countries to democratic states. Is this a statistic that the EU wishes to leave in the hands of the United States alone? Last weekend's G8 Conference in Rabat – and I am delighted that the Commissioner was present – co-financed by the European Union, further developed plans for the Forum for the Future, first introduced at the Sea Island Summit in June 2004, to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite the financial contribution of the European Union to such an important event, it is the Americans rather than the European Union who are leading this activity. We recognise that the United States programme essentially echoes the principles of the Barcelona process and now the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In 2005, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater focus on the 250 million Arabs who want democracy, as illustrated by the 2002 United Nations Development Report, as well as the manifestly failing countries to our east.
Lastly, while I do not propose that the European Parliament should reject the regulation or the associated budget lines for any longer than strictly necessary, I find the response from the Commission – the letter from the Commissioner relating to the new arrangements on this programme, which does not reference working level contacts – and the Council – which is still using a working party consisting of development ministers – to the concerns I and others expressed about the democracy initiative to be lacking in substance and completely unfitted to the needs of our time and the needs of millions of unfree people on our doorstep.
There were two regulations, one of which has already been adopted by this House. The one we are dealing with now is that covering third countries.
Twelve years ago I was rapporteur and, as Mr Patten has described me, 'father' of the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which proved to be instrumental in helping the transitional ex-Soviet bloc countries. It was considered by many as the European Union's flagship scheme for democracy promotion. It gave meaning to the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the EU's foreign policy priorities.
In its initial phase it was administered by a small foundation based in Brussels, with both the European Parliament and the Commission playing an active role in the allocation and supervision of projects. At its height in 1997, the initiative was financing and administering around 1 200 projects. In 1999 I visited some of them in Belgrade, including key pro-democracy media, such as Radio B92. The same year the initiative was taken in-house by the Commission.
I have been concerned for a long time that the initiative has become bureaucratic and safe and that the European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, should once again play a greater role.
Although the initiative currently has a budget of some EUR 137 million, it lacks visibility and effectiveness. I am all the more convinced of this following meetings on the ground and discussions with more than 30 organisations. Most recently, I spoke to the Association of Belarusian Journalists – currently here to receive the Sakharov Prize – as well as the Eurasia Director of a US pro-democracy agency. They were not even aware of the existence of the European democracy initiative.
This is a very valuable programme and one that needs to be made more effective. An important point to make is that unlike routine EU assistance, the European initiative does not require the host government's consent. In a country such as Belarus, not to speak of Tunisia or Iran, in which operating through government channels is difficult and often impossible, this cannot be underestimated.
In a paper on the EU security strategy in 2003, Javier Solana outlined the importance and sensitivity of Europe's new neighbourhood. The resulting policy invites our neighbours to the east and south to share in the peace, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. It aims to create a 'ring of friends' around the borders of the new enlarged European Union. Sadly, the only visibility of the EU's democracy activities in the new neighbourhood seems to be short observation missions by Members of the European Parliament, such as those undertaken recently in Ukraine. I believe that all significant elections in the new neighbourhood should be the subject of full EU observation missions.
There is a feeling in Brussels that democracy cannot be exported and that change must come from within. However, the United States National Endowment for Democracy has shown since 1982 that the two can be combined. It operates as an independent expert agency, using NGOs on the ground, and is much respected for its programmes and methodology. As well as the United States activities, the Westminster Foundation, for example, or the German
and other NGOs have higher visibility and much less bureaucracy than the European initiative."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Jag vill tacka kommissionsledamoten för hennes inledande kommentarer. Det gläder mig att i kammaren se Luisa Morgantini, ordförande för utskottet för utveckling, Hélène Flautre, ordförande för underutskottet för mänskliga rättigheter, skuggföredraganden och min medföredragande i utskottet för utveckling, Fernando Fernández Martín.
Jag sammanställde nyligen ett dokument om Europaparlamentets demokratifrämjande arbete, både inom och utanför EU. Som parlamentsledamöter deltar vi i en myriad av parlamentariska delegationer, samrådskommittéer och informella grupper. Det uträttas ett värdefullt men fragmentariskt arbete. Det samma gäller för Europeiska initiativet. Jag anser att vår medverkan bör samordnas i ett demokraticentrum med bas i Europaparlamentet och med uppgiften att agera som en forskningsenhet, en samlande enhet för allt demokratifrämjande arbete inom EU. På webbplatsen för utrikesdepartements Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, skryter man t.ex. med att Förenta staterna har övervakat 87 länders övergång till att bli demokratiska stater. Vill EU att Förenta staterna ensamt skall kunna ståta med statistiken? Under förra helgens G8-möte i Rabat, ett möte som medfinansierades av EU och som det gläder mig mycket att kommissionsledamoten närvarade vid, utarbetades vidare planer för Forum for the Future, som för första gången introducerades vid toppmötet på Sea Island i juni 2004, för att främja demokrati i Mellanöstern och Nordafrika. Trots Europeiska unionens ekonomiska bidrag till en så viktig händelse är det inte EU, utan amerikanerna, som leder verksamheten. Vi kan konstatera att Förenta staternas program i stora drag återspeglar Barcelonaprocessens och nu Europeiska grannskapspolitikens principer.
Under 2005 övertar Förenade kungariket ordförandeskapet för både G8 och Europeiska unionen. Jag hoppas verkligen att man koncentrerar sig mer på de 250 miljoner araber som vill ha demokrati, vilket framgår av FN:s utvecklingsrapport, och på de tydligt vacklande länderna öster om oss.
Jag föreslår inte att Europaparlamentet skall förkasta förordningen eller de tillhörande budgetposterna längre än absolut nödvändigt. Samtidigt anser jag att svaret från kommissionen, dvs. brevet från kommissionsledamoten om de nya arrangemangen för programmet, som inte hänvisar till kontakter på arbetsnivå, och från rådet, som fortfarande använder sig av en arbetsgrupp bestående av utvecklingsministrar, på de farhågor som jag och andra har uttryckt om demokratiinitiativet är helt otillräckligt till sitt innehåll och inte alls svarar mot de behov som finns i dag och som delas av miljontals ofria människor i vårt grannskap.
Det fanns två förordningar, varav den ena redan har antagits av parlamentet. Den vi behandlar nu gäller tredjeländer.
För tolv år sedan var jag föredragande, och enligt Chris Pattens beskrivning var jag pappa till Europeiska initiativet för demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter, som visade sig vara ett bidrag i övergångsfasen för de länder som tidigare tillhörde Sovjetblocket. Systemet sågs av många som EU:s flaggskepp för främjande av demokrati. Det gav innehåll åt Maastrichtfördragets inledning om EU:s utrikespolitiska prioriteringar.
I den inledande fasen administrerades det av en liten stiftelse med säte i Bryssel, och både Europaparlamentet och kommissionen spelade en aktiv roll i fördelningen och övervakningen av projekten. Vid höjdpunkten 1997 finansierade och administrerade initiativet runt 1 200 projekt. Jag besökte några av dem 1999 i Belgrad, bland annat de viktigaste medierna som verkade för demokrati, t.ex. Radio B92. Initiativet internaliserades av kommissionen samma år.
Jag har under lång tid oroat mig över att initiativet har blivit byråkratiskt och oflexibelt och tyckt att Europaparlamentet åter bör spela en större roll som den enda demokratiskt valda institutionen.
Trots att initiativet för närvarande har en budget på 137 miljoner euro saknas det öppenhet, insyn och effektivitet. Jag har blivit allt mer övertygad om detta efter att ha närvarat vid möten och följt diskussioner med mer än 30 organisationer. Jag talade helt nyligen med det vitryska journalistförbundet, som just nu är här för att ta emot Sacharovpriset, och med Eurasien-direktören för en amerikansk demokratiorganisation. De visste inte ens att det fanns ett europeiskt demokratiinitiativ.
Detta är ett mycket värdefullt program som också måste bli mer effektivt. Det är viktigt att komma ihåg att Europeiska initiativet, i motsats till rutinmässigt EU-stöd, inte förutsätter samtycke från värdlandets regering. I ett land som Vitryssland, för att inte tala om Tunisien eller Iran, där det är svårt och ofta omöjligt att operera genom regeringskanaler, kan detta knappast underskattas.
I ett dokument om EU:s säkerhetsstrategi 2003 sammanfattade Javier Solana betydelsen av och det känsliga läget för Europas nya grannskap. Detta resulterade i en politik som inbjuder våra grannar i öster och söder att ta del av den frihet, stabilitet och välfärd som vi åtnjuter i EU. Den syftar till att skapa en ring av vänner runt gränserna i den nya utvidgade Europeiska unionen. Tyvärr märks EU:s demokratiska arbete i de nya grannländerna enbart genom de korta valövervakningsuppdrag som ledamöter av Europaparlamentet utför, liknande det nyligen i Ukraina. Alla viktiga val i de nya grannländerna bör vara föremål för fullständiga valövervakningsuppdrag från EU:s sida.
Det råder i Bryssel en känsla av att demokrati inte kan exporteras och att förändring måste komma inifrån. Men Förenta staternas National Endowment for Democracy (NED) har sedan 1982 visat att de två faktorerna kan kombineras. NED verkar som ett oberoende expertorgan och använder sig av icke-statliga organisationer på fältet och respekteras mycket för sina program och metoder. Både Förenta staternas verksamhet, som t.ex. Westminster Foundation, och Tysklands stiftelser och icke-statliga organisationer präglas av mycket större öppenhet och insyn och mindre byråkrati än Europeiska initiativet."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"EN"10
"Forum"12
"McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE ),"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
"State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor"2
"State Department’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor"12
"Stiftungen"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,2,2,7,3,13,4,20,17,12,8
"media"17,12
"rapporteur"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples