Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.2.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, I obviously very much regret that the situation in the Middle East which has been well described by the Minister has not improved since my last intervention in the House on this subject. The violence continues, killings on both sides, including of children, also continue unabated, property is being destroyed, particularly arable land and shelters in refugee camps, and settlements in West Bank and Gaza are still expanding.
Customs is a Community competence and the implementation of this common policy is delegated to Member States, but the role of the Commission is to ensure coherence and to avoid divergent interpretations by different Member States. A number of Member States have queried Israeli origin certificates over recent months, and replies are now being received by Member States' customs authorities. Our responsibility in the Commission today is to avoid uncoordinated action. This is why I have suggested that customs authorities discuss the replies received urgently and any action they may be contemplating at the next meeting of the Customs Code Committee on 31 May.
So what are the technical steps that will be taken now? This issue will be signalled at the EU-Israel Association Committee on 21 May. The item is on the agenda agreed with Israel and, as I have just mentioned, there will be a full discussion by Member States' customs experts at the end of May on how to interpret Israeli replies and the common line on how to respond. In the light of the conclusions reached at this occasion, this would be discussed in the Customs Cooperation Committee between the European Union and Israel which would normally take place in July. I wish to stress that our decision will be entirely based on the law and its technical application case by case. We can do no more but we should do no less. As the Court judgment to which I referred argued, the Commission is the guardian of the Treaty and of the agreements concluded under it. We cannot, nor should we seek to, resile from the duty.
I return to where I began: like others we wish to see an end to the violence. We want to see a return to negotiation and we stand ready to help with the delicate and demanding work of building an enduring peace. There is no other way.
The European Union is regularly urged to play a stronger part in the Middle East. The core principles of our position are that peace must be built on international law, on the relevant UN Resolutions including UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and on the formula 'Land for Peace'. We, that is all the European Union institutions, should clearly restate these principles in all our contacts with the parties to this bitter dispute.
The European Union continues to support any efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. We support, as the Minister said, the Egyptian-Jordanian initiative as well as the recommendations of the commendable Mitchell Commission of Inquiry, including the settlement freeze and the swift and decisive cessation of violence and terrorism.
There has been too much bloodshed and fighting. Violence must stop. On the Israeli side there is no justification for the disproportionate use of force against civilians and the destruction of property. On the Palestinian side, the Palestinian Authority must do everything in its power to stop attacks on Israeli civilians. This includes preventing incitements for such attacks, and the Palestinian Authority must naturally control its security services effectively. We cannot condemn violence on one side but not the other. The Mitchell Commission seemed to me to point a sensible way, the only way, to ending the blame game, stopping the killing and the maiming and getting back to talking. Talks have to resume, and the parties must honour their international obligations. In the case of Israel, these obligations range from complying with international humanitarian law, that covers respect for human rights, as stated by the European Union at the Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, and also settlements. It goes on to bilateral obligations regarding the Palestinian Authority, for example the transfer of tax revenues, and it also includes obligations under the EC-Israel Association Agreement. In the case of the Palestinian Authority, we need to see the implementation of long-overdue reforms both in financial and political terms including democratic transparency, fighting against corruption and strengthening the rule of law.
I would like to refer to two concrete and practical points today about which I am regularly asked by Parliament: the effect of the economic blockade on the Palestinian Authority and the policy of settlements. There has been some improvement recently concerning the movement of goods and people within and out of Gaza. For example, a number of businessmen have received permits, but economic activities in the Palestinian territories remain severely restricted. The Palestinian Authority is still facing financial and institutional collapse. The international donor meeting in Stockholm on 11 April was a good step forward in bringing a solution to the Palestinian Authority's budgetary crisis. We particularly appreciate the commitments made by Arab countries.
Following the Stockholm meeting, the Commission is discussing with the Palestinian Authority the basis for our future assistance. This includes measures intended to enhance financial management and complete the process of institutional reform. Some of these measures, in particular those referring to institutional reform, constitute a clear confirmation of commitments announced in the past by the Palestinian Authority. We have noted the steps taken by the Palestinian authority to adopt an austerity budget. The Palestinian Authority is also working on other welcome reforms related to financial management, such as the consolidation of revenues. The International Monetary Fund is monitoring this process, and our intention on the basis of this austerity budget is to make monthly payments of EUR 10 million during the next six months once we can get the agreement we all want, but I repeat what I said earlier and what the Minister said, what is important is to end the blockade and resume the payment of revenues.
Let me turn now to Israel's settlement policy. The European Union's position on settlements is clear. All settlement activities in Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and on the Golan Heights are illegal, under international law, and constitute a major obstacle to peace. This includes the natural growth of settlements, a violation of international law that cannot be allowed to continue unabated. I am often asked, particularly in view of the failure of our efforts to resolve the issue, what this means for the working of our Association Agreement with Israel and in particular for the question of rules of origin which is covered by the Agreement. It follows from what I have said that the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights fall outside the territorial scope of the Agreement. This is not a new point I am making, it is not some political gesture. Let me make that point crystal clear. This point has already been made in the Commission's communication in 1998 on the same issue. The communication made it clear that preferential access to Community markets for exports originating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and I quote, "contravenes agreed rules of origin since these territories do not form part of the State of Israel under public international law". Therefore the communication indicated that, and I quote again, "preferential access to Community markets for exports originating in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as originating in Israel under the EC-Israel Interim Trade Agreement is a violation of the latter, given that it does not apply to these territories."
The European Union must uphold the rule of law. That was a point recently made very seriously in a similar case by the Court of First Instance which has stated that the existence of political tensions, and I quote, "does not exonerate the Commission as guardian of the Treaty and of the agreements concluded under it from ensuring the correct implementation by a third country of the obligation it has contracted to fulfil under an agreement concluded with the Community". The position is absolutely clear. If, I stress the word if, Israel wants to declare goods coming from the settlements as being of Israeli origin, EU customs authorities would not be able to share this interpretation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples