Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-09-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031009.1.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am only allowed five minutes under the Rules of Procedure. In that short time, I shall do my best to respond to some of the main issues raised during this morning’s sitting. I shall also endeavour to restate once again the position we are endeavouring to defend on behalf of the European Union regarding this dramatic conflict.
I should now like to refer to the situation that is likely to arise this morning. A new Palestinian Government will probably be in place, led by Mr Abu Ala. This government is entitled to our support if it complies with our requests. We need to insist it wages a determined war on terrorism, and that it pursues its reforms. These are essential features of a State. We are doing all we can to ensure that a Palestinian State is established as soon as reasonably possible. One key feature of a State is that it should have a single financial system. The necessary effort in this direction has been made. The Finance Minister has brought this about. Another key feature is that the State should have control over arms. Prime Minister Abu Ala must therefore be urged to ensure his government takes all possible steps to control the security forces and allow only legitimate weapons.
It is also important to urge the Israeli Government to improve living conditions for Palestinian citizens, and to call a halt to the building of the wall. I was moved by Mr Poettering’s emotional account of what a wall can mean to individuals who have experience of being kept apart by one. Israel must also be urged to tackle the matter of the settlements seriously. The latter is not something new in the Road Map. It featured in the Mitchell report several years ago.
I think I have outlined what I feel we can and should do here and now as Europeans to try and overcome the present crisis. In December we should be in a position to conduct a final review. It will then be possible to consider how best to go forward into the coming year, in full awareness of the parameters of the solution. I am confident that the latter are known to all. They are not very far removed from those mentioned by some honourable Members who took the floor in the House today.
I should therefore like to thank the House for its cooperation. We all need to keep our eyes wide open and our determination well alive. Only then will it be possible to control the situation that is unfortunately unfolding in a land so close to our hearts.
I was asked how the Middle East is to be dealt with within the security strategy. These people are our neighbours. Their land adjoins ours. The issue must therefore continue to one of our main concerns.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you. It will be my pleasure to communicate any further information to Parliament personally, as soon as we are in a position to do so.
I should like to make some things quite clear from the start. Having listened to those Members of the House who took the floor, it seems that essentially we all agree that the present situation is extremely serious. The gravity of the situation cannot be underestimated. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Consequently, it is incumbent on us to pull together and redouble our efforts on behalf of the European Union.
The high degree of consensus between the various honourable Members who spoke this morning is worthy of mention. It should be noted that almost without exception they all endorsed the Road Map as the best instrument for attaining the desired objective. That objective involves making it possible for a State of Israel and a Palestinian State to coexist in peace and prosperity within a reasonable period of time. The Road Map stipulates a short time period. I believe the aforementioned objective is our shared objective.
I believe it is also fair to say there is a significant degree of consensus across the House that recent events may lead to an escalation of tension in the region. This could be the case in either Syria or Lebanon. All this when we are striving to bring the temperature in the region down rather than allowing it to rise.
Further, I feel all or most honourable Members would agree that the United States might possibly become less engaged, and that this could have a negative effect on the situation. Mr Poettering made it quite clear that the forthcoming election campaign in the United States is likely to result in the United States becoming disengaged, if I may resort to an English term. Every effort must be made to pre-empt this. On the contrary, it is imperative for the United States to remain committed to the process. The European Union will certainly maintain its commitment. The Union cannot become a mere observer of a deteriorating process, nor can it simply become a sleeping partner in a process sliding down an increasingly slippery and difficult slope.
Mr Poettering also referred to Iraq. I should like to follow up on this. I have visited all the countries in the region, and it has become clear to me that the issue of Iraq has a bearing on the Palestinian problem. I would venture to suggest that if discussions were held with any Arab political leader at the present juncture, that leader would speak of a process deemed by the Arab world to be a Western campaign against Arabs. Great care is needed to ensure that Arab political leaders do not perceive this process as a move against the Islamic world. They must not see it as an attack by the Western world on the Arab world. It is therefore important to reiterate time and again that this is not a fight against particular civilisations or religions. Rather, we are engaged in a struggle to defend the values of peace and stability in both areas.
Mr Cohn-Bendit rightly said that we are involved in what could be termed an incremental process. This so-called incremental process began with the Oslo process, and the Road Map is a further stage of it. Mr Cohn-Bendit suggested the solution might lie in electric shock treatment. Ladies and gentlemen, I am inclined to doubt that there is currently sufficient political energy in both parties and in the international community for strong electric shock treatment to be an option.
Only today we have witnessed another difficult and complicated debate in the United Nations Security Council. The purpose of the debate was to adopt a common stance regarding the situation in Syria. No agreement was reached. I am therefore of the opinion that there is currently insufficient energy to permit the application of electric shock treatment. It is perhaps incumbent on us Europeans to generate the energy required.
As I see it, a verification process is the first thing to set up. The Road Map will not implement itself. It will be well-nigh impossible to see the Road Map through without a verification process in place. It is therefore important to ensure that any verification mechanisms are such that they can be implemented immediately. This was also discussed at the New York meeting."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples