Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.10.3-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, I have probably set some kind of record here today, for I have been given a whole 15 minutes in which to speak, because I am rapporteur for three different, but quite similar, matters. Perhaps I shall not need all this time.
Economic growth has not been particularly good. These forms of assistance are, therefore, genuinely needed, which is why those of us in the Committee on Budgets support the Commission’s proposal to modify this Council regulation so that we
extend the period up to the end of 2002. When it comes to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, the same conditions must, nonetheless, apply in this case, as apply in the case of Macedonia.
Finally, something about the third matter, Yugoslavia. We decided, as late as this year, to provide this macro-financial assistance of up to EUR 300 million in the form, in this case too, both of loans and of contributions. The primary aim is, of course, to provide financial, social and political support for a stable Yugoslavia, but it is also, and this is something I want to emphasise, to promote Yugoslavia’s role as a stabilising factor throughout the region. This year, it has emerged that the economic situation has, perhaps, been a little more strained than we had previously believed. In particular, the privatisation process has taken longer, which has also led to the State budget’s losing income from the privatisation. We also know it has been a tough process finding a solution to the problem of Yugoslavia’s relationship with the World Bank, the IMF etc.
If no money is provided, there is obviously a great risk of the economic situation’s deteriorating further. We should, therefore, bear in mind that Yugoslavia now already has major debts amounting to more than 140 per cent of GDP. That is why the Commission wants these new amounts, constituting an increase of EUR 45 million, to be in the form of contributions. The Committee on Budgets says OK, but emphasises that these must, nonetheless, be seen as part of the EU’s multiannual programme and that they constitute exceptional assistance.
We have also arranged for the assistance to be paid out
that Yugoslavia continues to develop into a constitutional state and that the country continues to cooperate closely with the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
In all these three cases, we also believe that, in order to produce new resources during the current budget year, ordinary budget procedure must be followed. This can only be done by means of a parallel process involving a transfer of funds from other budget items, something which requires a decision on the part of the budgetary authority.
Mr President, even before the last part-session in Strasbourg, the Commission wanted these matters to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I said at that time that, in my view, there were nonetheless two matters that needed to be cleared up first. So that we, too, could see where the funds were to be taken from, we wanted, first of all, to see the Commission’s practical proposals for transferring funds in such a way as to produce the necessary EUR 45 or 18 million. These proposals for transferring funds are now on the table and have been discussed in the Committee on Budgets.
Secondly, we wanted to sort out the conciliation with the Council concerning next year’s budget so as to be able to guarantee that this aid can be combined with a continued high level of other aid for the Western Balkans and for reconstruction etc. We have now reached an agreement with the Council whereby this increased macro-financial assistance is to be seen as front loading for next year’s budget appropriation. At the same time, we jointly accept the Commission’s preliminary draft budget for the Balkans, something which I also hope will be the result of the second budget reading during the next part-session in Strasbourg. Against that background, we therefore support these three proposals.
Allow me, finally, just to say a few words about my and the Committee on Budgets’ opinion on Mr Lagendijk’s report on the European Agency for Reconstruction. I have, myself, on quite a few occasions had the opportunity to see the Agency’s work at first hand, and I view it as a model of efficiency, as does Mr Lagendijk too. Moreover, this view is also confirmed by the Court of Auditors’ report. I believe there are a number of specific reasons for this success. Among these are the fact that, in accordance with Parliament’s demands, a more decentralised model for decision-making and the employment of EU aid has been implemented and that it has been possible to avoid the unwieldy and duplicated decision-making that we formerly had under the traditional committee system.
In spite of these excellent results from the Agency, the Committee on Budgets nonetheless wishes, in its amendments, to emphasise the importance of correct budget principles for distinguishing between administrative and operational expenditure with a view, for example, to our being able to make a proper, skilled assessment of the Agency’s activities. Moreover, we wish to introduce a reference to Article 274 of the Treaty, in order to emphasise clearly that this is aid which the Commission and
in the first place, the Member States have the responsibility for implementing.
It now finally looks as if developments in the Balkans are heading in the right direction and in a more stable way. We finally have something resembling peace, albeit under armed supervision, with continued violence between ethnic groups and still a long way to go before there is peaceful co-existence. It has been possible to successfully implement the disarmament of the armed groups in Macedonia, especially following important efforts by the EU. We can therefore feel a certain optimism, even though history has all too often shown us that peace is fragile, especially in the Western Balkans.
Democracy, too, is making progress. Last autumn, the Milosevic dictatorship collapsed through the Yugoslav people’s decisive action. In Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, albeit with a number of problems in the last case, the democratic powers have made progress. Last week’s election in Kosovo was conducted impeccably. It felt like a privilege to be present at this historic event as an observer from the European Parliament.
A lot remains to be done, however. There is a great need for purely physical reconstruction, but also for the development of the economy and infrastructure that were allowed to fall into decay during the nineties. The most important thing of all is, perhaps, to bring about a genuine process of reconciliation through which the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in large parts of these countries can be got to grips with and solutions found to the serious outstanding problems involving refugees and displaced persons.
It is against this background that those of us in the Committee on Budgets have adopted three reports on temporarily extended, and also, in certain cases, increased, macro-financial assistance to Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia.
First of all, a word about Macedonia. In November 1999, the Council decided to give Macedonia macro-financial assistance to the tune of EUR 80 million, part of it in the form of a loan, together with a contribution of up to EUR 30 million. The decision was taken against the background of the war in Kosovo because this crisis gave rise to large costs in Macedonia, to which hundreds of thousands of people fled. The aim has been to facilitate the implementation of structural reforms and to offset the consequences of the economic disruption caused by the Kosovo conflict. The aid, of course, has conditions attached to it, mainly to the effect that the programme of economic and public administration reforms continue and that the agreements reached in Ohrid earlier this autumn be implemented.
As is well known, Macedonia has suffered as a result of this internal armed conflict. The conflict has, of course, also given rise to further problems and caused delays in making the assistance available. It has only been possible to pay out a portion of it within the relevant time-frame. That is why we now want to extend the legal basis for these forms of assistance. That is something we have no problems with at all. However, the Commission also proposes an increased financial contribution because there are beginning to be problems with Macedonia, where developments have otherwise been positive. The problems have been exacerbated by the conflict. That is why the Commission is now proposing increasing the contribution by EUR 18 million. Against this political background, the Committee on Budgets believes the Commission’s proposal to be well considered. Nonetheless, we have tabled a number of amendments in order to emphasise that this aid must be administered by the Commission, but in close consultation with
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The background to this is that we see it as important to monitor not only the purely financial management of the assistance but also more political aspects with a view, for example, to making sure that no part of the assistance is used to equip the Macedonian army.
We would also emphasise that this type of aid, that is to say, contributions in combination with a long-term ‘soft’ loan, must be seen as exceptional and not allowed to constitute the norm for the future.
We then have the matter of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In May 1999, we decided to provide the assistance in question, comprising a loan of EUR 20 million and contributions of up to EUR 40 million. This was, of course, also done to ease the economic situation and to support reconstruction in Bosnia and was obviously conditional upon the economy and the institutions of democracy continuing to be reformed. We have had a number of problems with implementation, as a result of which assistance amounting to EUR 15 million remains to be paid out. If we are to be able to make this available, we need, then, to extend the legal basis. In this assessment, we must also take account of the fact that the elections held in Bosnia in November 2000 led to everything’s having taken an extremely long time, what with negotiations and the High Representative’s having had to intervene etc. All this has delayed both the reforms and the legislative work and, thus, also delayed our making the aid available."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"provided"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples