Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.8.3-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The Commission initiative to review cooperation with ACP countries involved in armed conflicts in 1998 and its communication of May 1999, served to initiate a debate on the most appropriate response of the EU towards countries in conflict with which the EU has a close cooperation relationship.
The Community has a great number of instruments available for conflict prevention and resolution, ranging from trade and cooperation agreements to support for institutional capacity building, for strengthening respect for human and minority rights or for demobilisation and rehabilitation. We are committed to making even more effective and targeted use of these instruments. In this context we are aiming in particular to introduce conflict prevention objectives into the programming of economic and development assistance programmes. The problem is, however, that the rigid character of these instruments is in itself a limitation to what we can do and how we can use them.
Budget line limitations and comitology-based decision-making procedures limit our options for flexible and quick reaction. All this looks very different from the toolbox concept, which is what I think of when we talk about the numerous instruments that are available. The toolbox concept provides a good image of the ideal situation and a satisfactory way of making use of the diversity of instruments. However, we find ourselves in a different situation even though we are making determined reform efforts.
I would add that the basic value of development cooperation in relation to the issue of conflicts is the preventive effect. Our hands are not so strong once conflict has actually broken out; we can make more meaningful efforts beforehand. There is no doubt whatsoever that the HIPC initiative, funded by the EU but not yet funded by the US, is making the biggest contribution to conflict prevention in the world right now.
There is little doubt that the very poor, highly indebted countries will plunge into instability and conflict if the rich world does not deliver on HIPC. Also the creation of regional economic cooperation, as provided for in the Cotonou Agreement makes a basic contribution to stability in Africa. In the next few years we will give top priority to the creation of regional stability and cooperation structures as a major contribution to the promotion of peace and progress in Africa.
I should say a few words on the situation in the Ivory Coast, in view of what has been said in this debate. Unfortunately there has been a rapid deterioration in the situation since the elections on Sunday. It is changing almost from hour to hour, but we are of course following events very closely. We anticipate that we will have to reopen the Article 96 consultations if a situation of stability and clarity is not established following the election. This is really a situation that is highly regrettable and we fear there will be even more violence if things are not brought under control quite rapidly.
My colleague, Mr Patten, proposed in March this year that the General Affairs Council should consider this communication in the context of its debate on conflicts in Africa. The General Affairs Council concluded in May that the relevant bodies of the Council should continue their reflection upon the issue of development aid to countries involved in armed conflicts, on the basis of the Commission communication.
I regret that the Member States have not taken up the Commission's communication more actively. Events in the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighbours in Angola and Burundi, the Horn of Africa and now, again, in West Africa, particularly in Sierra Leone, have shown that we cannot escape facing these difficult questions. The Commission is considering its response and in particular the use of Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement wherever this is appropriate.
A comprehensive framework would help us to respond on a case-by-case basis to each conflict. If the Council is willing to follow up the communication, for instance by formulating Council conclusions, the Commission will assist in ensuring they reflect the many advances since mid-1999 in the EU's policy on crisis management and in the CFSP, as well as developments in the international community's response to conflicts.
We will also take account of the innovations of the Cotonou agreement, particularly regarding political dialogue, which should help us to find appropriate measures and proportionate and coherent responses. But it is clear that there are no easy solutions to these problems, as the contributions in the debate here this afternoon clearly demonstrate. The bottom line will, in any case, be defined by the real political will of Member States to stick to a common line. The Commission cannot promise Parliament miracles in this field.
We are prepared to broaden deliberations to other countries involved in armed conflicts. Violent conflict is not a phenomenon limited to ACP countries. The European Union must be prepared to react to violence in an efficient and coherent manner in other regions of the globe too.
The communication is an invitation to engage in a debate about EU relations with countries for which the traditional form of development cooperation has become questionable or obsolete. This is a difficult debate. We would prefer to devote all our efforts to assisting the ACP countries in the difficult task of overcoming poverty and of integrating into a rapidly changing global economy. However, for a considerable number of our ACP partners, the major challenge is the restoration of peace, or the containment of regional destabilisation. Peace is an indispensable precondition to development, and countries that remain entangled in violent conflict exclude themselves from the potential benefits of the new cooperation relationship the EU is offering them. They are also depriving themselves of the opportunities of the ongoing transformation of the global economy. They contaminate the prospect of foreign investment, not only in these countries, but also in their regions. In less unstable countries, our efforts to fight poverty and provide debt relief are contributing to conflict prevention in the longer term.
The Commission has not been idle since submitting the communication. It has already taken numerous initiatives aimed at strengthening its capacities for effectively addressing the problem of violent conflicts in ACP countries.
Support is given to the OAU and sub-regional organisations such as ECOWAS and IGADD in the areas of conflict prevention and management. It is remarkable how much funding is committed for the management of crises or for post-conflict reconstruction. We are committed to stepping up our efforts for effectively preventing violence and for resolving crises peacefully."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples