Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-15-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000515.6.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report under discussion here on the Union's development cooperation with South Africa, on which I particularly congratulate the rapporteur, is, leaving aside its content, a striking example of the Council's delaying tactics towards the European Parliament. This is actually an unproblematic regulation and also, in fact, an unproblematic report. That the Union should support development cooperation with South Africa, bearing in mind that it is one of the more successful countries on the subcontinent, has never been called into question. This is therefore predominantly about renewing the legal base for this cooperation, as the preceding regulation expired in December 1999. Our former fellow-MEP, Mr Fassa, presented the report for its first reading in Parliament in May of last year. The Council accepted nearly all of the amendments. Nevertheless, I do wonder why the Council's common position was officially only sent to Parliament in March of this year. Of course, the rapporteur also referred to this.
From a political point of view, the Union’s adoption of this new regulation is not only an acknowledgement of the results achieved by the reform process hitherto. It comes with definite expectations for the future, including securing law and order in all parts of the country. I read with concern reports about the misuse of tax revenue at provincial level. I hear with unease that corruption is also gaining ground in the police force, and that in rural areas and in townships there are police no-go areas where the poorest of the poor are left at the mercy of gangs. Conversely, those who have something to lose wall themselves in and for their own security hire those who previously had professional roles in the army and the police. Thus a two-tier society again emerges, and, what is more, this is in the sensitive area of internal security. Since law and order were de facto suspended in neighbouring Zimbabwe, the morale on commercial farms south of the Limpopo has hit rock bottom.
This illustrates another decisive expectation which we have of South Africa: to set an example and be a stabilising influence on its neighbours to the north. I expect the South African Government to take on its regional responsibilities. President Mbeki should adopt just as clear a stance as has the former President, Mr Mandela – whom we all hold in high esteem – on the events in Zimbabwe. Standing by and letting it happen or talking up the situation helps neither the farmers nor the hundreds of thousands in Zimbabwe who are dependent on the farms for a functioning infrastructure. Food, housing, and sometimes clinics and schools are made available to farm workers and their families. The situation is similar in large areas of South Africa. Obviously these are not exemplary structures, but before they are abandoned we have to ensure that those who ought to be benefiting from them receive something better in their place. South Africa must now, in its own interests too, exert massive influence on Mugabe; otherwise it too will soon be threatened by waves of starving refugees if seed cannot be sown on the farms there now. In its own country, not only would the rand come under increasing pressure, but the faith in the government shown by important sections of the population who would normally supply the nation's food would be severely shaken. This cannot be in the interests of South Africa and it cannot be in our interests either!
By adopting this regulation, the Union is showing that it still backs the economic, political and societal reform process in South Africa. The South African Government needs all sections of society to have lasting confidence in the development of the country. I hope that this expectation too will be taken seriously in Pretoria. The PPE-DE Group will be voting in favour of the report.
Delays of this kind, which might perhaps be explained by the trade agreement being negotiated in parallel, never fail, however, to amaze me. No doubt people in South Africa itself are also asking themselves what conclusions they should draw from the Council's behaviour.
This is why I should specifically like to thank the rapporteur for making it possible, thanks to the fast-track procedure, for this report to be on the plenary agenda now, as early as May, thus allowing us to avoid any potential problems caused by a lack of legal bases in our development cooperation.
As far as the content is concerned, some areas of uncertainty had been clarified in preliminary informal consultations with the Council, which meant that this report could restrict itself to two points, the first of which is increasing the total budget to EUR 885.5 million for the period for 2000-2006, a customary parliamentary request and a necessary one.
Secondly, the threshold of EUR 5 million, which has now been settled on, constitutes a good compromise in my view. Small projects can be planned and implemented efficiently by the institutions and organisations on the ground. The limit of EUR 5 million gives sufficient room for manoeuvre.
In making these efforts, the rapporteur has, for his part, done everything within his power to present a proper report on the regulation. I very much hope that we will indeed still be able to avoid the danger of a third reading, Mr Martínez Martínez. For the time being I offer you my warmest congratulations on this.
The full significance of this report is, however, only appreciated when it is seen in the context of the other efforts being made to intensify cooperation with South Africa, first and foremost the trade agreement already mentioned.
The Union continues to attach great importance to stable development in South Africa, not only for the sake of the people there, but also because this is in the interests of the development of its neighbours north of the Limpopo.
The South Africans have already managed to put an end to legal discrimination against the majority of the population and to hold democratic elections. Today it is a question of anchoring the rule of law more firmly in the State. All sections of the population and all civil servants must feel a duty primarily to this State, which is under the rule of law and no longer, as they did in the past, only to their own section of the population or even to their personal associates of whom they need to take care."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples