Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.4.3-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Muscardini’s report on Mediterranean policy, or what claims to be a report on this subject, stands out, first of all, for one simple reason but one that is always disregarded in this Chamber. At long last, it puts the problem of common foreign policy back in its natural context, by which I mean the geographical context, i.e. physical space, the confrontation of land and sea, the grouping of nations in terms of their own areas of activity, their own bonds and their own community of interests, even if these are focused away from those of the mythical Europe, a continent so intangible that it does not have any real borders.
So this report puts foreign policy back into context. As I mentioned, geographical position is the repository or sanctuary, if you prefer, or, in other words, the narrative which enables us to read, understand and hence respect the invariable political factors that are dictated by geography. This shows, moreover, just how problematic, if not, as we might more accurately say, impossible, it is to implement a common foreign policy through pathetic puppets such as Solana. Yet, the way that political Europe currently operates automatically rules out the geo-political approach since, as there is no definition of what constitutes Europe’s common interest – by which I mean a European
it still favours, after all the usual free-for-alls, the law of the jungle, allowing the strongest at any given time to make the rest of the 15 support its strategic choices, even if it has to shove them down their throats. We therefore come to understand that, in this game, the upper hand on Mediterranean policy, as well as on many other subjects, is held by northern Europe – i.e. Great Britain plus Germany and its age-old allies. That is why priority has clearly been given to enlargement to the north and to the east including the Balkans, where we are paying the price of German policy, while our friends in the Mediterranean region bear the costs of every adjustment.
Therefore, the rapporteur and my good friend, Mr Naïr, are both justified in denouncing Europe’s lack of commitment to the Mediterranean region and Middle Eastern affairs. I would just like to add that all the Latin countries may sooner or later reject, perhaps even violently reject the prospect of a future which relegates them to the sidelines of a group over which they no longer have any influence. Even today, we believe that it is the duty of the southern European nations, or rather the northern Mediterranean nations, to work together with the southern Mediterranean countries, firstly, the three Maghreb countries, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, to create this area of solidarity, which is a part of our history and geography and that is, moreover, of importance to us in the century that is just beginning."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples