Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.12.2-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, just one remark for the sake of good order. One Member mentioned that we should do more on humanitarian aid: this is not part of the political equation. We provide humanitarian aid in reaction to need, and provide it where that need is, without considering politics. This point is very important, and it is important that I take the time to repeat our position. We are in Cuba when needed for humanitarian reasons, as in all other places including North Korea etc. I am quite sure that this is not up for discussion here. I am not saying this because I feel it is a real problem in this House, but because it is important never to make that mistake.
I tend to agree with those who have said that the common position has not produced any results. The problem is, however, what other instruments are available that will produce results? It is not easy and the risk of being disappointed is always present. As I see it there is an ongoing struggle between hardliners and more constructive, open-minded people in the leadership in Havana. This moves back and forth in an unpredictable manner and is a reaction both to internal events and a reaction to the pressure from Cuba's big neighbour.
There is a need to do more than putting our rhetoric on autopilot – referring to basic principles of human rights and so on. I do not think this discussion is necessary in Parliament. I do not see this Parliament as a place where we should have a discussion for or against human rights. This really is not the place. If we are serious about it we have to be pragmatic. The other approach is the easy one and we have to get into the game, we have to get closer to the real politics of change and progress in Cuba if possible. Nobody can give any guarantees. In 2003 I attempted to see what could be done and I was disappointed. However, this was a reaction resulting, in my view, from the very unpredictable inner circles in Havana.
Another frustration that we run into in Europe again and again is that, whenever it is attractive to do so, it is a fashion in Cuba to put us in the same category as the US. It makes it very easy – even convenient – for hardliners in Havana to do this, supporting their view – driven by paranoia – that the whole world is against them. This is wrong, Europe is not against Cuba and definitely not against the Cubans. We do not like the regime, we do not like the old fashioned dictatorial way of managing a society, but we also do not want to be associated with the way in which the United States conducts its relationship with its neighbour.
Europe is different; our thinking concerning Cuba is different and we have to pay some sort of investment to make this an inescapable reality in the internal discussions in Havana. For our part, we have to be willing to have some element of risk to make it impossible for the hardliners to portray Europe as if Europe and the US are the same thing. That is the investment we must be courageous, constructive and self-assured enough to make. If we are not ready to make an investment to create a real basis for a dialogue – one that is defined by us and not by a paranoid representation of the way the hardliners in Havana see the outside world – we are only relying on autopilot-defined rhetoric or, in other words, the old common position.
We should not make it a straitjacket. Please remember that for a number of years the very same common position did not prohibit Europe from engaging in a bolder, closer and more critical dialogue on human rights with Cuba. We did that against the same background in terms of the common position. European investment in the Cuban economy also grew remarkably while we held the same common position. It did not make investment growth impossible. We should not interpret it in such a narrow sense that it becomes a straitjacket. In conclusion, there is a need for a more innovative approach."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples