Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-249"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991214.11.2-249"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The purpose of this debate is to enable Parliament to give its opinion on the new TACIS regulation, and I will respond to the issues that honourable Members have raised on the regulation in a moment – both the points they have raised in this debate and the points they have raised in amendments.
Russian policy must change. We can make our displeasure known and our pressure felt by applying firmly the economic, financial and political measures I have just outlined. But in doing so let us remember, as Mrs Krehl said and as I said at the outset, that TACIS is not only about Russia but about a much wider region. The regulation before Parliament will benefit 13 countries with a combined population of about 300 million. It would surely be wrong, in our effort to make Russia recognise that there is an inevitable price to pay for its behaviour, to end up penalising the many other countries that depend on TACIS and with whom we have no quarrel at all. That is why I hope that Parliament will deliver a positive opinion on this new regulation.
Let me respond to some of the points which have been made, some of which have emerged in this debate and some of which emerged in the earlier discussions.
The new regulation is designed to be flexible; it is designed to respond to changing circumstances.
It embodies, I hope, some of the key lessons learnt in recent years. These include views from Members of this Parliament. Your input has proved extremely valuable in helping us to frame the new regulation.
I am pleased that you recognise the innovations included in the new programme such as links with the partnership and cooperation agreements, regional differentiation, concentration, a point made with the benefit of experience – concentration, as Mr Clegg said, on a restricted number of cross-sectoral themes – wider use of investment financing and an incentive scheme aimed at improving the quality of projects through a competitive mechanism.
A particularly important aspect is greater emphasis on dialogue with the national authorities in beneficiary countries to ensure that national programmes more accurately reflect our mutual interest.
Discussions in the Council have been progressing well. Many issues including tendering and contracting procedures have been debated at length. We note your proposal with which the Council agrees but existing procedures should be rolled over until new harmonised procedures are adopted.
The Commission can agree to this, I have to say somewhat reluctantly, as the only practical way to have the regulation adopted in good time. However, given the generally acknowledged need to simplify and harmonise procedures across the board we hope that this transitional arrangement can be kept short. The Commission will soon be tabling proposals to amend the external assistance chapter of the financial regulation to give legal backing to key parts of the new harmonised procedures.
At this hour – though from my experience as a Member of the House of Commons in Britain a few years ago this would be regarded as fairly early in the day – I do not think that honourable Members would want me to go through absolutely every point that was made in the earlier discussions on the regulation. But perhaps I can single out one or two particularly important points.
A number of Members have suggested that the proposed ceilings for investment projects and the new incentive scheme and the regulation interfere with the prerogatives of the budgetary authority. That certainly is not the intention. We fully recognise the role of the budgetary authority. However, the proposed ceilings are intended to provide flexibility to develop actions in these areas while retaining the primary focus of TACIS on structured cooperation and technical assistance to the countries involved.
It is inevitable that this evening our minds should be focused on Russia and that our thoughts should be with the people of Grozny as they spend a further night under threat of bombardment. It is inevitable that Chechnya looms large over this debate.
We know the key role of NGOs has caused concern to many honourable Members. We have to recognise that the capacity of NGOs in the region is not yet as well developed as any of us would wish. It is therefore unrealistic to imagine their taking on much greater responsibilities at this stage. In many countries there is not even a legal basis for their establishment. The priority today should therefore be to help countries develop the necessary regulatory framework. NGOs in TACIS countries will, of course, continue to be eligible to submit appropriate projects for funding under the European initiative for democracy and human rights.
I strongly agree that delegating responsibility for project management to the field can make our assistance more responsive and therefore more effective. However, the precondition for a bigger role for European Union delegations is ensuring that they have the necessary staff and the other resources to take on these new responsibilities. This is something we need to look into in the context of the review of external aid management I announced earlier today. At the same time we must avoid taking risks in delegating responsibilities to beneficiary countries whose authorities may not be equipped to handle them. This is probably the case with all TACIS partner countries at present.
I would like to express my gratitude to Parliament for this debate. The Commission agrees with many of the ideas underlying the amendments that Parliament has put forward and these will be reflected in the text. Reasons of pure form prevent me from accepting the specific wording advanced in many cases, but the Commission can fully agree with Amendments Nos 4, 5, 8, 22 and 32 as well as parts of Amendments Nos 1, 14 and 19.
I should like to make one last point. Listening to the speeches this evening, realise that most Members of Parliament, like me, believe it is a historic responsibility for us at the end of this century and the beginning of the next to try to avoid the mistakes which have disfigured Europe's relationship with Russia during this century, to try to develop a strategic relationship and partnership with Russia that will draw Russia into the European family.
That depends on both sides moving. It is very much a two-way street. It has been a matter of considerable regret and more to many of us that Russian behaviour in the last few weeks and months in Chechnya has stretched and strained our attempts to create that sort of relationship almost to breaking point. I very much hope that the decisions taken at the Council and the speeches made in this Parliament today will help to convince Russia that what it has been doing in the northern Caucasus is not sensible, is in breach of the undertakings it has given both to us and to the international community about its behaviour, and is well below what one would expect of a great and civilised nation. I hope that we can look in the future to a relationship with Russia which allows normal business to be resumed.
When I last addressed this House on 17 November, just before the Istanbul Summit of the OSCE, I said that European Union relations with Russia were under very considerable strain. That strain has grown steadily in subsequent weeks, to the point where the Helsinki European Council decided that it had to take action.
The declaration adopted last weekend could not send a clearer message. We understand and support Russia's concern about terrorism and about its territorial integrity. There is no question of that whatsoever. There never has been. But that does not justify recent or present action. We condemn Russia's disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force against the Chechen population. We condemn its failure to abide by international humanitarian law. We condemn the lack of cooperation with international humanitarian operators; and we condemn as well the lack of a meaningful dialogue with elected Chechen leaders and the unwillingness to countenance external mediation, for example, through the OSCE.
The Commission is now setting about putting into practice the European Council's operational conclusions with the presidency and with the Member States. First we will work with the Council to review the implementation of the common strategy for Russia. Second, we have been asked to draw up proposals to suspend some parts of the partnership and cooperation agreement. We are doing this. At the same time we have been asked to adopt a zero-tolerance strategy on breaches of existing trade agreements, like the steel agreement, with Russia. To Mr Paasilinna I would just point out that while we are concerned about these issues it is worth noting that Russia exports about 40% of its total exports to the European Union; that the European Union exports about 3% of its total to Russia; and that Russia has a EUR 10 billion trade surplus with the European Union.
Thirdly – and this brings me closer to the subject of today's debate – we need to review our technical assistance to Russia. I hope that Mr Valdivielso de Cué, Mr Clegg and Mr Piétrasanta will sympathise with the argument which I am now going to develop for a moment.
The European Council has invited the budgetary authority to consider using some of the 2000 TACIS budget for Russia for additional humanitarian assistance. In a general sense this could mean redirecting funds from traditional technical assistance to the immediate needs of the population of Chechnya, including an element of reconstruction. The prior condition is to ensure that the necessary security conditions are in place for international aid agencies to ensure effective delivery. The European Council has decided that new commitments should be strictly limited to areas that have a direct interest for the European Union and do not directly support the Russian Government, including human rights, the rule of law, civil society and nuclear safety.
In all, this could reduce TACIS support for the Russia programme by two-thirds, down from about EUR 120 million to about EUR 40 million. It is with no pleasure at all that I set out this list of measures. Indeed, as I said when I last addressed Parliament, they will also have negative consequences for the European Union – a point which two speakers suggested late in this debate. I would much prefer it to be otherwise.
I hope that the conditions will soon be in place for our relations with Russia to return to a more normal footing. That is my very strong, committed view. But that cannot happen unless the Russians heed the European Council's message. The onslaught on the civilian population of Grozny must cease. The military action must be replaced by political dialogue and the conditions for safe delivery of humanitarian assistance must be assured."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples