Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.8.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, four minutes is a generous allowance, especially after both the President of the Council and the Commissioner have answered quite a number of questions raised in the resolution, and I should like to express my thanks.
Russia of course remains an exceptionally important topic for us, not so much because our border has become so much longer, since the accession of Finland, which brought the larger part of that border with it. In fact, the border has been extended only around Kaliningrad and the Baltic states.
I should like therefore to begin with the latter. The last time this was discussed I asked whether the Council, following on from the treatment of the Kaliningrad question on transit visas for Russian citizens, could urge Russia to ensure that the border agreements between Russia and the three Baltic states are all ratified. This question is still hanging over the market somewhat. In the previous debate the Commissioner gave an unambiguous indication of complete agreement, since Russians going to St Petersburg will travel not via Lithuania and Belarus but via Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. That is why it is vitally important that this gives us a means of exerting pressure on the Russians to get rid of this silly little discrepancy. I hope that the President of the Council will give that point a moment’s thought.
The President of the Council also talked of the agreements and of course he also had in mind the complaints that have been made about their implementation. He promises us streamlining, meaning that there must also probably be a better focus on Russian complaints too, that greater efficiency, more guaranteed finance – naturally an important point in any case – more support with project management, etc. will be forthcoming and that a new northern-dimension
could probably serve as a model. I was gratified to hear that progress in being made in that respect, since on our last visit to Murmansk we found that the cleaning up of those nuclear submarines is proceeding at an extremely slow rate. It is in our mutual interest that this process should be accelerated.
In this context it would be interesting if you could tell us to what extent TACIS can be associated with cross-border projects. Cross-border projects are always difficult in any case, but it seems that using TACIS actually makes things a little more difficult still.
I was pleased to see that the common European economic area also came up for discussion at the summit. I should like to ask whether that is one of the typical effects of our idea of a
. Does this
in fact relate to these kinds of bilateral agreements, like this common economic area with Russia?
In that context have we considered other matters that might be raised in the framework of a
for example the democratic development of Russia? Can we exert any influence? If so, in what way? The fact is that, as yet, the Russian Federation cannot be called an entirely normal democracy.
Many say that Russia should be integrated into the security structures of Europe. I have a question on this point. It is naturally splendid that Russia should be integrated into trans-Atlantic security structures. That strikes me as an excellent first step. But what would be the effect if Russia, which after all is a former superpower with a great military capability, were to start playing a major role in European security and defence policy? It seems to me that our relationship would become slightly unbalanced. I should especially like to hear the Council’s assessment of this.
The resolution also calls on the Commission to set up a strategic partnership. That means of course that there must be convergence in EU policy. Strategic partnership, by bringing the whole EU into line, actually has more meaning for us than it does for Russia. That has been apparent in the past. Now, with the crisis in Iraq and the crisis in the EU regarding Iraq, what are the actual prospects of the convergence of this policy in a strategic partnership with Russia? I should like to wish the Commissioner much courage in publishing reports on this matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"environmental programme"1
"wider Europe"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples