Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.4.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, last November, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy appointed me as rapporteur on the Commission communication entitled ‘Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process’. This Commission communication serves a dual purpose: to assess the achievements of the Barcelona Process and to put forward recommendations in preparation for the ministerial conference to be held in Marseilles in November 2000. Before proceeding to discuss the actual substance of the issue, let me first thank my fellow members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with whom I had many discussions that were extremely helpful for the final draft of my report. I should also like to say that I framed this report taking into consideration what has already been achieved in Parliament, and Parliament’s regard for the Mediterranean question, and at this point I would like to pay special tribute to the work carried out by Mr Yannis Sakellariou.
In its text, the Commission once again sets out the three main goals of EU-Mediterranean policy, namely: the creation of an area of peace and stability, the creation of an area of shared prosperity through the progressive establishment of free trade and, finally, the improvement of mutual understanding amongst the peoples of the region and the development of an active civil society. Mr President, of these three goals, only the establishment of a free-trade area can be deemed to have actually got off the ground. So I was pleased to hear Commissioner Barnier comment in this vein earlier, since in the midst of profound inequalities, liberalisation alone cannot bring about economic development nor the integration of deeply divided societies. This is, furthermore, a free-trade area on European terms, as may be illustrated by a single statistic: total transfers from the EU budget to the Mediterranean countries amount to EUR 1 billion per year, whilst those resulting from the Mediterranean countries’ trade deficit with the EU amount to EUR 34 million per year. In other words, the Union’s financial contribution to the Mediterranean countries represents less than one-thirtieth of the advantages which Europe derives from the free-trade area.
As regards the creation of an area of peace and stability, the European Union does not carry much political clout, despite the fact that in the countries of the South there is a genuine demand for Europe. There are many areas of conflict, which are liable to jeopardise the entire Barcelona Process. As to the development of an active civil society, it may be said that the people who actually benefit from the MEDA programmes are mainly those who had previous contact with Europe or who have close links with governments. Civil society has demonstrated a clear lack of interest. Finally, the programmes for decentralised cooperation, which are supposed to enable representatives of civil society from both sides of the Mediterranean to meet for the purpose of devising joint projects, have been frozen since 1995. The degree of success is rather modest, then, and the degree of frustration rather high. Many saw the Marseilles conference as a partial failure. In my view, the grand vision of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership which was inaugurated in Barcelona in November 1995 has now given way to a negotiating process which lacks any genuine political will.
In my report, I attempt to present a number of proposals intended to overcome this situation. I shall now introduce the six major areas to focus on. Firstly, I think that the free-trade area must be set in the context of a proper strategic approach. Together with our Mediterranean partners, we must lay the foundations of an associate common market, capable of interacting satisfactorily with Europe’s economy, taking local parameters of development in the South into consideration. We should advocate
converting the planned free-trade area into a genuine ‘common market’ encompassing goods of all kinds. Secondly, migration must be placed at the very heart of development today. There will be no real partnership between the two sides of the Mediterranean until the organised movement of people is put on the agenda. This is why I feel that, in coming years, migration is going to represent a crucial aspect of our relations with these countries. We need joint management of migration flows, including measures to combat illegal immigration and the mafias which profit from it. We also need to lay down policies on temporary migration, similar to what the International Labour Organisation is currently proposing, without entitlement to permanent residence. I also feel that we should introduce a special travel visa for those involved in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. We should also harness immigration to assist development in countries of origin. Immigrants contribute to the development of the country of origin. I know that the European Union and the Commission are working hard to achieve this. I would urge the Commission to go further by financing immigrants’ micro-projects. In this vein, I would also suggest setting up a monitoring centre on migration to study migration flows with a view to presenting proposals to the European Union. We must also facilitate the enhanced association of the Euro-Mediterranean states that so wish. Turning to a proposal from Commissioner Patten which I find extremely interesting, the Commissioner said that certain regional projects should be accessible to a variable number of directly interested Member States and Mediterranean partners on the basis of configurations which could vary from one project to another. I support this approach as I believe it establishes genuine, and genuinely strong, relations between the countries to the north and south of the Mediterranean who wish to go further together. My fourth point is that we also have to reform the management of the MEDA programme. The Commission tends to be critical of our Mediterranean partners. It must, however, be noted that, while it is true that some partner countries have experienced difficulties, particularly because of deficient infrastructures, the under-implementation of MEDA funds is primarily the result of the Commission’s inability to manage these funds and to rely on operators capable of implementing them properly. The defence of human rights must also be made into something more than a mere statement of principle, for the goal is actually to assist the development of constitutional states in the countries of the southern Mediterranean, and not just to create economic systems which fit into the proposed structural adjustment programmes. My sixth point is that considerable funding must be allocated. The deadlock in the Middle East peace process is an obstacle to any sub-regional dynamic, be it economic, social and/or cultural. I think the Commission should take this situation into account.
In conclusion, I shall say that the organised movement of people, codevelopment and decentralised cooperation are the main concerns behind the report I am presenting today. I think they should also be the main concerns of the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples