Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060531.13.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Mrs Plassnik, Commissioners, I believe – partly for the reasons that we have previously discussed – that the transatlantic relationship is extraordinarily important.
I believe that we should bring our critical stance to bear. On many issues, including the International Court of Justice, climate change and Iraq, the United States has adopted attitudes for which we need to criticise the present US Government. Such criticism – directed towards a particular administration in individual cases and concerning specific matters – should not, however, cause the transatlantic gulf to become wider. For this reason, the Council, the Commission and the US administration should at last find the strength to go beyond the catch-as-catch-can approach and provide a broader and deeper basis for this alliance.
It is an issue concerned with the operation of NATO which, now as previously, is indispensable to Europe’s collective security. In the big issues concerning business and trade, there are conflicts but also agreements. This transatlantic community is also a community of values in spite of all the discussions we have regarding individual matters. That being said, matters are coming slightly unstuck.
I found it remarkable that, a fortnight ago, when, at my request, the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Lawrow, visited the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he proposed that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia be extended next year and deeper institutional links be established between the Russian and EU institutions.
The European Union has agreements with just about everyone in the world, just as the United States of America does. Only, there are no agreements between the United States and the European Union. This will have consequences at some point. When I consider the preparations for the summit in terms of this absence of agreements – preparations helped along by the sterling efforts of the Council and the Commission – I can see there again being discussions about many individual matters, on which there may or may not be agreement, but there being, however, no bigger picture or framework for the discussions to take place in: a framework, moreover, in which we might also be able to include the American Congress, for anyone familiar with American policy in the fields of trade, economics and foreign policy knows that speaking with the administration is only half the battle.
For this reason, we should find contractual solutions that will enable us to convert the Transatlantic Declaration into a Transatlantic Partnership Agreement. Such an agreement would provide a framework – and our fellow Member, Mrs Mann, will later present this in much more detail in terms of economic policy – that will make it possible, even in the case of tensions and conflicts of interest, to reach agreements more quickly. For the reasons I have just mentioned, I consider this to be incredibly important.
The fact is that, as the public are also aware, NATO can no longer cope with everything on its own. The aim is that, by 2015, it should be possible for a transatlantic market to arise that can also deal with all associated problems to do with social policy and with the need to secure the multilateral dimension. Let me not be misunderstood: a bilateral relationship should not destroy the multilateral approach of, for example, the WTO.
What this arrangement could, however, do is draw us into a ‘community of actions’ to promote global and regional cooperation on the basis of common values. Underlying the arrangement would be a common basis of values and our joint interest in the arrangement.
The Iran issue is the kind of issue I have in mind: one in relation to which we can only achieve something if we act together in order peacefully to prevent people from producing atomic bombs. We must also arrive at peaceful solutions in the Near and Middle East, where there is a cluster of common interests and values. This is something we can do only within the framework of this dialogue, which goes above and beyond the NATO dialogue. The currently still very sluggish Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue could be converted into a Transatlantic Assembly. These things may at present be pipe-dreams and fantasies, but I consider it necessary to proceed in this way in order to turn them into a reality.
In order to bring such an arrangement into operation, the European Parliament should, as a first step, set up an early warning system in Washington, with a reciprocal arrangement also put in place, in order in this way to have our sights set on legislation at an early stage. The European Parliament’s rapporteurs should be able to speak with their opposite numbers in the American Congress in order to make progress with these matters. In that way, consensus might be achieved at the preparatory phase, and there would subsequently be no anger of the kind now given rise to by, for example, court judgments on past actions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples