Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-05-Speech-2-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000905.4.2-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Galeote’s report has the strange merit of indicating its real objective and logic fairly clearly, i.e. the creation of a single Community diplomatic service, while formally claiming the opposite. The entire proposed arrangement in fact contradicts recital O, which states that the objective is not to create a single diplomatic service to replace the diplomatic services of the Member States. I welcome Mr Dupuis’ frank and coherent amendments, which at least have the merit of calling a spade a spade. The subtle internal balances of the PPE probably explain the baroque nature of the structure being proposed to us.
This clearly pathetic ducking and diving is directly inspired by the Monnet-Delors method and all Mr Galeote has done is to propose a new variation on that theme, this time on diplomacy. With this method, the institution creates the function, the container hides the content, the technique gives rise to the policy. But now we have the key and know how to decipher. When Mr Galeote proposes setting up a training college to mould Community super-diplomats and recycle national diplomats, giving the European Union an international legal personality and ‘coordinating’ representations, especially to the UN, we know full well that the sub-text reads: merge embassies, create a single Community diplomatic corps and communitise France’s and Britain’s permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council.
And of course, as always, the question of purpose, the question of content, the only question worth asking, is omitted. What are we creating with this new institution? In this particular case, what foreign policy will this Community diplomatic corps serve? What common interests is it supposed to defend?
This is a typically Marxist approach. We are waiting for the ‘critical qualitative mass’ which, we hope, will change the quantitative into qualitative at a certain threshold. The common instrument is supposed to produce the common conscience, the common will, the common responsibility. This cult of the quantitative culminates in a grotesque comparison between the number of American and ‘European’ diplomats, the number of ‘European’ diplomats having been obtained by adding up the numbers of professional diplomats attached to the foreign services of our various countries. Must we reiterate that the United States are one and the same nation and the Member States of the European Union each have privileged links in the world, different and sometimes diverging experiences and affinities, and that it is this which so enriches European diplomacy? It is the complementarity of this individual expertise which can be used for a clearly-defined common objective which really serves European interests.
It is precisely these advantages which the single diplomacy being proposed to us will devalue. In fact, we are eroding national will, despite the fact that it is the diplomatic driving force behind Europe and, at the same time, we express surprise when the increasing number of instruments and declarations is reflected merely by an absence of content and a general lack of interest.
The only positive aspect of this report might be its desire to rationalise the organisation and improve the professionalism of the European Commission delegations in third countries. Experience has shown that these delegations are not always up to their real job, which is to implement Community programmes and agreements and monitor them on the ground. It would appear that this job has now taken second place to other considerations, with Commission representatives too busy trying to obtain officially the usurped title of ambassador to oversee the proper implementation of the programmes which they are responsible for applying.
This last point apart, you will understand that we obviously did not vote in favour of the other, totally surrealist proposals in this initiative report. Today we are admitting the absurdity and intrinsic weaknesses of a single currency which is not supported by any sovereignty. And now we expect single diplomacy, conceived in the same back to front manner, to work or rather, not to work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples