Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020515.7.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this evening I should like to present my latest impressions of the situation in the Middle East in relation to the three aspects I consider to be the most important: the situation on the ground, future security and reconstruction and the political prospects that can be achieved in the forthcoming months, either through an international conference or through some other means. We shall be working ceaselessly throughout May in an attempt to ensure that some type of political initiative that will bring us closer to a definitive peace can be set in motion at the beginning of June.
All of this is now almost in the past. The important thing now is for us to focus on the future. What can we do now, in the unfortunately small window of opportunity that now exists, to try to move ahead in the right direction?
As you know, we are working within what is known as the ‘Quartet’, which is made up of the European Union, the United States, the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Russian Federation. Every day we are working on the ground and in the capitals too, almost on a daily basis. To give you an idea, yesterday morning, I met the US Secretary of State, Mr Powell and Mr Ivanov, in Reykjavik in order to continue working on taking the process forwards.
This month, we intend to work on three separate areas. Firstly, we shall try to reconstitute the security forces in the Palestinian Authority. This will not be easy, but we are going to devote all our efforts to reconstituting and to returning legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority’s security forces.
Secondly, we have to do all that we can to ensure that the Palestinian Authority, taking advantage – if I might put it this way – of the disaster it has been through, can be revitalised in a new way, with new impetus and having undergone a reform. We, not only the Quartet, but also the institutions of other countries, such as Canada and Japan, are devoting all our efforts to this process of reforming the Palestinian Authority. We would very much like to come out of this situation with a Palestinian Authority that is reformed, more democratic, and better able to face the challenges of constructing a Palestinian State.
The clear message that we, together with our friends, have conveyed to President Arafat, is that it is now time seriously to prepare the new Palestinian Authority for the moment of truth, which will come when there is a democratic Palestinian State, which has in place all the economic, police, security and other bodies, with which we would feel comfortable working. These are the three things we are working on.
I should like to say a word or two about the conference and the opportunity provided by the new political initiative. With regard to the conference, I would say that there is now a sufficiently broad consensus for an international conference to be held, and by this I mean a conference in which the members of the Quartet, that is, the European Union, the United States, the Russian Federation and the Secretary General of the United Nations will, of course, participate as well as the countries of the Arab world that are willing to cooperate in this endeavour.
As you know a very significant, very important meeting was held on Saturday, once again in Sharm-el-Sheikh, attended by the Egyptian President, Mr Mubarak, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the King of Jordan and the President of Syria. These four held a meeting which, according to the impressions and information that I have received from these individuals themselves was very positive and I would say that, in one way or another, these countries must be actively involved, not only in the conference, but also in its preparations throughout this month. To this end, we are already holding talks with them, practically on a daily basis, with the four presidents and with their teams, to ensure that we work as effectively as possible.
What are the building blocks on which the conference should be based? We should try to achieve a consensus, although this will not be easy. The basis for this conference should essentially be the factors that underpinned the Madrid Conference: peace for the territories and the Security Council resolutions, with which we are all familiar. Perhaps, as something positive and new, we could also add to the achievements of the Madrid Conference and the Oslo process the initiative taken in Beirut by the Arabs, at the initiative of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. In other words, today we have – to use the terminology created in Helsinki – two baskets: that of the bilateral problems that still exist in the regions, such as the relationship between Palestine and Israel and the relationship between Israel and Syria. The second basket consists of reaching a regional formula with all the countries of the region which, in a way that is solid and binding, gives the State of Israel the opportunity to establish permanent peaceful relationships, I repeat, in a way that is contractually binding.
Therefore, with these elements I think – or at least I hope – we could have an international conference that could give a new boost to the process. And this new dynamic – in the words of President Arafat, who said this to me this morning in a telephone call – must lead us to move from the debate on security – which must now become a debate of the past, because we need to do whatever we can to ensure that security is not the focus of the debate – to a debate on policy and, now that we are debating policy, all these ideas on the conference on which we are working could be useful. In saying this I am by no means implying that the debate on security is over or that security is now fully guaranteed. This is, unfortunately, not yet the case and, therefore, a great deal of attention and passion will have to be applied to the matter if we are to resolve security relations between Palestinians and Israelis.
I should also like to mention the debate that has opened up in Israeli society. The debate which has opened up, particularly within the national council of Likud, the majority party, has been responded to by Israeli society. As you have seen in this morning’s opinion polls, 65% to 70% of Israel’s citizens – who do not necessarily belong to any particular party – believe that the only possible solution is the creation of two States. It is true that a majority on Likud’s executive council has rejected this premise, but it is also true that the majority of Israel’s citizens think – as we and as the international community do – that the only solution possible requires two democratic States, with guaranteed and viable borders.
The last time I spoke in this House, we were facing various problems, some of them extremely serious, such as the action of the Israeli armed forces in the Palestinian territories and, in particular, in what are known as the ‘A’ zones. Secondly we were facing two specific types of problem to which it was hard to find a solution: the first was the situation of President Arafat, who was confined to the Mukata and the second was the serious and problematic situation of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
With regard to the issues of reform, I should like to make a few brief comments, which are still at an embryonic stage but which I wish to share with you, about a long conversation I had on Saturday evening with an envoy from Mr Arafat, who spent more than three hours with me, on the fundamental aspects that President Arafat, or at least the Palestinians, see as possible decisions for reform.
The first idea that I should like to get across to you was expressed by President Arafat this morning in his speech and to me in private by telephone. I would say that President Arafat’s speech this morning, although it has been given a frosty reception by some sources in Israel, is important. It contains a clear commitment to reform and to some fundamental aspects of this. Firstly, security. I believe that President Arafat and the most important people surrounding him are aware that the security forces cannot be dispersed amongst an almost infinite number of people. A State’s security forces must be in the hands of the State’s leaders and cannot be shared out between different factions. What President Arafat needs to do – and he is fully aware of this – is to get as close as possible, in the structures that he must start setting in motion, to what constitutes a State. The Palestinians are today living in a sort of pre-State; their reforms and their political, social and other structures must get gradually closer to those required by a State. Therefore, the security forces, which are still crucial also to giving credibility to the other party involved – Israel – must be steered, little by little, towards a structure similar to those existing in the other countries in the region and, therefore, a much more concentrated and less dispersed structure that the current one, in the occupied territories.
Secondly, Palestine must have something that is as close as possible to a government. Unfortunately, President Arafat’s system of government, of management, does not yet sufficiently resemble what we would call a government. I think that gradually, if we are to achieve what we would like to see from the European perspective, which is reconstruction, help in re-establishing legitimacy, rebuilding the security apparatus, and even physically rebuilding structures, when we can be sure that these structures are not going to be destroyed, Palestine must have a government with clear responsibilities and in which the people with whom we are today discussing the economy, security, transport or trade are still present in future. President Arafat has clearly stated – in private and in public – that this is the approach he wishes to follow, in other words, gradually building a system of government.
A third element that I consider to be very important is democratic legitimacy. President Arafat informed me, at least – I am not sure if this is what he said on the radio this morning – that he is aiming to hold a double set of elections as soon as possible. As soon as possible means in late summer or early autumn. He wants to set a process of legislative elections in motion since, as you know, the legislative Council’s mandate ran out a considerable while ago and, due to circumstances, it has not been possible to renew this and he wishes to see the legislative Council given a new mandate as soon as possible – as well as municipal elections. Changes to the legislative Council and to the municipal Council, particularly if this could be achieved in a reasonable amount of time, would give a boost and a breath of fresh air to democratic life in the Palestinian structures.
Now this must be a bottom-up process and not a process that is imposed from above. We shall see if we can achieve this, so that it turns out in the best way possible, thereby ensuring that it is a thorough and genuine process, not a superficial one, but one which will ultimately provide us with what we want to see: the possibility of political, social, cultural and other structures, as close as possible to those a State would have. A State is what the Palestinian people want and what we want them to have and, therefore, helping them to put together the structures that will enable them to have a viable, democratic and properly working State, is, without the slightest doubt, the best contribution we could make to the cause of peace.
I was about to conclude but I hope you will allow me to make a very brief comment on our recent visit to the United States. I shall return to the United States on Sunday night and will spend Monday and Tuesday there holding further talks on these matters with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ivanov. I think it is only fair to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, something that you already know: the atmosphere in the United States of America, with regard to the European position on Israel, is not encouraging. There is no shortage of articles in the newspapers – and there have also been intelligent replies by Commissioner Patten – but there is a feeling of incomprehension towards Europe’s positions. And there is a more serious feeling than this, which verges on accusing Europe of anti-Semitism. We must make a major effort in two directions. First, we must be perfectly clear and resolute at times like these when an anti-Semitic act – and I believe that these are not at all common – might occur in Europe. Governments, Parliament and civil society must respond in a way that is crystal clear and forceful. At the same time, we must be understanding and make people see that criticising a government is not the same as criticising ideas that have other agendas and other dimensions.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise a government when one does not agree with it, on the basis of the legitimacy provided by the friendship that we enjoy with that country. My good friend Shimon Peres issued some very tough and lively statements this morning, criticising the position of the executive Council of the Likud party and said: “Unless we create two States, Israel will no longer match our aspirations. What are our aspirations? These are to have a democratic Israel which is a Jewish State. Unless we have two States, unless the Palestinians have their own State, we would either have to occupy them and, therefore, we would not be democratic, or demographics would mean that we would not be a Jewish State”. If I said this, I would probably be accused of anti-Semitism. I must clearly not be anti-Semitic and nor must Shimon Peres. We must be able to create an atmosphere of tolerance in which mature countries, such as Israel, and the mature countries of the European Union can discuss matters with common sense, to be able to criticise and to give praise when things go well. And this is how things must work between friends.
This is all I wished to say to you to update you on
the current situation and so that we do all we can to ensure that this misunderstanding can be resolved as quickly as possible. We Europeans have fought anti-Semitism as a crime against humanity, our fathers fought to prevent it and the sons and daughters of these fathers are ready to continue the fight.
I think that today we can say with some satisfaction that these two major problems, which could have brought the entire process to a standstill, have been resolved. The first, that of the Mukata, was resolved following negotiations that began on 24 April with my visit to President Arafat. The solution – as you know – has a European component, because it was finally agreed that the four people who were tried and sentenced for the murder of the Israeli Minister for Tourism would be placed in the custody of a European and North American team in a prison in Palestine. These people are now in Jericho, under the guard of British and US soldiers. The European Union, therefore, did important work in terms of resolving this problem.
Unfortunately, the second problem, that of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, took longer to resolve. Fortunately, we can also be pleased that it has been resolved, that the Israeli army has left Bethlehem and that – as you saw last night and the night before – a mass was even held by Cardinal Echegaray, the Pope’s representative, who wanted, as a symbolic act, a mass to be held in the Church of the Nativity. Similar events were held for the other denominations sharing the Church.
How was this matter resolved? As you know, it was not easy, because the State of Israel was demanding that thirteen of the people holed up in the church should be tried and sentenced in Israel having had a fair trial, and refused to consider any other option. A lengthy process of negotiation took place, over long days and nights, with highs and lows, and which finally resulted – as you know – in the decision to move twenty or so people from the West Bank to Gaza and for thirteen people to be taken in by Member States of the European Union.
The last-minute difficulty was to ensure that no time was lost in distributing these people amongst the various countries. Fortunately, Cyprus, in an act of great solidarity and generosity on the part of its President, allowed them to leave the Church immediately for Cyprus, so that troops could immediately withdraw from the city of Bethlehem. This was made possible, I repeat, by some extremely intense diplomatic activity, lasting whole days and nights and I should very much like to express my gratitude to all those who very directly, on the ground, participated in these negotiations. I am referring both to the Europeans, our fellow citizens who concluded very difficult and important negotiations in situ and to those who worked on the matter from Brussels.
I should like to pay special tribute to those who were present on the ground, such as Miguel Moratinos, for example, who, in cooperation with the Palestinians and with Israel’s leaders played a very direct role in the negotiations which, as I have stated, were extremely tough.
This very morning, following the meeting of the General Affairs Council, Coreper is putting together the final touches to ensure that, in accordance with current EU legislation, a solution can be found to the second part of the problem, which is the distribution of the Palestinian citizens now in Cyprus, so that they can be distributed amongst various Member States of the European Union.
I do not envisage any problems at the Coreper meeting, which began a short while ago, or with the positions that we have presented for a solution to be found to the problem. Therefore, perhaps the most important message to this Parliament, following our last part-session, during which many of you expressed a degree of frustration with Europe’s role in resolving these two problems, I can assure you and I believe you can all be proud of this, that the European Union has played a major role in resolving these two extremely serious problems: that of the Mukata, to ensure freedom of movement for Mr Arafat and that of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples