Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-01-Speech-3-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090401.12.3-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like start by thanking Mr Vondra and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner most warmly for their contributions, which were much more realistic and, in our view, more to the point than Mr Onyszkiewicz’s report in its current form, which I find very regrettable, as I hold Mr Onyszkiewicz in very high regard on a personal level. I therefore do not entirely understand why we have a report before us that does not use this common basis – criticism on the one hand and willingness to cooperate on the other – as a denominator, as the Council and the Commission have done.
Let me run through our criticisms once again, by which I mean our criticisms of Russia, just to be clear.
In terms of the neighbourhood, we do not understand, and are critical of, Russia’s behaviour towards Georgia, but the world has long been aware that Russia is not the only guilty part here. The only thing is that certain circles here do not want to accept that. We have to see both sides. When I look from Mrs Zourabichvili to Mrs Burjanadze, at how former allies of the President of Georgia are now in opposition to President Saakashvili and how human rights are not exactly prized very highly there either, I do ask myself why it is only Russia that is criticised, and not Georgia as well. As for the energy crisis involving Ukraine, we are now well aware, and you know this as well as we do, that Ukraine, and its internal political situation, has to bear some of the responsibility, but it is always Russia alone that is criticised.
Although Mr Horáček, who now apparently wants to solve the governmental crisis in the Czech Republic, says here that we should not prioritise the energy issue over human rights, nobody is actually doing that. Tell me, specifically, do you now want us to say ‘we do not want your gas until you respect human rights’? You must say openly, honestly and clearly what you want, and not just throw soundbites into the discussion.
My third point relates to human rights. We are bitterly disappointed at the attitude to human rights in Russia; certainly, we find it unacceptable. We will never remain silent when human rights are being abused. As I have just said, we must address human rights abuses clearly wherever they occur, be this in Georgia, Russia, or our own Member States. This includes the rights of Russian citizens or non-citizens, some of whom, unfortunately, face problems in certain EU Member States. That goes without saying, but we must do it to the same extent everywhere; to the same extent and with the same criteria.
Fourthly, I am deeply saddened that Russia – and its leadership – is not developing the kind of perspective of its own history that many of our own countries have developed. I am referring here to the debate we have already had, and to tomorrow’s vote on the resolution on history. Russia’s image would be hugely improved if it took a more critical approach to its own history, in other words if it depicted Stalinism not as a major national achievement, but as a crime that it needs to confront. Of course, there have also been very clear statements on our part, but we have to say, for all countries, for all totalitarian regimes, that we are not prepared to accept totalitarian regimes, and not prepared to accept a lack of engagement with history.
It may therefore still be an option, if at least one or two of our side’s proposed amendments are accepted, which attempt to restore the balance and to pursue precisely this dual strategy: major criticism of Russia, but also a willingness to enter into partnership with Russia."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples