Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.5.3-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East.
In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system.
Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution.
Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples