Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-364"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.16.2-364"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, you will understand that, owing to the shortage of combatants in the plenary session, I shall not reply to all those who – and at a quarter past midnight I can well understand why – have left the House. I would still like, however, to say a few words which I have set my heart on. It is as a Luxembourg woman that I am speaking to you, and it was this Luxembourg woman who developed, with you, the European Year of Languages, of all languages without exception, whether recognised languages, non-recognised languages, majority languages or minority languages, because I have always maintained that there are no great languages and minor languages: there are only maternal languages and they are all, by definition, great.
We are going to continue in that direction. We have drawn up our action plan on languages on the basis of this multilingualism, quite rightly, and let me tell you that multilingualism includes those of our languages which are not official, but it certainly does not include Esperanto, because we have enough living languages in difficulty without creating, in addition, artificial languages. Therefore, let us teach languages to our children, and on this point I am happy to see that almost all – in fact I would say all – our education ministers are making an effort, and some of them are starting from scratch. They are making an effort to introduce languages into primary education. In the last two years enormous progress has been made. We still have a long way to go, but we are moving forward, and at least those ministers who are not making an effort have a guilty conscience. It is up to you, Members of the European Parliament, to continue to give them a guilty conscience, so that reforms are implemented at local, regional and national level. In addition, the Commissioner repeats to every minister he sees that continued multilingualism in Europe is a matter of survival.
For now, I should like to reply to certain specific questions, even though those Members who asked them are no longer in the House. On the question of UNESCO and our allies, it is clear that, in UNESCO, we need all the countries in order to constitute a majority to adopt a convention on cultural diversity. We also need, at worldwide level, to serve as an example of cultural diversity. What we are trying to do then – and we are succeeding, by serving as an example and insisting on respect for minorities – is to bring about changes in attitude, particularly in those countries – and some of them have been mentioned – which are very far from being perfect, and we all know who they are. You know this, you who are Members of the European Parliament, because you discuss the matter constantly, but we can only help these minorities by taking them with us and telling them that we will not allow them to be left aside, not by building a wall between those who are right and those who are wrong.
I should like to give you a very specific example, Last May, for the first time we opened the Cannes Film Festival with European Cinema Day. Twenty-five ministers, proud of their national film industries, accompanied by young, well-known producers, showed the world how much importance they attach to the cinema.
In the afternoon of European Cinema Day, we and our partners worldwide organised a conference on world cinemas, so as to allow those whose voices are not usually heard to make them heard, and to give an opportunity to minority cinemas which, without the aid of Europe, would never have had a chance to express themselves. That is how European policy should be. It is a policy which sets an example and which demonstrates our unique model.
I shall now answer Mr Beazley’s question, which was very specific. He asked whether we were going to draw up a communication concerning UNESCO. Mr Beazley, I do not know whether you noticed, but in August the Commission, as far as I know for the first time in the history of the European Union, published a communication about UNESCO, which served as a way of moving things forward. We have now won a battle. I say ‘battle’ because the war is not over yet. The groups are hoping – and the first of them has already begun meetings – that there will now be discussions at UNESCO level. I believe that international negotiations, in the true meaning of the term, will be able to commence either at the end of 2004 or at the beginning of 2005. It will be at that moment, when we have the beginnings of a text, that we shall be able to define what Europe is seeking to obtain in the context of those negotiations. It is not enough to issue a communication every three months. That would not achieve anything. I am a supporter of what the Germans call
which means that I want to take measures which will produce results. Our communication of last summer enabled us to get things up and running and to demonstrate that Europe was participating in the drawing up of an international instrument. Now, as soon as discussions have produced their initial results, we shall explain what we want the main thrust of the debate to be. Let us, therefore, be efficient and not militant merely for the sake of being militant.
I am sorry to have to say to Mrs Junker that, as far as media concentration is concerned, we may be starting off from the same idea, but we are also taking as our basis the same Treaty. That Treaty prevents the Commission from proposing any instrument for harmonisation, preservation of diversity or pluralism in the media. The Treaty being what it is and the Commission being the guardian of the Treaties, I cannot do any better than that. I would never obtain the sustained approval of the Commission if I stray from the Treaty. We can only hope, Mrs Junker, that the new Treaty, as many Members have clearly said, will contain much stronger elements regarding such diversity in all its aspects, because it is multiform. It is concerned not only with dancing and the arts, but also – and above all – with language, minorities, the cinema and pluralism of expression, in other words the media and audiovisual technology. This is why I would like to see the new Treaty provide more opportunities for representatives of the people first of all, but also for the Commission’s initiative which is intended to take a further step forward.
It is said that the world is not a commodity, and that is even more true of culture. On this point, I believe that the Commission, by its action, has very clearly demonstrated, not only at the level of external trade but also at the level of authorising national aids, for example, for the cinema and for public television stations and so on, that it is not prepared to accept that culture should be regarded as a commodity. However, even though it is not a commodity, culture has its price, and we must pay it. It is up to us, therefore, to convince national governments and to make it possible for Europe to be able to invest sufficient resources to ensure that these cultures survive. It must be possible for Europe to serve as a living example to the eyes of the world, so that we can change that world, because, even though what we experience regarding diversity and respect for others is not perfect, our example is still of value. Let us show the way, and the world will be a better place for it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"‘Realpolitik’"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples