Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-01-Speech-3-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000301.5.3-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"It has been a very long session of questions. I tend to think that maybe Mr Van den Bos is right that I would need the capacity of the angels to answer so many questions in such a short period of time, but I will try. I will try to do it and I am going to answer one by one all the questions that have been put to me, even if the Member who has put the question is no longer here or tired because of the long session, because they had more important things to do than to listen. But let me start with the first.
We need, at this point, still to have a deployment of military personnel and then in other places, of course, we need policemen. But do governments have the capacity to deploy policemen at the rate that is required. We are trying very hard, but it is very difficult to do this.
Military personnel in our countries are waiting for a crisis. Policemen in our countries are working 24 hours a day, and for governments it is difficult sometimes to find the appropriate police force to be deployed. We do not need unarmed policemen or traffic policemen. We need something very different, to serve as an interface between military and police and that is a very difficult profile which that does not exist in many countries. Those countries that do have this are deploying them and I feel they are doing what they can.
As you know, Mr Patten and I are working very, very hard to deploy, or to make or convince countries to deploy as many policemen as possible.
Now, Mr Haarder asked about the risk of a rift between the European Union and NATO. I do not think there is a risk. I think we can do something which is compatible and would be beneficial for everybody. For us as Europeans, it would represent a link. I do not see why we should become estranged or split or damage the capacity that we have to continue working together. But then again, we are not trying to create a European army.
To explain to you the whole foreign policy of the European Union in the fifty minutes that you have given me would be an almost impossible task. Instead I wanted to share with you the latest step which I think has been very important in the last three months, and I think I have the obligation to tell you all that.
Now, do we need a sort of civilian corps to be deployed? The people who are there already with their white uniforms, the white uniforms of the European Union have been deployed in Bosnia for many, many years and are now deployed in Kosovo. The person in charge of the UN is a European and a good man, Mr Bernard Kouchner, who is doing a lot. This is another manner in which Europeans are committed to the peace in Kosovo.
I have not talked especially about the Middle East, but you know we can spend hours talking about that. Let me say two things only. The Troika visited the Middle East at the beginning of the year. It visited all the countries of the region and got a clear picture of what is going on there. Unfortunately, at this very moment the Syrian track is still not moving although there is some possibility that in the near future it may. As you know, the Palestinian track is in difficulty at this very moment. If there is some light, some progress might be made but at this point I have no good news to report to you.
The European Union, the European countries are doing their best to continue cooperating in the peace process and offering to help all parties when it is required in order to implement the agreements that will be reached. That help will be needed. At that time, we will have to come here to argue for help, because probably in the budget that we have now in the European Union, we do not have money to tackle the problems that it may be necessary to tackle if the agreement, a just agreement, is reached in the region.
Many questions have been asked about what I think about the IGC, security, defence, etc. I do not know how to answer that question. As you know, the IGC has a structure with a limited agenda. I have the impression that as time goes by the agenda will be enlarged, but that is probably an impression that I had, an impression that probably you share with me, but I am not in the position to make an affirmation or to state that. It is something that we will see evolving as time goes by.
Let me answer the specific questions about the statement that has been made by the Minister for Defence of France about 0.7. He never said 0.7 with reference to expenditure on defence. He was referring, if I understood properly, to research including military research. I think this is an objective that the countries have to decide if they want to do it or not.
To Mr Poettering I would like to say that we are not trying to duplicate anything. That question has been put by many Members of the Parliament. We are not trying to duplicate anything. We are trying to do as much as possible so that the European Union has capabilities to act in case of need and at the same time the global security of the European Union, of the countries that belong to our alliance, will be maintained and will be secure. We are not in the business of creating a European Army. If anybody answered that, he is wrong. We are not in the business of creating a European Army. We are in the business of creating capabilities that, put together in case of need, can avoid tragedies such as those we have recently experienced. It is very important to be talking about prevention. It is very important.
With regard to the documents of Sintra which are being finalised, the document which the political committee is working on, I do not have the authority to share it with you at this point, but without any doubt it will be shared with you. I will be more than happy to cooperate concerning the political committee in times of crises in the future.
In reply to the question about Article V, we have two article Vs as you know. One Article V for those countries that belong to the alliance and the other Article V for the countries that belong to the WEU. The WEU is going to transfer its assets to the European Union, or certain parts. It still is not clear what is going to happen to Article V itself. As you know, there are countries in the European Union which are not ready and they will not accept a transfer of Article V, Brussels article, into the European Union framework and therefore we cannot do it. If you want to include defence in the IGC it probably will not be possible to go so far as to incorporate Article V of the Brussels Treaty into the IGC.
How far will foreign policy be brought under the Community framework in the coming years? I do not know. You are asking the question to the wrong person – I do not know. I have various ideas about that, but it will be the Intergovernmental Conference and, by definition, the countries, the governments who take the decisions; and therefore I have my own ideas but I am sure that is not interesting for you to know my own ideas. It is much more important to see what the country has done.
To Mr Morillon I would like to answer a few questions. I know that he has been an expert on these questions for the many, many years that he has been dealing with them. I would like to say that as regards the status of those countries which are not members of the European Union but which are members of the alliance and eventually will be members of the European Union, we would like to get them involved. To get them involved upstream before a decision is taken for an operation and downstream when the decision has been taken and if they want to participate in the crisis management operation, then we treat them as equals with the same rights and the same obligations that the other countries have.
Mr Galeote Quecedo asked about the diplomatic corps in the European Union. Well this is something that a lot of people are thinking about. I do not think that it will take place tomorrow. After the conversation we have had with the Commission it is a good idea to move in that direction but we are a long way off from a diplomatic corps as such. Cooperation, helping as much as possible, is possible, but to go in that direction to the end, unfortunately is a distant vision at this time.
There were several questions about the stability pact. The stability pact is going to figure high on the agenda in late March of the first financial conference in which projects are going to be discussed. It is working well and I very much hope that it will be a great success for the countries of the region and also for the European Union. The European Union is not the only contributor but without any doubt it is a major contributor.
I fought against dictatorship for many years, I suffered a lot, I have been in jail and I am very, very proud to be here to defend the European Union, the democratic Parliament and to tell you that we are prepared to deploy forces not to make war but to make peace.
You know very well that Helsinki took a very important decision, a very important decision concerning Chechnya. The Prime Ministers and Heads of Government took an important decision. We were the only group of countries that took a decision like that. We decided not only on words but also on deeds and two important decisions were taken concerning trade and humanitarian aid. That was done and is continuing to be done
Tomorrow and the day after Chris Patten and myself will have a meeting with Mr Ivanov and the Presidency of course, in Lisbon. We will have again a meeting with the United States the following day and then we will have a trilateral meeting, the United States and European Union and Russia together in which, as you can imagine, the number one item on the agenda is going to be Chechnya. We are doing what we can. We have not stopped putting all the pressure upon them because we are very much aware of the crisis that will ensue, not only for today but for tomorrow, if, at the end of the day, Russia evolves in a direction that is no good for anybody.
We want to have a solid bilateral relationship with Russia. It is very important for Europe, but we want to have that with a Russia that understands that certain things cannot be done. That is what we have been saying, that is what has guided our actions from the very beginning and I think as you look at the position that Mr Patten and I have maintained from the very beginning, you can look in the records and see that what we are saying – what I am saying now, is the truth.
I can tell you, and you know, that prevention capabilities exist already in the Union. We do not have to invent them. They exist already. Is ECHO not a preventative agency? Is our capability to act diplomatically not a preventative capability? What we did not have at all was the possibility of acting at the other extreme of the spectrum of crisis management.
There are probably many more questions that were asked. Let me end – I do not want to take up your time any longer – by saying that I am ready to come here whenever you want but I would prefer, if it is possible, to have sessions in which we concentrate on some topics and develop them to the fullest, because if not, we have so many topics, so many issues that it is very difficult to really treat them in depth. I am prepared to do it – you know that from me and I am really ready to do it whenever is necessary.
At this very moment, I wanted to share with you one important thing. Helsinki was in December and our Prime Ministers and our Heads of State asked us to do something very important for the first time. To have capabilities and make an effort for crisis management even for the military. I am proud to tell you that two months after that we have started and we are moving in the right direction. I think that the Members of the Parliament, as representatives of our citizens should be proud of that.
The European Union is going to be, at the end of the day, the most important group of countries able to face problems related to crisis matters, from the humanitarian crises to force deployment. In Mozambique if it is necessary, or in the countries of Europe if it is necessary.
In a very few days Eurocorps built up by European countries is going to be deployed to Kosovo not to walk around, but to prevent people from killing one another. And I would like to tell my friend Mr Cohn-Bendit that at this very moment
45 000 soldiers from our country – not from any other country – the majority from our country – are deployed in Kosovo – to do what? To prevent people from killing one another. Do you think really that because we deploy soldiers, we are going change the minds of people who have been suffering for centuries? Do you imagine for a moment that because we deploy soldiers, the souls and the minds of people are going to change.
How many centuries will it take to change the mentality of countries which have been fighting against one another morally, psychologically, even physically for years? Do you really think that by deploying troops on the ground, the minds of people are going to change?
Soldiers can prevent people from killing one another, but they cannot guarantee that people will love each other. It would be fantastic, but really for me the most important gift would be to be able to deploy European forces to make people love each other where they were killing each other. Unfortunately, even with the capacities I have, even with the number of jobs that I supposedly have, even with the little sleep that I get, it is impossible to do that.
But let me also tell you something. Even if we deployed policemen, as you have demanded, this would not completely solve the problem. Do you honestly think that in Mitrovica policemen from UN countries would solve the problem?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"High Representative for the CFSP."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples