Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-182"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.6.3-182"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to make three observations regarding Mr Lagendijk’s inspiring and excellent report.
Firstly, the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe focuses on regional cooperation in the Balkans. It is precisely this cooperation which the European Union wishes to promote in the best possible way. Well, this regional cooperation still leaves too much to be desired. The basic pursuit of common interests is being undermined by a longing for prestige and rivalry among the various nations. In this way, the swift implementation of the innovative Stability Pact is being hampered. What is needed here is a powerful response from the European Union. This should go hand in hand with a selfless and more balanced selection of regional aid projects.
Secondly, I consider Paragraph 26 in the Lagendijk report to be a fine idea. Indeed, the Stability Pact applies just as much across the borders of the region. As such, the Republic Moldavia definitely deserves the opportunity of being directly involved in the Pact. After all, the alternative would be that Moldavia would be in danger of finding itself in a kind of political no man’s land. What is more: Moldavia is linked with neighbouring Romania both culturally and politically. If Romania falls under the scope of the Stability Pact, so does Moldavia, therefore.
Thirdly, the success of this Stability Pact may well set a positive precedent for the East, with the Pact extended in the direction of the currently very unstable Caucasus. Am I right in thinking that Russia already subscribes to the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples