Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.5.3-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank Parliament for this debate. It has been interesting to listen to the many speeches and points of view. Weighing up the speeches as a whole, it is quite clear that we must see more progress in the CFSP and that we must have more in the way of a common foreign policy. I am pleased that those are also the conclusions drawn in Parliament’s report and in Mr Brok’s speech. I should like, however, to make the point that, in view of the fact that there are 15 countries for which foreign policy is of prime concern, we have really done rather well actually to have a common foreign policy in so many cases. The common foreign policy is in actual fact the rule rather than the exception. It will succeed only if we listen to each other and bring about a consensus, but that is something we are all united in aiming for. It is true that different foreign policy positions are expressed but, when we reach the point of taking the final decision on the common foreign policy, it is usual for us to do so jointly. That applies in the cases both of the Middle East and of Iraq. There is in fact consensus in these areas in spite of what is often a variety of public statements of our positions.
Parliament is nonetheless clearly right about our having most influence when we stand together. If, moreover, divisions are created in the EU, there is also a loss of influence. Parliament is right about this.
It should nonetheless be emphasised that the EU has in actual fact become one of the leading actors in the efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East. I have the impression that it has to some extent escaped Parliament’s attention that it is the European peace plan that is being worked on at the moment. We have not in fact had such a plan before. We have had French and German peace plans, together with American and Arabic ones, but we have not had a European plan. Moreover, the European peace plan also led, of course, to working parties and task forces being set up in July, and these have in actual fact progressively advanced the process of reform in the Middle East. There has been money that, in spite of everything, has been restored to Palestine. There have been workers who, in spite of everything, have been given permission to leave Palestine and work in Israel. I acknowledge that my introductory speech was probably too optimistic, and I am sorry about that. I also said in my speech, however, that the optimism I had felt had been shattered by the events of last week. I regret moreover that I did not, then, express myself sufficiently clearly regarding the pessimism that is again on the point of getting the upper hand in the Middle East.
We can therefore choose to be pessimists and not do anything at all. It is the easiest thing in the world to be a pessimist. That way, you always turn out to be right. We are obliged to work in a spirit of optimism. Otherwise, we could not stand to go on working. That is why we have devised the peace plan that was adopted by the Quartet and, as I mentioned the other day, is now also the Security Council’s plan. Has the European Parliament experienced anything similar before in the Middle East? I really do not think so. Moreover, it has been brought about by virtue of constructive cooperation with Russia, the UN and the United States, whereby we do not seek sources of conflict but try to find the solidarity that will carry us through. As Parliament quite rightly says on this subject – and this is something with which I agree, as does the whole of Europe and, indeed, the whole world – solidarity of this kind would consist in two states existing peacefully side by side, and it is a source of some astonishment that so much blood has to be shed in the region in order to achieve what we all know will be the final outcome. It cannot end in any other way. That is why we constantly make powerful appeals to both parties. We call upon the terrorists to cease their acts of terror and upon the Israeli army to halt its excessive use of force. That is the message we constantly convey. It is, moreover, the same message that Kofi Annan delivered to the UN General Assembly the other day, when he said that the peace process must be driven by hope and by deeds: deeds on the part of the Palestinians, aimed at genuinely halting the terrorism, and hope in the form of Israel’s really making it clear that the outcome will be a Palestinian state. Otherwise, the terrorism will not successfully be brought to an end.
European policy, or the Council of Minister’s policy, is therefore quite clear and corresponds, then, to what is also global policy. I agree completely with Mr Cohn-Bendit that we must not forget the Palestinians’ responsibility for combating terrorism and, as some MEPs have mentioned, we are putting pressure on both parties. I talked for an hour the other evening with Mr Sharon about the pointlessness of maintaining the present siege. He will not achieve his objectives in that way. This has been said quite clearly. Mr Arafat has also been told that he needs to guarantee that no terrorists enter Israel.
The main topic’s having after all been the Middle East, I want finally to say that the European position has also carried the day with regard to Iraq. The European common position is that we should comply with the Security Council. The European position is that the Security Council should be supported. That also means, then – and this is the common position we adopted in Elsinore – that we must listen to the Security Council and be willing to accommodate its requirements of us. There is no split in the European position as adopted by the Foreign Ministers. It is about complying with the Security Council. It is also a position that has paid off, because the United States has of course also agreed to comply with, and consult, the Security Council.
Finally, I want to thank Mr Titley for his report on the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. I endorse Mr Titley’s concluding words to the effect that a lot has been done and that more needs to be done. With regard to the transparency that Mr Titley was kind enough to expect from the Danish Presidency, I should like to say that we shall be very pleased to accommodate that wish. The fourth annual report under the Danish Presidency will increase transparency by providing more statistical data and will add a compendium of adopted practices to show how the code is being implemented by the Member States.
The report will also contain new agreements on transit, final user certificates and the production of military equipment under licence in third countries. That is how the Member States are obliged to regulate the arms trade. Several Member States have introduced the legislation, and others are preparing such legislation. On the basis of Mr Titley’s report and the backing it has received from Parliament, I am able to say that Parliament’s support for the Danish Presidency’s efforts is very welcome and very valuable. Thank you."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples