Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-04-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000504.3.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this specific proposal concerns support for those bodies which the international community must unfortunately establish now and again, either to take care of interim civilian administration in regions affected by conflict or to implement peace agreements. As a Union, we must, of course, assume long-term responsibility for this type of task in Europe. We are already involved in two cases, through the High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina and through the EU’s participation in the UN’s transitional administration in Kosovo.
The present proposal also contains a new budget item of EUR 27 million. This is to be accommodated within Category 4 which, in turn, of course, also gives practical expression to yesterday’s proposal from the Commission for a review of the budget in order to accommodate the more long-term support for democratisation and reconstruction in the Balkans. The Committee on Budgets has a large number of questions regarding these figures. There is a definite desire on the part of Parliament to come up with the aid required and we are aware that the needs are very great indeed. We must also focus on the needs of the Balkan peoples, but then it is the task of Parliament and of the other branches of the budgetary authority to find the technical solutions to the financing requirements. I think that the sum of 27 million we are talking about here emphasises the need to review the budget.
I believe that most people judging the issue, possibly with the exception of the Council, would consider it impossible to use this aid in its entirety within the framework of the budget’s current Category 4. It is unreasonable that support for other poor regions in the world should be affected by the problems in the Balkans.
To sum up, I think that we must now give more consideration to the quality of the operations. Now that the Commission is presenting both the budget for implementation and this new way of dealing with the support for establishing the EU’s part in the civilian administration, it is important that we should not focus solely upon the overall figures or the formal decision-making processes. It is at least as important to evaluate the operations and to make sure that these are implemented swiftly and efficiently. In general, it is now being said that the implementation in Kosovo is more effective than in Bosnia, but there are still plenty of new issues which ought to be investigated.
The whole of this discussion shows how closely foreign and security policy is bound up with Parliament’s role in, for example, the budgetary procedure. In this regard, we must develop a model for guaranteeing that aid is put together correctly and transparently in accordance with our regulations and in such a way that it can also be examined and reviewed, as Mr Staes pointed out. These considerations must not lead to the aid programme becoming bogged down in vague decision-making processes. Against this background, we support the Laschet report.
The major part of the EU’s operations in Kosovo, for example, will, of course, be concerned with actual reconstruction, but the EU must, naturally, also assume responsibility for those bodies which are required if there is to be a return to a society with a functioning civilian administration, able, in the long run, to become a democratic society cooperating closely with both the EU and the other Balkan countries.
It is equally obvious that responsibility must be shared fairly between different international players and that there must be correct and detailed regulations relating to how this is to take place. In this regard, I nonetheless feel a certain unease. We are receiving more and more information about an unduly
proportion of the EU’s aid to Kosovo in fact going to practical reconstruction and an extremely
proportion of those resources we have allocated for the year 2000 being spent in other ways. Administration of the reconstruction bureau, which is also an important measure, is one such item of expenditure, but here we are also concerned with, for example, budgetary aid and energy imports.
We are not questioning the significance of these measures, but it is rather alarming if the cost of those operations which constitute the EU’s main task is actually much lower than the 360 million which has been allocated. More information is required in this area.
In order that the work can be executed quickly, and in the absence of a legal basis, the Council has so far chosen to take a decision on the measures within the framework of the common foreign and security policy. In accordance with the present proposal, this type of measure is now to be transferred to the first pillar. We therefore demand a rethink, firstly of the legal basis for the aid provided by the Union and, secondly, of the way in which we are actually to use those resources which have traditionally been allocated within the sphere of foreign policy but which belong, rather, under the first pillar and Category 4. There appear to be a number of gaps in this area.
If the Commission’s proposal and the Council’s wishes are to be complied with and a new budget item created, and if this is, moreover, to be provided with additional net financing, it will be necessary to consult Parliament and carry out a proper budget procedure. I want to be clear on this point: it is not a question of Parliament enjoying the prestige of being able to express its opinion on these questions, but of our now having to realise that these tasks are not of an interim character but are to be more long term in nature. Where operations are concerned, we must have a method which is fast and legally correct and which permits transparency, and we must therefore have a more regular budgetary procedure.
There must be a great readiness to engage in continued operations of this kind. We must therefore also clarify the way in which the budget is managed, together with the legal basis for the aid. In this way, disputes about these matters will not become obstacles to constructive operations.
On the whole, I believe that transparency and public scrutiny are important elements of the measures which need to be taken in future. However, these must be combined with speed and efficiency. In an area like Kosovo, decisions cannot be made on operations which are to be delayed for a long time, because the situation may already have had time to change. We should establish conditions for how the resources concerned are to be used, but we should not have procedures which are so complicated that the EU is accused of inefficiency or that important reconstruction operations are delayed. It is therefore important that support for the type of body we are now talking about should be accompanied by special agreements concerning how the money is to be used and that there should be subsequent proficient monitoring of the quality of the operations concerned. Moreover, we must subsequently be given detailed reports on how, for example, the transitional administration is working.
There are positive features to be mentioned. Even if the EU sometimes comes in for criticism, it is worth mentioning that the EU’s task force has received a lot of praise for the efficiency it has shown. We only hope now that this efficiency really can also be transferred to the more permanent work in the reconstruction bureau and to the EU’s operations within the framework of UNMIK. I want to emphasise that considerable freedom of action at local level is required, but we must, of course, be able nevertheless to check that the resources are being used correctly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"large"1
"small"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples