Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-11-Speech-2-573-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120911.37.2-573-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, it has certainly been an interesting debate, with a complete range of views and thoughts on every aspect of the common foreign and security policy, and indeed a couple on me.
Countries and Foreign Ministers say to me quite often, please, we do not want to have a procession of different ministers coming. Can we not just talk with the European Union and then you spread out the message of what we need, because every time somebody else comes, it is more time that they cannot spend on the things that matter. So this is about making sense of doing it together – planning better, working together effectively, not taking away but adding value to what Member States do.
I agree as well that you have to think strategically, and I mean by that not just geographically, but horizontally. Water, energy, education: there are big issues that I have already pointed to and which really do affect not just the lives of other people but ultimately, ours too. Ensuring the quality of water for children and for adults across the world has an impact. It has an impact on us and it has an impact, more importantly, on them.
Then there is ensuring the provision of water, with all the complexity of what is now happening on the Nile and the desire for different countries to use water in different ways. There are enormous challenges in that region. We can help to support them to work out – and they ask us to support them to work out – how to deal with that, being aware of the challenges of water in areas where this can lead to conflict.
We have got to be clear, as I said, about what we offer and we have got to be clear about what we offer across the world.
I want to say specifically to Ms Gomes, about Ethiopia – and I will also be speaking on Eritrea briefly – that we have worked incredibly hard (and I was very grateful to Louis Michel) on trying to resolve the issue not just of the Swedish journalists but of many others. I explained earlier on about the need to engage with countries and with politicians, as well as to be clear about our expectations of them. We have done that and we have sought, and will continue to seek, an inclusive approach to what happens in Ethiopia.
I will also say, because now I can, that the Swedish Government asked us not to make a lot of noise in our work to try and release the hostages, the journalists. That is also very important. Sometimes I think people forget that when you are trying to get people out, occasionally you have to do it more quietly, because that is what is going to have greatest effect and impact. We will send you a comprehensive list of all the demarches and letters that will show you everything we have done on Ethiopia. Do not leap to the assumption that just because you do not hear about something, it does not mean it is not happening, because every day we are working on a whole raft of issues and it is important that you realise that.
I do not have any more information, Mr Schmidt, on what is happening with the poor gentlemen who is in Eritrea, David. We have been in touch with them as you know. We have delivered the habeas corpus that you asked us to do and we are still trying to get as much information as possible, but it is incredibly difficult. As you said, and as has been said in Commission meetings, 4 000 days is a horrendous amount of time for him. We will continue the efforts that we are making with others, because the partnership that we have with countries like the United States and others is really important.
Just two more quick points. Strategically, we work with everyone. It is not about the EU being the greatest thing on earth that only works by itself. Absolutely not. Most of what we do is in partnership with others, with Member States for sure, with the United Nations, with the Arab League, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, with the ASEAN countries and with others.
Think about how one tackles the challenges of a country like Burma/Myanmar. When I met with Aung San Suu Kyi, she talked about the need for us to coordinate because, as a country, they find it very difficult to deal with so many offers and with the many competing opportunities that businesses wish to have in their country, and they need help. They do not have the infrastructure, they do not have the knowledge, they do not have the systems. That is where we can offer support to countries to meet the challenge to move forward.
My final point is about priorities. I agree, I set out three: build a service – bring people from eight buildings into one; develop the delegations – bring the Lisbon Treaty to life in terms of what we do on the ground; and work in our neighbourhoods, where we should be judged and have the strongest strategic partnerships possible.
I want to start with something that was said about the need to ensure economic resurgence and the security of the needs of our people. I agree with that. It is important to recognise that the purpose of trying to collaborate effectively on foreign and security policy is, above everything, to support the needs of our own people.
Those are my priorities for my mandate. I still believe in them and that is what I do every day.
Just as has been shown in this debate, every day there are other issues that people believe should be number one on the agenda. In the course of this debate, you have covered every continent and you have covered a huge number of countries into which you individually believe we should put our energy.
I agree with you that it is about trying to be effective across the world, working with others. We will continue to do that. We will not be scatter-gun, but will be effective and efficient in what we do. As things grow, this will get better and better.
All I would say is: do not be patient for the wrong reasons, but recognise that we are absolutely at the beginning.
Making sure that we bring prosperity is about trade deals and about economic opportunity. It is also about ensuring that others get economic opportunity – to their benefit and to ours. Ensuring that we have a secure and safer planet, especially in our neighbourhood, is also about ensuring that we have safety and security for our own people. Countries that are close to Syria or which are experiencing the challenges of transition in the southern neighbourhood know this only too well, because they saw people trying to flee from terrible tragedy and to come and stay in the European Union.
So there are many ways in which that is precisely what this is all about. When people got together and said what we need is a common foreign and security policy, it was because they saw not that Member States were not able to do things individually, but that there were many things they could do better together.
It is a very simple proposition and nobody should get hysterical about what that means for sovereignty or this, that and the other. It is about what makes sense when you do things together, and indeed a number of honourable Members pointed to good examples.
I tried to show, in describing this comprehensive approach which is a strategic approach, that actually it is not just about dealing with conflict. Conflict needs to be dealt with, but it is also about what you do before and what you do afterwards.
So, our engagement with Libya will not just be for this year; it will be for the years to come until we are confident and they are confident that they have built the institutions that they need, that they have got political security. By the way, they are looking at the diversification of their economy and they are worrying about what has happened to weapons that have gone south from Libya into the Sahel.
I could give you example after example of what we do. What we do is we work on conflict prevention and we work on how to support peace building and we work together, 27 Member States around the Foreign Affairs Council who do things where they agree, and where they agree they give me the mandate to operate on their behalf. Everybody should welcome and celebrate that because that is about recognition by all of them that there is something more to be done where we work together.
I agree, by the way, with Ms Neynsky about the need to have greater synergy. Absolutely. We look for that all the time. There is something about trying to set up a new service in an economic crisis that means you have to think in cleverer ways about the use of resources and you have to work together. That applies in defence, where we are pooling and sharing and where we are looking at the results of Libya that showed us we needed to do more about refuelling in mid-air and where we are working directly with NATO. We are also looking at the synergy of Member States collaborating in buildings across the world, where sharing common services makes more sense for the diplomatic service or where, by doing things together, we can have more impact and we can support countries more effectively because we are not all trying to do the same thing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples