Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.5.3-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, today's debate is extremely timely. The report is excellent. I know that honourable Members will understand when I say that this subject is one of particular interest to me. The debate takes place one year after the Commission’s 'Asia Strategy' was published in 2001 and one week from the first anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington. And finally, as has been said, it takes place not long before the fourth ASEM Summit brings together 26 European and Asian leaders in Copenhagen.
The minister referred to the main topics which will be discussed at the Summit. I hope it follows the lead given by foreign ministers, which makes the discussion on these occasions rather less formal and hidebound.
One of the major advantages of ASEM is that it provides an opportunity to engage leaders from various cultures and civilisations as well as from countries at different stages of development, in order to draw strength from unity in diversity. And, as has been said, the leaders will for the first time be discussing the dialogue among cultures and civilisations in a retreat session.
Asia – this is my greatest recent understatement – is an extremely large region and therefore we are not advocating a 'one-size-fits-all policy'. In our latest policy paper, we have divided Asia into four sub-regions – the South, the South-East, North-East Asia and Australia/Oceania. Specific policy actions will be taken in the common framework.
So Asia is an extremely important topic for the Commission. There are three basic components to our approach. One of them concerns the definition of Asia as such, since geographic, cultural, political and other concepts are differently defined. Then there is the issue of coverage by our 'Asia Strategy', which has been the subject of some debate since its publication last year. Finally, there is the evolving discussion about the enlargement of the ASEM partnership.
On this last point, Members may recall that the Asia-Europe Co-operation Framework 2000 introduced the two-key consensus principle. It means that a decision on new participants will be made by a consensus of all partners, only after a candidate has got the support of its own region.
We are fully aware that many Members have expressed a desire to enlarge ASEM to other partners in Asia. We have already agreed at the level of ASEM foreign ministers that the consolidation of ASEM and the question of enlargement will come up at the next Summit to be held in Hanoi in 2004. This was a wise decision: we will have to use the time until the next Summit not only to prepare ASEM for more participants, but also to prepare the agenda of that meeting very carefully. Selecting issues where there is an 'ASEM added value' is vital in order to avoid overlapping agendas. So it is important to define what should be dealt with bilaterally, regionally or multilaterally. In the regional context, we will have to ensure that ASEAN, ARF and ASEM deal with those issues which each forum is best placed to tackle.
We will take full account of Parliament's suggestions during the preparations for the Hanoi Summit to which I have referred, and, I can assure the honourable Member that we will continue to pay the closest attention to this comprehensive report.
I should like to conclude by mentioning three points. We have demonstrated our growing concern about Asia by the changes we have made to our external services over the last year or so. Parliament will know that we can only open new delegations if we close or run down existing ones. Parliament is understandably very firm on the ceiling that we have for the number of delegations around the world. Parliament will also know that, on the whole, you receive more flack for closing or running down an office than praise for establishing one. Despite the political problems that we face, we will over the next few months be able to point to the opening of new delegations in Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos and Nepal and to the opening of an office in Taiwan. Parliament will know that in an environment where these things cannot be achieved at lightening pace that is a pretty good achievement and an indication of the priority that we are giving Asia.
Secondly, I remain absolutely convinced that a region to which we have not given sufficient attention and where we have not made our policies sufficiently coherent is South-East Asia.
Before 1997 European businesses, banks and other interests, often perhaps overwhelmed by stories of Asian economic miracles, piled into South-East Asia with exaggerated optimism. The problem since 1997 is that all too many of them have exited from South-East Asia and have not been realistic about what is still being, and can be, achieved there. I am very keen that we should develop a more coherent European policy on South-East Asia and give it higher priority. Next year the Commission will be coming forward with a communication which will seek to put our trade, commercial, environmental, economic and political relationships with South-East Asia in a sensible context. For example the importance of Indonesia in our political and economic lives has to be underlined in the establishment of a clearer and more coherent policy.
These points will be the main focus of my short presentation today, so let me deal with them in the same order.
My last point is that an area where we have manifested an ability to be a supportive but not an insignificant player is the Korean Peninsula. I believe very strongly that the policy being pursued by President Kim Dae-Jung is entirely right. It is very important for us to play a supportive role – perhaps not as important as the role others such as the United States, China and Japan are playing – but nevertheless an important role in reconciliation in the Korean Peninsula and in encouraging North Korea to join the rest of the human race. We should continue to build on the foundations which have been laid in that area. It is just an indication of how, without any
and without exaggerating what we can achieve, if we just focus on some of the areas where we have real strengths to bring to bear, we can actually make much more of a reality of our Asia policy, and that we intend to do.
Firstly, the 'Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships' of 4 September 2001 followed our first substantial paper of 1994, called a 'New Asia Strategy', acknowledging that the new relationship between Asia and Europe had evolved beyond 'Aid and Trade'. The strategy paper of 2001 therefore reflects the importance that European Union-Asia political dialogue has gained.
The unprecedented speed of globalisation has also affected developments in both regions. We suggest moving towards an equal partnership with Asia, based on four key points. Firstly, recognition of the great cultural, political and geographical diversity within Asia. Secondly, strengthening the European Union's political and economic presence across the region. Thirdly, achieving better balance between the economic, political, social and cultural elements in our strategy. Fourthly, recognising that Asian countries are crucial political partners for the European Union – a point which we are discovering in the present talks on international trade.
We are fully aware of Parliament's concerns for the protection of human rights and the spreading of democracy, good governance and the rule of law in Asia and elsewhere. That is why constructive engagement, such as our human rights dialogue with China, is so important to the Commission.
We also share Parliament’s concerns about continuing tensions across the Taiwan Strait and take full note of Parliament’s views on our relationship with Taiwan. While the European Union’s 'One China' policy precludes formal relations with Taiwan, we have to recognise that Taiwan is an important economic partner for the European Union – it is our third largest partner in the Asia/Pacific region. We will therefore maintain and where necessary intensify our dialogue with the Taiwanese administration in the economic and other fields. The Commission, as Parliament will know, also intends to open an office in Taipei very soon, probably around the end of the year. Moreover, we support Taiwanese participation in international organisations and processes, insofar as this is compatible with Taiwan’s status.
Naturally, both Council and Parliament have discussed and commented on the strategy after the appalling events of 11 September, which have since had a significant impact on policies and actions.
The most obvious influence is in our policy towards Afghanistan, which we have just been able to debate at some length in this House.
We are now only a few days away from ASEM 4 in Copenhagen. Apart from the regular ASEM meetings of foreign and finance ministers, which will be complemented soon by an economic ministers' meeting in Denmark, we have had different ministerial meetings on the environment and on managing migration. These meetings resulted in various concrete initiatives which will be endorsed by leaders at the Summit itself."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"amour propre"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples