Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.5.3-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Patten has our understanding. I would like to tell him that communications with Madrid are usually more fluid and, therefore, I hope to see him there soon.
The statements we have heard today on the Middle East peace process are very opportune at the moment because of the hurried tour which Minister Gama – whose absence from this debate I also regret – has made of the region, accompanied by other Council representatives. The tone of the news in the media on the recent events in the area could lead us to take a pessimistic view of the situation. I honestly believe that an evaluation of this type would not be in accordance with the reality of that situation. In this sense, I share Commissioner Patten’s positive attitude. Let me explain: it is true that the Israeli Government has delayed the third hand-over of West Bank territory to the Palestinian authorities. It is also true, however, that, since the signing of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreements, 39% of the territory of the West Bank has been handed over to the Palestinian National Authority, together with two thirds of the Gaza Strip and, more importantly, this agreement has so far been scrupulously complied with, since, under the terms laid down in Sharm el-Sheikh, the Israeli Government has the right to delay that handover. This is naturally on the condition that the delay does not exceed three weeks, as Prime Minister Barak has promised.
On the other hand, the decision to delay the second round of talks, initiated in Shepherdstown by the Syrian Arab Republic, is undoubtedly significant, but I am convinced that the hopes which were raised on 3 January in that town will not be dashed.
Mr President, the fact that the different groups in this Parliament are tabling a motion for a resolution, in this ever controversial debate, which is the result of a broad consensus, seems to me to demonstrate the clear political will to decisively support open peace processes. I would therefore like, equally firmly, to express our rejection of the use of violence to resolve differences, which are still no doubt profound, between the parties.
In my judgement, this constitutes a guarantee to both sides, both from a political and a financial point of view, of the commitment they can expect from the European Union in terms of its contribution to the cost of the peace which we all long for. It is clear to everyone that this is essential to guaranteeing security in the area and to cooperating in the development which is needed to heal the serious social differences which exist. But this also serves to make a claim, on the part of the European Union, for a degree of political participation in the process which is consistent with its economic contribution – we do not have aspirations to be bankers – and which will be suitably visible to the public. There is absolutely no doubt that the forthcoming trip by the President of the European Parliament to the region will contribute to this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples