Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.1.3-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank the various interlocutors and groups for their observations. I think that, except for two or three speeches, a predominantly positive evaluation has been made of the outcome of Ghent. Such a positive evaluation from the various groups encourages us, of course, to continue our hard work in the coming weeks, for we have another important summit coming up, namely the Summit of Laeken.
I would also like to respond, as follows, to a few oblique remarks that have been made about the cooperation between myself and Mr Romano Prodi: our cooperation is excellent. In fact, we have just decided to come to the next press conference on a tandem, so as to rule out any further misunderstandings. Since we both are accomplished cyclists, this will undoubtedly be appreciated by Parliament.
I should in any event like to react to three points. First of all, a few times, the question has been asked: so where exactly is the Union’s foreign policy now? I think that Mr Romano Prodi has already entered into more detail on this and has, actually, made very valid points. Last time we had an international crisis, the Gulf War, Europe had fifteen different opinions on the stance the Union should adopt. Each Member State had its own opinion on the matter. In today’s international crisis, we have, for the first time, displayed a united front on two occasions, on 21 September and last Friday in Ghent, in a matter which is, actually, very complex.
Firstly, to what does the stance of the fifteen Member States regarding the attacks in Washington and New York bear witness? A joint vision and a joint approach.
Secondly, what is the stance now after 7 October? After all, things changed on 7 October, since the reaction from the United States and the international coalition. Again, we have a joint stance.
It is important in my view to underline this, for there was a time in the European Union when this was different. Mr Romano Prodi reminded us that each time there was an international conflict, there was not one stance, but fifteen stances within the Council. Now this no longer holds true. However much I am of the personal view – which I share with many of you – that we should take things further still, for example that, certainly in the field of European defence, we should have made much more progress by now, I still believe that we should underline this positive development. At long last, little by little, piece by piece, a common foreign policy of the European Union is forming, something which, say fifteen years ago, was almost unthinkable.
From that point of view, I believe, in fact, that Mr Van den Berg is more than right in emphasising the role we are to play now. For our role is different from that of the United States. The EU’s role is mainly one of political, logistical support, and diplomatic action to be undertaken. He is right in highlighting the importance of the mandate which we have received from the Council with regard to the Middle East. We, that is, Mr Romano Prodi, Mr Javier Solana and myself, are considering a date when we could undertake this important mission. Possibly the third week of November. For I believe that it is up to the European Union, especially the European Union, to take an initiative in this respect. However, we must be realistic and not foster any illusions. We cannot solve matters with just one visit – there have been many already – but perhaps by gaining momentum in one particular area, this could ultimately lead to an initiative."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples