Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-167"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20010612.9.2-167"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, allow me to begin by congratulating Mr Brok warmly on his excellent report. Along with the just focus on Europe and surrounding areas, and on the transatlantic dialogue, Asian relations should form the third pillar of the EU’s foreign policy. We cannot afford to leave Asia in the care of the Americans, despite the fact that their military presence is far more conspicuous. We have not reached that stage yet. Irrespective of the geographical distance and cultural differences, there are major political points of discussion. Fortunately, these are high on the agenda in the ASEM process. The EU does well to continue to underline the human rights issue, even in cases of social abuse. We do not believe in the universality of “Asian values”, and these are increasingly consigned to the background in the region itself, which is evident from the democratic breakthroughs of the past decade. However, that does not eliminate the causes of conflicts, such as poverty and ethnic and religious conflicts. I would refer to Indonesia, but also to the need for permanent intervention in the Korea issue. We welcome the fact that the European Union is committed. Alongside the US, Europe must claim a more global role. At the same time, we should not punch above our weight, for then we will remain bogged down in fine words. Asia is large, and Asians will mainly need to solve their problems themselves. The ASEM process, preferably enlarged to include a country such as India, must be more than a discussion forum. We must strengthen the mutual interests on the basis of equality. That will bring Asia and Europe closer together. Those interests are mainly in the economic field. That is where Europe can be of most significance, and there is great potential, given the interconnectedness of the world economy. We would also call for a far more intensive cultural exchange to prevent the ASEM process from remaining an elitist affair. If we draw in the reins more tightly, Europe will be able to better embed its expectations in permanent political dialogue. The emphasis in this connection is on democracy and human rights. However, we should not neglect the safety aspects. Preventing the proliferation or spread of nuclear weapons also springs to mind, for example. However, the ASEM process is not an alternative to sound bilateral relations with Asia’s major countries. Asia cannot be compared to the European Union. It is unclear which country will in time be at the helm in that region. There are major paradoxes. China is developing fast, but is not a democracy. India is large, but vulnerable, and the Japanese engine is misfiring. Europe can help improve regional perspectives, but that should not be at the expense of the direct involvement of the countries in that region. Direct criticism pertaining to special situations should not get lost in multilateral declarations. The region is not served by organised silence."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph