Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.1.3-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, let me again stress that we are present in the region. We are present in Chechnya; and the level of humanitarian aid funded by the Commission of EUR 40million in 2001 is clear evidence of the priority that we give to this crisis and to the suffering in Chechnya. Our field experts and ECHO staff are evidence of our presence there. We are also the only agent from the outside that has established an independent distribution system for food and assistance inside Chechnya. The Danish Refugee Council is the only alternative to the Russian EMERCOM Ministry, which insists on doing this itself. For instance, World Food Programme assistance is provided through the Russian organisation. We are insisting on continuing to have an independent channel of distribution in order to ensure that we perform better than has been claimed in this debate. I cannot accept the figure of only 3% actually reaching the right people. If this were true, the 200 000 refugees in Ingushetia would no longer be alive.
We are able to make a difference, but we are not in any way trying to portray this as an easy or flawless operation. It is extremely difficult and that is one of the reasons why we have to continue putting pressure on the Russian authorities, both on the safety aspects of access to VHF radios and the work permits and general conditions for the international humanitarian organisations working in the area.
The first mission I went on after taking office was the humanitarian mission to East Timor in the autumn of 1999, the second one was to the region we are talking about today. I am grateful for the advice that it may be useful for me to go there once again, and we will consider that.
The effort of the Commission, the funding and the resolute support to our implementing partners is the only real effort to secure an international humanitarian presence in this theatre. We are determined to continue this work and there is no weakening whatsoever of that determination. It may also be useful to say, in view of what has been said in this debate, that I find it both necessary and clearly meaningful to maintain the established division between, on the one hand, the broader political dialogue – a dialogue also accentuating the human rights aspects – and the clearly defined humanitarian aid effort. That division of labour as to who does what and how it is carried out is both necessary and meaningful. If we mix all this up into one single cocktail, we will get carried away for good, sympathetic, political reasons, but we would actually endanger the access of international humanitarian organisations into this troubled arena.
Humanitarian aid has its own rationale and it is important to recognise that if we allow ourselves to politicise the whole thing, we are doing humanitarian aid no favours. This is important to keep in mind, and I beg Parliament to understand that it in no way indicates any weakening of the purpose and strength of our political dialogue with Russia on the political aspects of all this. But we have to put on a credible performance as a serious funder of humanitarian aid. I have noted the many good pieces of advice given in the debate, and that will provide important input for our further deliberations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples