Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-06-Speech-4-030"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-04-06"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Abi tõhusus ja korruptsioon arengumaades (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060406.5.4-030"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-06-Speech-4-031⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Marios Matsakis⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2006-12-31)²² unknown; Dimokratiko Komma (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)²² member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, mange komplimenter til hr. van den Berg for hans udmærkede betænkning. Korruptionens svøbe er hverken ny eller sjælden. Den har ledsaget menneskelig aktivitet siden de ældste tider og er vidt udbredt både i udviklingslandene og de udviklede lande - den eneste forskel er, at den i de udviklede lande praktiseres mere professionelt og elegant og således er vanskeligere at erkende. Så når korruptionen er så almindelig og udbredt, hvor effektive har forsøgene på at begrænse den på internationalt plan så faktisk været? Ikke meget, er jeg bange for. Det beløb, man har anslået på 1 trillion amerikanske dollars i bestikkelser i dag, er ikke mindre end i de tidligere år. Faktisk er det større. Grunden er enkel. Korruption kan ikke kontrolleres ved at undertegne konventioner og erklæringer alene, men kun ved nøje håndhævelse af sådanne konventioner og erklæringer af berørte. Med henblik herpå må vi i de udviklede lande foregå med et godt eksempel. Mens vi fordømmer korruptionen i udviklingslandene, så lad os se på os selv. Lad os også se kritisk på forholdene her, og lad os analysere os selv ved at stille os nogle enkle spørgsmål. Hvor frit for korruption er et system, der efter sigende tillader embedsmænd på højeste niveau fra USA's regering - navne som Cheney og Rumsfeld melder sig - at være involverede og have personlige interesser i selskaber, der har fået kontrakter til flere millioner i Irak og Afghanistan? Hvor frit for korruption er det, at den britiske premierministers kone, fru Blair, arbejder for et stort advokatfirma og tager sager, der er politisk yderst følsomme, og som direkte involverer og bliver påvirket af politiske beslutninger, som hendes mand træffer? Burde det romerske ordsprog om, at Cæsars hustru ikke alene skal være dadelfri, men at hun end ikke må kunne mistænkes, ikke gælde her? Hvor frit for korruption er et system, der tillader embedsmænd i FN og andre personer med forbindelse til dem, herunder FN's generalsekretærs søn, at blive anklaget for indblanding vedrørende olie for bistand? Nærmere ved os selv, hvor frit for korruption kan systemet ses at være, når medlemmer af Parlamentet og andre EU-institutioner, der er involveret i lovgivning - eller deres nærmeste slægtninge - samtidig er medlemmer af bestyrelser for virksomheder eller aktieejere i virksomheder, der kan tjene enorme profitter på baggrund af en sådan lovgivning? Er det nok simpelthen at erklære, at man har en interesse i sagen? Endelig må jeg henlede Deres opmærksomhed på to ændringsforslag af hr. Kristovskis vedrørende betragtning N og punkt 22. Disse ændringsforslag retter en fejl, der blev lavet i den oprindelige betænknings betragtning N, hvori Cypern var udeladt af listen over EU-medlemsstater, der endnu ikke har ratificeret OECD-konventionen af 1997. Faktisk har Cypern gentagne gange forsøgt at deltage i OECD, men Tyrkiet har af politiske grunde, der ikke har noget med sagen at gøre, blokeret for en sådan deltagelse. Ved at stemme for disse to ændringsforslag vil vi gøre det muligt for Malta, Litauen, Letland og Cypern at ratificere OECD-konventionen."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Viele Glückwünsche an Herrn van den Berg für seinen ausgezeichneten Bericht. Die Geißel der Korruption ist weder neu noch selten. Sie hat die menschliche Tätigkeit seit Urzeiten begleitet und ist sowohl in den Entwicklungsländern als auch in den Industrieländern weit verbreitet – der einzige Unterschied besteht darin, dass sie in den Industriestaaten professioneller und eleganter betrieben wird und daher schwieriger zu erkennen ist. Da also die Korruption so üblich und verbreitet ist, erhebt sich die Frage, wie wirksam Maßnahmen auf internationaler Ebene zu ihrer Eindämmung eigentlich gewesen sind. Nicht sehr, fürchte ich. Die Summe von einer Billion US-Dollar, die heute schätzungsweise als Bestechungsgeld gezahlt wird, ist nicht geringer als der entsprechende Betrag in den Vorjahren; ja, sie ist höher. Es gibt einen einfachen Grund: Die Korruption lässt sich nicht allein durch Unterzeichnung von Konventionen und Erklärungen bekämpfen, sondern nur durch die strikte Umsetzung solcher Konventionen und Erklärungen durch Betroffenen. Dazu müssen wir in den Industrieländern mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen. Während wir in den Industriestaaten unser Urteil über die Korruption fällen, sollten wir uns einmal selber anschauen. Werfen wir auch einen kritischen Blick auf unsere eigene Situation, und unterziehen wir uns selbst einer Analyse, indem wir uns einige ganz einfache Fragen stellen. Wie frei von Korruption ist ein System, das es höchsten Regierungsbeamten der Vereinigten Staaten – da fallen einem Namen wie Cheney und Rumsfeld ein – erlaubt, dass sie, so ist zu mutmaßen, persönlich an Unternehmen beteiligt sind, denen Verträge über viele Millionen im Irak und in Afghanistan zugesprochen werden? Wie frei von Korruption ist es, wenn man die Gattin des britischen Premierministers, Frau Blair, für ein großes Anwaltsbüro arbeiten lässt und politisch hochsensible Fälle annimmt, die im unmittelbaren Zusammenhang mit politischen Entscheidungen stehen, die ihr Ehemann fällt? Sollte hier nicht das römische Sprichwort gelten, dass Cäsars Frau nicht nur ehrlich sein, sondern auch ehrlich aussehen muss? Wie frei von Korruption ist ein System, das es möglich macht, dass Beamten der Vereinten Nationen und anderen, mit ihnen verwandten Personen, unter ihnen auch der Sohn des Generalsekretärs der Vereinten Nationen, der Prozess gemacht wird, weil sie in Skandale im Zusammenhang mit Öl für Lebensmittel verwickelt sind? Aber warum in die Ferne schweifen? Wie frei von Korruption kann ein System erscheinen, wenn für die Gesetzgebung zuständige Abgeordnete des Europäischen Parlaments und Angehörige anderer EU-Organe, oder ihre Anverwandten, gleichzeitig in den Vorständen von Unternehmen sitzen oder an Unternehmen beteiligt sind, denen es darum geht, aus solcher Gesetzgebung riesige Gewinne zu ziehen? Reicht eine simple Interessenerklärung wirklich aus? Abschließend darf ich Ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf zwei Änderungsanträge von Herrn Kristovskis zu Erwägung N und Ziffer 22 lenken. Mit diesen Änderungsanträgen wird ein Fehler korrigiert, der im ursprünglichen Bericht in Erwägung N aufgetreten war, in der Zypern nicht auf der Liste der EU-Mitgliedstaaten erschien, die noch nicht das OECD-Abkommen von 1997 ratifiziert haben. Tatsache ist, dass Zypern wiederholt den Versuch unternommen hat, sich an der OECD zu beteiligen, aber die Türkei aus politischen Gründen, die nichts mit dem Gegenstand zu tun haben, eine solche Beteiligung blockiert hat. Durch die Befürwortung dieser beiden Änderungsanträge in der Abstimmung wird es Malta, Litauen, Lettland und Zypern ermöglicht, das OECD-Abkommen zu ratifizieren."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ θερμά τον κ. Van den Berg για την εξαιρετική του έκθεση. Η μάστιγα της διαφθοράς δεν είναι ούτε νέα ούτε σπάνια. Συνόδευε τις ανθρώπινες δραστηριότητες από αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων και είναι ευρέως διαδεδομένη τόσο στις αναπτυσσόμενες όσο και στις αναπτυγμένες χώρες — η μόνη διαφορά είναι ότι στις αναπτυγμένες χώρες ασκείται με μεγαλύτερο επαγγελματισμό και μεγαλύτερη κομψότητα οπότε είναι δυσκολότερο να εντοπιστεί. Δεδομένου λοιπόν ότι η διαφθορά είναι τόσο κοινή και εκτεταμένη, πόσο αποτελεσματικές υπήρξαν πράγματι οι προσπάθειες εξάλειψής της σε διεθνές επίπεδο; Φοβάμαι πως όχι και πολύ. Το ποσό του 1 τρισεκατομμυρίου αμερικανικών δολαρίων που υπολογίζεται ότι καταβάλλεται σήμερα για δωροδοκίες δεν είναι μικρότερο από τα αντίστοιχα ποσά των προηγούμενων ετών — για την ακρίβεια είναι μεγαλύτερο μάλιστα. Ο λόγος είναι απλός: η διαφθορά δεν μπορεί να τεθεί υπό έλεγχο μόνο με την υπογραφή συμβάσεων και διακηρύξεων, χρειάζεται και η αυστηρή εφαρμογή αυτών των συμβάσεων και των διακηρύξεων από τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη. Για αυτό, εμείς στον αναπτυγμένο κόσμο πρέπει να δώσουμε το καλό παράδειγμα. Ενώ κατηγορούμε τον αναπτυσσόμενο κόσμο για διαφθορά, ας ρίξουμε μια ματιά και σε μας τους ίδιους. Επίσης, ας εξετάσουμε σοβαρά τη δική μας κατάσταση και ας αναλύσουμε τα του οίκου μας θέτοντας ορισμένα απλά ερωτήματα. Πόσο αδιάφθορο είναι ένα σύστημα το οποίο επιτρέπει σε ανώτατους αξιωματούχους της κυβέρνησης των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, όπως για παράδειγμα ο Cheney και ο Rumsfeld, να έχουν, όπως εικάζεται, ανάμιξη σε εταιρείες και προσωπικό συμφέρον από την ανάθεση συμβάσεων πολλών εκατομμυρίων στις εταιρείες αυτές στο Ιράκ και στο Αφγανιστάν; Πόσο εκτός πεδίου διαφθοράς είναι το ότι η σύζυγος του Πρωθυπουργού της Βρετανίας, η κ. Blair εργάζεται για ένα μεγάλο δικηγορικό γραφείο και αναλαμβάνει ιδιαίτερα λεπτές από πολιτική άποψη υποθέσεις οι οποίες σχετίζονται και επηρεάζονται άμεσα από τις πολιτικές αποφάσεις που λαμβάνει ο σύζυγός της; Δεν θα έπρεπε να ισχύει εδώ η ρωμαϊκή παροιμία σύμφωνα με την οποία η γυναίκα του Καίσαρα πρέπει όχι μόνο να είναι τίμια αλλά και να φαίνεται τίμια; Πόσο αδιάφθορο είναι ένα σύστημα που επιτρέπει σε αξιωματούχους των Ηνωμένων Εθνών και σε άλλα συναφή πρόσωπα, περιλαμβανομένου του υιού του Γενικού Γραμματέα των Ηνωμένων Εθνών, να κατηγορούνται για ανάμιξη σε σκάνδαλα σχετικά με το πρόγραμμα «πετρέλαιο σε αντάλλαγμα βοήθειας»; Αλλά ας μην πάμε πολύ μακριά. Πόσο αδιάφθορο μπορεί να είναι ένα σύστημα στο οποίο βουλευτές ή στενοί συγγενείς βουλευτών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου ή άλλων θεσμικών οργάνων της ΕΕ που συμμετέχουν στη θέσπιση της νομοθεσίας, είναι ταυτόχρονα μέλη διοικητικών συμβουλίων εταιρειών ή μέτοχοι εταιρειών που αποκομίζουν τεράστια κέρδη χάρη σε αυτή τη νομοθεσία; Είναι πράγματι αρκετή μια απλή εκδήλωση ενδιαφέροντος; Τέλος, επιτρέψτε μου να επιστήσω την προσοχή σας σε δύο τροπολογίες που κατέθεσε ο κ. Kristovskis, σχετικά με το εδάφιο N και την παράγραφο 22. Οι τροπολογίες αυτές διορθώνουν ένα λάθος που έγινε στην αιτιολογική σκέψη N της αρχικής έκθεσης και αφορά την παράλειψη της Κύπρου από τον κατάλογο των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ που δεν έχουν ακόμη κυρώσει την Σύμβαση του ΟΟΣΑ του 1997. Στην πραγματικότητα, η Κύπρος επιχείρησε επανειλημμένως να συμμετάσχει στον ΟΟΣΑ, όμως η Τουρκία, για πολιτικούς λόγους που δεν σχετίζονται με το θέμα, εμπόδισε τη συμμετοχή της. Υπερψηφίζοντας αυτές τις δύο τροπολογίες, θα καταστήσουμε δυνατή την κύρωση της Σύμβασης του ΟΟΣΑ από τη Μάλτα, τη Λιθουανία, τη Λετονία και την Κύπρο."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, quiero felicitar al señor Van den Berg por su excelente informe. La plaga de la corrupción no es nueva ni extraña. Acompaña la actividad humana desde tiempos antiguos y está extendida entre los países en vías de desarrollo y los países desarrollados; la única diferencia estriba en que en los países desarrollados se practica de manera más profesional y elegante, con lo cual es más difícil reconocerla. Así que, con una corrupción tan común y amplia, ¿qué eficacia han tenido los intentos de atajarla realizados a escala internacional? Me temo que no mucha. La cantidad estimada de un billón de dólares pagada en chantajes hoy en día no es menor que la cantidad correspondiente de años anteriores; de hecho, es mayor. La razón es sencilla: la corrupción no puede controlarse solo firmando convenios y declaraciones, sino aplicando estrictamente dichos convenios y declaraciones por parte de los implicados. A ese respecto, en el mundo desarrollado debemos dar buen ejemplo. Mientras juzgamos la corrupción en el mundo en vías de desarrollo, mirémonos a nosotros mismos. Miremos también con ojo crítico nuestra propia situación y analicémonos preguntándonos algunas cosas sencillas. ¿En qué medida está libre de corrupción un sistema que permite a funcionarios de máximo nivel del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos –pienso en nombres como Cheney y Rumsfeld– participar y tener supuestamente intereses personales en empresas a las que se conceden contratos multimillonarios en Iraq y Afganistán? ¿En qué medida está libre de corrupción un país en que, como ocurre el Gran Bretaña, la mujer del Primer Ministro, la señora Blair, trabaja para una gran firma de abogados y acepta casos políticamente delicados que implican directamente y se ven afectados por decisiones políticas que toma su marido? ¿No debería aplicarse en este caso el proverbio romano de que la mujer del César no solo debe ser honrada, sino también parecerlo? ¿En qué medida está libre de corrupción un sistema que permite que haya funcionarios de las Naciones Unidas y otras personas asociadas, incluido el hijo del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, acusados de estar implicados en escándalos relacionados con el programa de petróleo por alimentos? Más cerca de casa, ¿en qué medida puede considerarse que el sistema está libre de corrupción cuando los diputados al Parlamento Europeo o los miembros de otras instituciones de la UE implicados en tareas legislativas, o sus familiares cercanos, son al mismo tiempo miembros de consejos de administración o accionistas de empresas que se benefician enormemente de esa legislación? ¿Es realmente suficiente una simple declaración de intereses? Por último, permítanme llamar su atención sobre dos enmiendas del señor Kristovskis, relativas al considerando N y al apartado 22. Estas enmiendas corrigen un error cometido en el informe original en el considerando N, en el que Chipre fue omitido de la lista de Estados miembros de la UE que todavía no han ratificado el Convenio de la OCDE de 1997. De hecho, Chipre ha intentado en repetidas ocasiones participar en la OCDE, pero Turquía, por motivos políticos que no están relacionados con el tema, ha bloqueado dicha participación. Votando a favor de estas dos enmiendas, haremos posible que Malta, Lituania, Letonia y Chipre ratifiquen el Convenio de la OCDE."@es²⁰ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, onnittelen esittelijä van den Bergiä erinomaisen mietinnön johdosta. Korruptio ei ole mikään uusi eikä harvinainen vitsaus. Ihmiset ovat harjoittaneet sitä muinaisista ajoista lähtien, ja se on levinnyt laajalle sekä kehitysmaissa että kehittyneissä maissa – ainoa ero on, että kehittyneissä maissa sitä harjoitetaan ammattimaisemmin ja tyylikkäämmin, ja sitä on siten vaikeampi tunnistaa. Kun otetaan huomioon, että korruptio on hyvin yleistä ja laaja-alaista, kuinka tehokkaita kansainvälisen tason yritykset hillitä sitä ovat itse asiassa olleet? Pelkään, etteivät ne ole olleet kovin tehokkaita. Tämänhetkinen arvioitu lahjusten määrä – biljoona Yhdysvaltain dollaria – ei ole pienempi kuin aikaisempina vuosina, vaan itse asiassa enemmän. Syy on yksinkertainen: korruptiota ei voida hallita pelkästään allekirjoittamalla sopimuksia ja julistuksia, vaan ainoastaan siten, että asianosaiset huolehtivat tällaisten sopimusten ja julistusten kurinalaisesta täytäntöönpanosta. Meidän kehittyneissä maissa elävien on näytettävä hyvää esimerkkiä. Kääntäkäämme katseemme itseemme arvostellessamme kehitysmaita korruptiosta. Tarkastelkaamme kriittisesti omaa tilannettamme ja eritelkäämme itseämme esittämällä muutamia yksinkertaisia kysymyksiä. Kuinka vapaa korruptiosta on järjestelmä, jossa Yhdysvaltojen hallituksen korkeimman tason virkamiesten – mieleeni tulevat nimet Cheney ja Rumsfeld – väitetään olevan osallisina yrityksissä, joille on myönnetty miljoonasopimuksia Irakissa ja Afganistanissa ja jotka ovat heille henkilökohtaisesti merkityksellisiä? Kuinka vapaa korruptiosta on tilanne, jossa Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan pääministerin Blairin puoliso on suuren asianajotoimiston palveluksessa ja käsittelee poliittisesti hyvin arkaluonteisia tapauksia, jotka liittyvät suoraan hänen aviomiehensä tekemiin poliittisiin päätöksiin ja joihin nämä päätökset vaikuttavat? Eikö myös tässä tapauksessa päde roomalainen sanonta, jonka mukaan ei riitä, että Caesarin vaimo on kunniallinen, vaan hänen täytyy myös näyttää sellaiselta? Kuinka vapaa korruptiosta on järjestelmä, jossa YK:n virkamiehiä ja muita etuyhteydessä olevia henkilöitä, myös YK:n pääsihteerin poikaa, syytetään osallisuudesta apua öljyä vastaan -skandaaleihin? Entä kuinka vapaana korruptiosta voidaan pitää – meitä lähempänä olevaa – järjestelmää, jossa lainsäädännön valmisteluun osallistuvat Euroopan parlamentin ja muiden EU:n toimielinten jäsenet tai heidän läheiset sukulaisensa ovat samanaikaisesti yritysten johtokuntien jäseniä tai kuuluvat sellaisten yritysten sidosryhmiin, jotka pystyvät saamaan valtavia voittoja kyseisen lainsäädännön ansiosta? Onko pelkkä etunäkökohtia koskeva ilmoitus todella riittävä? Lopuksi kohdistan huomionne kahteen jäsen Kristovskisin esittämään tarkistukseen, jotka koskevat johdanto-osan N kappaletta ja 22 kohtaa. Näillä tarkistuksilla korjataan virhe alkuperäisen mietinnön johdanto-osan N kappaleessa, jossa Kypros poistettiin niitä EU:n jäsenvaltioita, jotka eivät ole vielä ratifioineet vuonna 1997 tehtyä OECD:n yleissopimusta, koskevasta luettelosta. Itse asiassa Kypros on yrittänyt toistuvasti liittyä jäseneksi OECD:hen, mutta aiheeseen liittymättömistä poliittisista syistä Turkki esti osallistumisen. Äänestämällä näiden kahden tarkistuksen puolesta mahdollistamme sen, että Malta, Liettua, Latvia ja Kypros voivat ratifioida OECD:n yleissopimuksen."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi d’adresser toutes mes félicitations à M. van den Berg pour son excellent rapport. La corruption est un fléau qui n’est ni nouveau, ni rare. Elle accompagne les activités humaines depuis la nuit des temps et est répandue tant dans les pays en développement que dans les pays développés - la seule différence étant que, dans ces derniers, elle est pratiquée de manière plus professionnelle et plus élégante et est dès lors plus difficile à déceler. Au vu de la fréquence et de l’ampleur de la corruption, peut-on considérer que les tentatives faites au niveau international pour l’éradiquer ont été efficaces? Pas vraiment, je le crains. Le montant d’1 billion de dollars de pots-de-vin avancé aujourd’hui n’est pas inférieur à celui des années précédentes. Que du contraire. La raison est simple: la corruption ne peut pas être contrôlée uniquement en signant des conventions et des déclarations, mais bien par une mise en œuvre stricte de ces conventions et déclarations par toutes les parties concernées, et j’insiste sur ce point. À cet effet, les pays développés doivent montrer le bon exemple. À l’heure de porter un jugement sur la corruption dans les pays en développement, penchons-nous d’abord sur notre cas, examinons d’un œil critique notre situation et procédons à notre propre analyse en nous posant des questions très simples. Dans quelle mesure un système qui permet à des fonctionnaires au plus haut niveau du gouvernement des États-Unis - les noms de Cheney et Rumsfeld me viennent à l’esprit - d’être soupçonnés d’être impliqués et d’avoir un intérêt personnel dans des sociétés ayant décroché des contrats juteux de plusieurs millions de dollars en Irak et en Afghanistan peut-il être considéré comme non corrompu? Dans quelle mesure faut-il considérer comme de la corruption le fait que l’épouse du Premier ministre britannique, Mme Blair, travaille pour un grand cabinet d’avocats et traite des dossiers hautement sensibles d’un point de vue politique, qui impliquent directement des décisions politiques prises par son mari et en sont affectés? Le proverbe romain selon lequel la femme de César ne doit pas même être soupçonnée ne devrait-il pas s’appliquer dans ce cas-ci? Dans quelle mesure un système qui permet à des fonctionnaires des Nations unies et à d’autres personnes connexes, y compris le fils du secrétaire général des Nations unies, d’être accusés d’avoir participer à des scandales liés au programme pétrole contre nourriture peut-il être considéré comme non corrompu? Plus près de chez nous, dans quelle mesure le système qui permet à des députés du Parlement européen et à d’autres institutions, ou leurs proches, qui participent à l’élaboration de la législation, d’être dans le même temps membres de conseils d’entreprises ou actionnaires de sociétés qui tirent d’énormes profits de cette législation, peut-il être considéré comme non corrompu? Une simple déclaration d’intérêt est-elle réellement suffisante? Pour terminer, permettez-moi d’attirer l’attention sur deux amendements déposés par M. Kristovskis, concernant le considérant N et le paragraphe 22. Ces amendements rectifient une erreur présente dans le considérant N du rapport initial, dans lequel Chypre a été omis de la liste des États membres de l’UE n’ayant pas encore ratifié la Convention de 1997 de l’OCDE. En fait, Chypre a plusieurs fois tenté de participer à l’OCDE, mais la Turquie, pour des raisons politiques sans rapport avec la question, a fait barrage à cette participation. En votant en faveur de ces deux amendements, nous permettrons à Malte, à la Lituanie, à la Lettonie et à Chypre de ratifier la Convention de l’OCDE."@fr⁸ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, mi congratulo vivamente con l’onorevole van den Berg per la sua ottima relazione. Il flagello della corruzione non è cosa nuova né rara; essa si accompagna alle attività umane sin dall’antichità, ed è diffusa nei paesi sviluppati come in quelli in via di sviluppo, con l’unica differenza che nei paesi sviluppati viene praticata con professionalità più disinvolta, ed è quindi più difficile da individuare. Se la corruzione è un fenomeno tanto comune e diffuso, qual è stata l’efficacia degli sforzi effettuati a livello internazionale per contenerla? Alquanto scarsa, temo. La cifra stimata di un mille miliardi di dollari statunitensi, versati per tangenti oggi, non è inferiore all’importo corrispondente versato negli anni passati; anzi, è superiore. Il motivo è semplice: la corruzione non si può controllare semplicemente firmando convenzioni e dichiarazioni; occorre invece che tali convenzioni e dichiarazioni siano rigorosamente applicate da gli interessati. In tal senso, noi che apparteniamo ai paesi più sviluppati dobbiamo dare il buon esempio. Visto che ci ergiamo a giudici della corruzione che affligge i paesi in via di sviluppo, dobbiamo anche guardare a noi stessi. Esaminiamo quindi criticamente la nostra situazione, e facciamo un esame di coscienza con alcune semplici domande. In che misura può dire di non essere corrotto un sistema che consente ad alcuni esponenti di altissimo livello del governo degli Stati Uniti – balzano alla mente i nomi di Cheney e Rumsfeld – di partecipare e avere interessi personali, come sembra, nell’attività di aziende che hanno ottenuto contratti multimilionari in Iraq e in Afghanistan? E si può dire che non vi sia corruzione se la signora Blair, moglie del Primo Ministro britannico, lavora per un grande studio legale e si occupa di casi politicamente molto delicati, che riguardano direttamente le decisioni politiche prese da suo marito e ne sono influenzati? Non dovrebbe valere qui il proverbio romano per cui la moglie di Cesare non deve solo essere, ma anche sembrare onesta? E in che misura può dire di non essere corrotto un sistema in cui funzionari delle Nazioni Unite e altre persone a loro legate – tra cui persino il figlio del Segretario generale delle Nazioni Unite – vengono accusati di coinvolgimento negli scandali della vicenda “petrolio in cambio di aiuti”? E se vogliamo guardare nel cortile di casa, in che misura si può considerare non corrotto un sistema in cui deputati al Parlamento europeo e membri di altre Istituzioni dell’Unione coinvolti nel processo legislativo – o parenti prossimi di queste persone – sono contemporaneamente membri del consiglio di amministrazione o sono azionisti di società che da queste leggi si attendono di trarre enormi profitti? In questi casi basta veramente una dichiarazione di interessi? Desidero infine richiamare la vostra attenzione su due emendamenti presentati dall’onorevole Kristovskis in merito al considerando N e al paragrafo 22. Questi emendamenti correggono un errore che figurava nel considerando N della relazione originale, ove Cipro non era stata inclusa nell’elenco degli Stati membri dell’Unione europea che non hanno ancora ratificato la Convenzione OCSE del 1997. In realtà, Cipro ha ripetutamente cercato di partecipare all’OCSE, ma la Turchia, per ragioni politiche del tutto estranee alla materia, ha impedito tale partecipazione. Votando a favore di tali emendamenti consentiremo a Malta, Lituania, Lettonia e Cipro di ratificare la Convenzione OCSE."@it¹² "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@lv¹³ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, allereerst wil ik de heer Van den Berg van harte feliciteren met zijn uitstekende verslag. De corruptieplaag is niet nieuw noch zeldzaam. Corruptie is sinds de oudheid al onlosmakelijk verbonden met menselijke activiteiten, en het verschijnsel is zowel in ontwikkelingslanden als in de ontwikkelde wereld wijdverbreid. Het enig verschil is dat corruptie in de ontwikkelde landen professioneler en subtieler plaatsvindt en daardoor moeilijker op te sporen is. Als die corruptie zo gewoon en wijdverbreid is, zouden wij ons eens af moeten vragen hoe effectief de pogingen op internationaal gebied zijn geweest om die corruptie in te dammen. Niet erg effectief, ben ik bang. Het geschatte bedrag van 1 triljoen dollar dat tegenwoordig aan smeergeld wordt betaald, is niet lager dan het corresponderende bedrag in voorgaande jaren; sterker nog, dat bedrag ligt nu zelf hoger. De reden daarvoor is simpel: corruptie kan niet beteugeld worden door alleen maar verdragen en verklaringen te ondertekenen. Dat kan alleen maar indien betrokken partijen dergelijke verdragen en verklaringen ook zeer strikt ten uitvoer leggen. Voordat wij een oordeel vellen over de corruptie in de ontwikkelingslanden, moeten wij eerst eens goed naar onszelf kijken. Laten wij daarnaast ook eens kritisch de stand van zaken evalueren en onszelf beoordelen aan de hand van een aantal eenvoudige vragen: Hoe vrij van corruptie is een systeem dat toestaat dat regeringsfunctionarissen op het allerhoogste niveau in de Verenigde Staten - namen als Cheney en Rumsfeld dringen zich in dat verband op - zogezegd betrokken zijn bij en een persoonlijk belang hebben in bedrijven waaraan miljoenencontracten in Irak en Afghanistan zijn gegund? Hoe vrij van corruptie is een land waarin mevrouw Blair, de echtgenote van de Britse minister-president, werkzaam is voor een groot advocatenkantoor dat politiek gevoelige zaken in behandeling heeft die rechtstreeks van invloed zijn op en beïnvloed worden door politieke besluiten van haar man? Moet hier niet het oude spreekwoord uit de kast worden gehaald dat de vrouw van Caesar niet alleen eerlijk moet zijn maar dat ook in het openbaar moet laten zien? En hoe vrij van corruptie is een systeem waarin functionarissen en andere personen van de Verenigde Naties, inclusief de zoon van de secretaris-generaal van de VN, ervan beschuldigd worden dat zij betrokken zijn bij olie-voor-voedsel-schandalen? Er zijn echter ook voorbeelden dichter bij huis. Hoe vrij van corruptie is een systeem waarin afgevaardigden, of hun naaste familie, van het Europees Parlement en andere communautaire instellingen die betrokken zijn bij het wetgevingsproces, tegelijkertijd lid zijn van de raad van commissarissen van bedrijven of een belang hebben in bedrijven die dankzij die wetgeving enorme winsten zullen gaan maken? Is een eenvoudige opgave van de financiële belangen van Parlementsleden daarvoor echt afdoende? Tot slot zou ik uw aandacht willen vestigen op twee amendementen van de heer Kristovskis met betrekking tot overweging N en paragraaf 22. Door deze amendementen wordt een fout gecorrigeerd die in het oorspronkelijke verslag in overweging N stond, namelijk dat Cyprus niet voorkwam op de lijst van lidstaten van de EU die het OESO-Verdrag van 1997 nog niet hebben geratificeerd. Cyprus heeft namelijk herhaaldelijk geprobeerd om tot de OESO toe te treden, maar dat is uit politieke overwegingen, die niets met het onderwerp te maken hebben, steeds door Turkije geblokkeerd. Door uw steun te geven aan deze twee amendementen, krijgen Malta, Litouwen, Letland en Cyprus de mogelijkheid om het OESO-Verdrag te ratificeren."@nl³ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, muitos parabéns ao senhor deputado vem den Berg pelo seu excelente relatório. O flagelo da corrupção não é novo, nem raro. É um flagelo que desde a antiguidade tem acompanhado as actividades humanas e se encontra difundido, tanto entre os países em desenvolvimento, como entre os países desenvolvidos – a única diferença é que nos países desenvolvidos ela é praticada mais profissionalmente e mais elegantemente, pelo que se torna mais difícil de reconhecer. Sendo a corrupção tão comum e estando tão difundida, quão eficazes têm sido, efectivamente, as tentativas efectuadas a nível internacional para a refrear? Receio que não muito. O montante calculado em um milhão de milhões de dólares americanos pagos actualmente em subornos não é inferior ao montante correspondente pago em anos anteriores. Na realidade ainda é superior. A razão é simples: a corrupção não pode ser controlada mediante a simples assinatura de acordos e declarações, mas apenas pela implementação rigorosa desses acordos e dessas declarações por os interessados. Para isso, temos nós, no mundo desenvolvido, de dar o bom exemplo. Enquanto julgamos a corrupção no mundo em desenvolvimento, olhemos para nós próprios. Consideremos também, com espírito crítico, a nossa própria situação e analisemo-nos a nós próprios, através de algumas simples perguntas. Até que ponto está livre de corrupção um sistema que permite que funcionários do Governo dos Estados Unidos da América, ao mais alto nível – e ocorrem-me nomes como Cheney e Rumsfeld – estejam supostamente envolvidos em companhias no Iraque e no Afeganistão a que foram concedidos contratos de muitos milhões, e nelas tenham interesses pessoais? Até que ponto é livre de corrupção ter a mulher do Primeiro-Ministro da Grã-Bretanha, a Sra. Blair, a trabalhar para uma grande firma de advogados e a aceitar casos altamente sensíveis, do ponto de vista político, que envolvem directamente decisões políticas tomadas pelo seu marido e por elas são afectados? Não se aplicaria aqui o provérbio romano de que a mulher de César não só tem de ser honesta, mas também tem de parecê-lo? Até que ponto está livre de corrupção um sistema que permite que funcionários das Nações Unidas e pessoas conexas, inclusive o filho do Secretário-Geral da ONU, sejam acusados de envolvimento em escândalos relacionados com o programa “Petróleo por comida”? Aqui mais perto de nós, até que ponto se pode considerar livre de corrupção um sistema em que membros do Parlamento Europeu e de outras instituições da UE – ou seus familiares próximos – envolvidos na elaboração de legislação sejam simultaneamente membros do conselho de administração, ou accionistas, de companhias que estão em situação de retirar enormes lucros dessa legislação? Será uma declaração de interesses realmente suficiente? Para terminar, permitam-me que chame a atenção de Vossas Excelências para duas alterações propostas pelo senhor deputado Kristovskis, relativas ao considerando N e ao nº 22. Estas alterações corrigem um engano no considerando N do texto original, no qual Chipre foi omitido da lista de Estados-Membros que ainda não ratificaram a Convenção da OCDE de 1997. Na realidade, Chipre tinha tentando várias vezes participar na OCDE, todavia, por razões políticas não relacionadas com o assunto, a Turquia sempre tinha bloqueado a sua participação. O nosso voto a favor destas duas alterações irá permitir a Malta, à Lituânia, à Letónia e a Chipre ratificarem a Convenção da OCDE."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise. So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example. While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals? Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough? Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Mina gratulationer till Margrietus van den Berg för hans utmärkta betänkande. Gisslet med korruption är varken nytt eller sällsynt. Människor har sysslat med korruption sedan urminnes tider och den är utbredd både bland utvecklingsländer och utvecklade länder – den enda skillnaden är att den i de utvecklade länderna används mer professionellt och mer elegant och den därför är svårare att upptäcka. När korruptionen alltså är så vanlig och utbredd, hur effektiva har försöken från internationell nivå för att försöka dämpa den egentligen varit? Inte särskilt effektiva alls, är jag rädd. Det belopp på 1 biljon US-dollar som man tror betalas ut som mutor i dag är inte mindre än motsvarande belopp under föregående år. Det är faktiskt större. Anledningen är enkel: korruption kan inte kontrolleras endast genom att underteckna konventioner och deklarationer, utan enbart genom att som berörs med hård hand inför sådana konventioner och deklarationer. Därför måste vi i den utvecklade världen föregå med gott exempel. Vi måste syna oss själva också, när vi dömer ut korruptionen i utvecklingsvärlden. Vi måste också kritiskt granska våra egna affärer och analysera oss själva genom att ställa enkla frågor. Hur pass fritt från korruption är ett system som efter vad som påstås låter statstjänstemän från Förenta staterna på högsta nivå – jag tänker på namn som Dick Cheney och Donald Rumsfeld – vara inblandade och ha personliga intressen i företag som får mångmiljardkontrakt i Irak och Afghanistan? Hur fritt från korruption är det att hustrun till premiärministern i Förenade kungariket, Cherie Blair, arbetar för en stor advokatbyrå och tar upp politiskt högst känsliga fall, som direkt berör och påverkas av politiska beslut som fattas av hennes make? Bör inte det romerska ordstävet att Caesars hustru inte bara ska vara ärlig, utan även uppfattas vara ärlig, gälla även här? Hur fritt från korruption är ett system där FN-tjänstemän och andra berörda personer, bland andra sonen till FN:s generalsekreterare, anklagas för att vara inblandade i skandaler i olja-mot-mat-programmet? Och närmare oss själva, hur fritt från korruption kan systemet anses vara när ledamöter i Europaparlamentet eller andra EU-institutioner, eller deras nära släktingar, som är inblandade i lagstiftningsarbete samtidigt sitter i styrelser eller äger aktier i företag som kommer att göra stora vinster på sådan lagstiftning? Är det tillräckligt att vi bara visar intresse för denna fråga? För det sista vill jag rikta uppmärksamheten mot två ändringsförslag från Girts Valdis Kristovskis om skäl N och punkt 22. Syftet med dessa ändringar är att rätta till ett misstag som begicks i det ursprungliga betänkandet i skäl N, där Cypern inte fanns med i listan över de medlemsländer i EU som ännu inte har ratificerat OECD-konventionen från 1997. Cypern har faktiskt upprepade gånger försökt att delta i OECD, men Turkiet har hindrat landets deltagande, på grund av politiska skäl som inte har med denna fråga att göra. Genom att rösta för dessa två ändringar gör vi det möjligt för Malta, Litauen, Lettland och Cypern att ratificera OECD-konventionen."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Marios Matsakis,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "all"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "alla"²¹ "alle"^2,3,9 "kaikki"⁷ "on behalf of the ALDE Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4} "todos"^20,17 "tutti"¹² "όλα"¹⁰