Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991214.3.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Members of the European Parliament, I would first like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and have discussions with the European Parliament on the most outstanding events of the Finnish Presidency so soon after the Helsinki European Council. First, I will give an overview of the most important results the Finnish Presidency has achieved, focusing in particular on the decisions of the European Council at Helsinki. In accordance with the wishes of Parliament, I will also give an account of the Presidency’s views of the situation in Chechnya, and I will give an outline of the most important results of the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November.
The declaration also notes that there is a danger of the crisis spreading in the region, and it also poses a special risk to Georgia’s territorial integrity. The European Council concluded that the situation would affect the implementation of the joint strategy for Russia, and that that strategy would have to be re-examined. Discussions on this will start this week. The declaration adopted on Saturday in Helsinki was made known to the Russian Government the same day by means of a letter from the President of the European Council and the High Representative.
It was the European Council’s opinion that parts of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be suspended and those parts to do with trade policy should be rigorously applied. The Presidency is asking the legal departments of the Commission and the Council to report on the legal aspects of the issue in a Working Group this week. The year is nearly over. After the Union’s internal decisions have been taken, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will move on in accordance with the regulations. It was also decided at Helsinki that we should ask for a proportion of TACIS funds to be set aside for humanitarian aid. But that should only affect Russia. TACIS concerns the whole of the Confederation of Independent States area, and the Union has thus no cause to sanction any CIS States or Mongolia.
I would also like to say here that the Union must not undermine the long-term programme of cooperation we are putting into effect, which we must do to support democratic and stable development in Russia. This would not be to the Union’s advantage. The European Council underlined this by saying it was vital to continue with projects to support human rights, the rule of law and civil society as well as nuclear safety.
The European Council is at the same time asking, in line with the common strategy on Russia, the OSCE and the Council of Europe to examine the shape their strategy on cooperation with Russia takes in their different areas. The visit by the Chairman of the OSCE to the area this week, right now, in fact, will show whether there are any changes in the Russian position. We must focus particular attention on this visit and its outcome. We have to discover whether the Council of Europe can intensify efforts relating to Russia in the areas of human rights and civil society. The aim is not to exclude Russia from the work of the Council of Europe.
It is not in Russia’s interests, so I believe, to isolate itself from Europe and the rest of the world, particularly if that scenario were extended beyond the time of the Russian elections for quite a long time into the future. We must hope that a realistic attitude will soon take shape in Moscow. Neither is Russian isolation in the interests of the European Union nor anyone else in Europe.
Madam President, the European Council approved the Presidency’s report on the Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference will start in February next year and would end in December 2000. The agenda covers the issues left unresolved at Amsterdam; that is, the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council, and the possible increase in qualified majority decisions in the Council as well as other issues relating to the Union institutions in connection with these matters. The next country to hold the Presidency, Portugal, will give the European Council a report on progress in the IGC arrangements and the addition to the agenda of any other issues. The General Affairs Council has the overall political responsibility for the IGC. Responsibility for preparations lies with a Working Group made up of a representative of each Member State’s government. There will also be a representative from the Commission at the political and preparatory levels.
We are expecting good levels of cooperation with Parliament as the reforms are drafted. The position of the European Parliament will be strengthened compared to the previous Intergovernmental Conference as two observers from Parliament will be invited to attend the meetings of the preparatory Working Group. Each meeting at ministerial level will be preceded, in accordance with earlier practices, by talks with the President of the European Parliament.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Council also debated the development of the European common security and defence policy, with particular reference to crisis management. The development of facilities to cope with both civil and military crisis management was discussed, on the basis of reports produced by the Presidency. The conclusions remind us that the on-going process does not mean the creation of a European army.
A common objective was agreed in Helsinki on all the military resources needed for rapid deployment to implement the Petersberg tasks with regard to crisis management. Common resources are rapidly being developed for the Union in the areas of systems of command, intelligence and strategic transport. In developing civil resources for crisis management it is especially urgent to improve police facilities and arrangements for prompt funding arrangements.
In the conclusions of the Presidency, it was stated that the first progress report on the document now adopted would be presented at the European Council in Lisbon. We should be satisfied that the Member States have been able to make rapid progress in improving the Union’s readiness for crisis management during the Finnish Presidency.
I would like to warmly thank the President of Parliament, Mrs Fontaine, for the views of Parliament that she expressed at the start of the European Council. The discussions we had were fruitful. I would like to express my warm thanks, on behalf of both the Finnish government and the Council, to the whole of the European Parliament for its excellent and constructive cooperation.
The European Council noted with satisfaction that the recovery in the economies of the Member States has gathered pace and is spreading all the time. The basics of a healthy economy – good opportunities for investment, low inflation and improved public finances are the basis of this recovery. The introduction of the euro has helped to make the outlook favourable. Our challenges include changes in the population structure and increased competition as a result of globalisation and the need it creates for the encouragement of innovation and structural adaptation. The European Council said that the coordination of economic, employment and structural policy must be enhanced in accordance with the recommendations in the Council’s report. In the Union we must focus on the effective application and streamlining of current processes and arrangements. The general objectives and trends in policy will be determined through broad guidelines drawn up for economic policy. The debate on these issues will continue at the Extraordinary meeting of the European Council in Lisbon in March. In my view, it could turn out to be a very important meeting.
As is well known – and the President of the Commission referred to this in his speech – Helsinki also failed to achieve progress in one area. We were unable to reach consensus on the taxation package. In the conclusions on taxation, however, it was reconfirmed that people residing in the Member States of the Union would have to pay tax on all income from savings. A High Level Working Group is examining how this principle can be put most effectively into practice. The tax package is thus holding together, and it cannot be said that anyone got away scot-free in this matter. This, along with items in the tax package, will be reported to the European Council no later than June 2000.
In environmental policy the European Council stressed the need to intensify the work being done in this area in the next few years. The European Council decided to attempt to make it possible for the Member States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol before the year 2002. In addition, the conclusions ask the Commission to draft a proposal for a sixth Environmental Action Programme by the end of 2000. Similarly, we are asking the Commission to draft a proposal for the European Council convening in June 2001 for a long-term strategy, in which policies for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development are dovetailed.
The main event of the Finnish Presidency in the context of the work of the OSCE was the Summit held in Istanbul on 18 and 19 November. The European Union is mainly satisfied with the outcome of the Summit meeting. At the meeting a Charter for European Security was signed. The Charter is founded on earlier commitments and reinforces the establishment of democracy, peace and human rights. The Charter will also strengthen the OSCE’s ability to fulfil its functions attend to its duties. The Charter also includes the EU proposal for a Platform for Cooperative Security between international organisations, especially in conflict prevention and crisis management, and reinforces the rapid-deployment civilian crisis management capabilities of the Organisation. It is particularly important – given, also, Russia’s action in Chechnya – for the Charter to reinforce the notion that commitments also have to be complied with in internal conflicts of States.
At the meeting we also approved a declaration on topical political issues. In the declaration a stand is taken on the situation in Chechnya and Kosovo. In addition, the parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the so-called CFE, also signed an adapted Treaty at the Istanbul Summit. That agreement ensures there are limits to conventional armed forces on a country-by-country basis, corresponding to the post-Cold War situation.
The first decision of the European Council in Helsinki was to adopt the Millennium Declaration in the Friday morning session. The Declaration gives a concise account of the values that underpin the European Union and the challenges and aims of the start of the new millennium. Of the Declaration I would just like to mention here what must be done to meet the challenges of the millennium: only an open, democratic, effective Union will be able to succeed in realising these commitments.
The first sitting of the European Council concentrated on Union enlargement. These decisions are historic with regard to Europe, as the new phase of the enlargement process that began in Helsinki will in time lead to thirteen new Member States joining the Union. In Helsinki, we agreed to open accession talks with Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Malta. As the Extraordinary European Council meeting in Tampere had been unanimous on the matter, hardly any further debate was needed. Intergovernmental Conferences are to commence in February of next year with the six countries invited to the talks. It was reconfirmed in this connection that each applicant country would progress towards membership on the basis of its own merits. There were no time limits imposed for accession. Instead, the Union set itself the goal that it must be ready to accept new members from the end of 2002. This is the time-scale we need before the next Intergovernmental Conference has brought its work to a conclusion and the amendments to the Treaties have been ratified in all the Member States.
In its debate on enlargement, the European Council paid special attention to the importance of good levels of nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe. The European Council expressed its satisfaction with the fact that talks on Cyprus were to begin in New York on 3 December and said that a political solution would facilitate Cyprus’ accession to the Union. It should be pointed out, however, that this solution is not a precondition of Cyprus’ accession.
The decision the European Council took to approve candidate status in respect of Turkey can, in my opinion, be considered a historic one. The joint decision was made possible by the courageous and constructive efforts of the Greek Prime Minister, Costas Simitis, in particular, while the Presidency was trying to establish the chances of achieving a favourable decision. As soon as the European Council had approved the conclusions on Turkey, intense and illuminating negotiations with Turkey began. Relations were reinforced by a letter I wrote, as representative of the country holding the Presidency, to the Turkish Prime Minister, Bülent Ecevit. The European Council also sent a delegation to Ankara. The delegation included a representative of the Finnish Presidency, the Secretary-General, High Representative Javier Solana, and Commissioner Günter Verheugen. The delegation explained the substance of the decision taken at Helsinki to the Turkish Government.
The decisions of Helsinki made it possible for Turkey to attend a joint luncheon with the other applicant countries and Heads of State and Governments at the European Council meeting in Helsinki. I wish to stress that Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit clearly reconfirmed, at Helsinki, Turkey’s commitment to reform and meet the Copenhagen criteria. With the decisions of Helsinki, Turkey is to be treated in the same way as the other applicant countries. But it will not be possible to open accession negotiations with Turkey before she meets the Copenhagen political criteria. The biggest problem is the defects in Turkey’s internal situation: shortcomings in the democratic system and violations of human rights, including those of minorities. With Turkey we are embarking on a sort of preparatory and advisory phase in a process in which the country’s progress will be examined with regard to complying with the acquis. In our political dialogue with Turkey, we are stressing the importance of making progress, especially in matters of human rights.
The Helsinki conclusions urge all candidate countries to resolve outstanding border disputes and other related matters. Otherwise they should bring the dispute, within a reasonable period of time, to the International Court of Justice to decide. The European Council will have re-examined the situation by the end of 2004 with regard to any unsolved disputes. The European Council will examine any special consequences of disputes for the accession process and try to push for disputes to be solved in the International Court of Justice. The decision to acknowledge Turkey’s status as a candidate State and closer dialogue between the Union and that country are important for regional stability and for a solution to the Cyprus question. In inviting Turkey to make an even firmer bond of cooperation the Union is acting in accordance with its basic function of establishing peace and promoting human rights.
Madam President, the European Council responded with profound concern to events in Chechnya. To persuade Russia of the benefits of a political solution, the European Council issued a separate declaration on the situation in Chechnya and its effects on relations between the European Union and Russia. Only a political solution can end the crisis in Chechnya. Russian efforts to find a solution have thus far been inadequate. In these circumstances the European Union and the international community must continue to exert political pressure. The declaration condemns the bombing, the ultimatum to the inhabitants of Grozny, and the treatment of internal refugees. Russian territorial integrity is not being questioned, nor its entitlement to combat terrorism. The action Russia has taken is, however, contrary to international humanitarian law and is in violation of the obligations that Russia, as a member of the OSCE and the Council of Europe, agreed to honour regarding human rights."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples