Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.4.2-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, I very much welcome this opportunity to debate Belarus and the relations between Belarus and the European Union. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Marset Campos, for his excellent preparatory work. I will indicate, in my remarks, where we find ourselves in profound agreement with what the rapporteur has said.
What we can and will do in the Commission, is to use the instruments at our disposal to continue support and assistance to grass roots civil society organisations, to journalists and independent media, to universities and also - where it is appropriate - to local authorities. Within the limits of the restrictions set by the September 1997 General Affairs Council, the Commission is also proceeding with technical assistance on border and regional projects, as well as projects linked to the aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe.
When calling for broader engagement in terms of assistance, we should also not forget the difficult ground we are working on in Belarus. It is the authorities, with instruments like the notorious 'Decree No 8', that make the work of foreign donors and their partners in Belarus extremely difficult.
We had some joint projects with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Belarus. The
closure of the OSCE Assistance and Monitoring Group in Minsk last October has obviously threatened the further implementation of such projects. Only after the 19 November 2002 decision of 14 EU Member States to impose a visa ban on President Lukashenko and seven other leading personalities in Belarus was a compromise finally reached to establish a new OSCE Minsk office as of 1 January 2003.
The coming weeks and months will demonstrate whether the authorities in Belarus are finally committed to take the path towards freedom, democracy and an improvement in human rights. Normalised relations with the OSCE could be a first step. Compliance with minimum standards during the coming local elections in early March would be a second step, followed by a convincing commitment to fulfil all the conditions outlined in Parliament's draft resolution.
These are the sort of benchmarks that could prepare the way for the eventual accession of Belarus to the Council of Europe and, beyond that, open the perspective for a gradual normalisation of relations with the European Union.
I am very grateful to the rapporteur for the work he has done to make these things possible – we all hope – in the future.
It is a very sad reality that, as on the many previous occasions when we have discussed Belarus, the focus is on a number of very difficult subjects: on the whole question of the cases of disappeared persons; on the harassment of the media; on the limitations on the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion; on the recent open confrontation by the authorities in Belarus with the OSCE Assistance and Monitoring Group in Minsk.
Alas, we have never been in a position to conclude a partnership and cooperation agreement with Belarus. That country is the only European successor of the former Soviet Union without a privileged contractual relationship with the European Union, including a clear mutual commitment to the common values of democracy and human rights.
It is obvious that the current state of relations between the European Union and Belarus is profoundly unsatisfactory for both sides. While we are developing new forms of cooperation, for example, with the Russian Federation, while we are about to address the specific challenges and opportunities of enlargement in defining new forms of cooperation with those countries that will be our new eastern neighbours after enlargement, Belarus has sadly chosen the role of spectator.
The Commission has been invited by the Copenhagen European Council to submit proposals on the EU's future relations with its neighbours, including Belarus. I am sure a number of honourable Members, during this debate, will want to make reference to this 'New Neighbours' or 'Wider Europe' debate. Obviously, we will have to be prepared for the moment when Belarus sends a signal that it is ready to co-operate with us. Given the present situation on democracy, freedom of speech and the media, and on human rights in general, it is difficult to imagine when the EU will be able to have normal relations with Belarus.
I am very grateful for the clear message that this debate and Parliament's resolution will send in this respect. However, I fully agree with the elements in the resolution – and I am sure this will be followed up in a number of speeches today – which recalled the importance Belarus has, not only for the European Union, but also for the stability and prosperity of the whole region. I can assure you that this is the common ground we are all working on. There are many issues where the Commission would like to broaden its activities and its co-operation with Belarus, be it in addressing common threats of cross-border organised crime and illegal migration, or in regional development, economic and structural reform, environmental protection and so on. Every day lost in dealing with these issues adds to the hardship of the people of Belarus, and to the potential risks building up on this part of our future eastern border.
On different occasions, in particular since early 2000, the European Union has co-operated with the OSCE and the Council of Europe to build a bridge that would help Belarus move towards normalisation of its relations with the international community. Belarus has, on several occasions, missed these opportunities, including prior to the elections in 2000 and 2001.
The European Parliament and its Delegation for relations with Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, has been very active in the framework of the Parliamentary Troika with the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe. While the European Union has limited its official contacts with Belarus to a strict minimum, this alternative form of political dialogue is very useful and demonstrates that in terms of minimum standards of democracy and human rights, the elected representatives of all three organisations speak with one voice to Belarus.
The Commission strongly agrees with the emphasis in the resolution on strengthening dialogue with civil society, NGOs, democratic forces, the media and with the universities in Belarus. However, as to the call to the Commission in Article 9 of the draft resolution, to: '…develop a strategy for Belarus within the proposal ‘Wider Europe’ for the democratisation and the development of a social market economy' in Belarus, it seems obvious to me that any assistance or help from the Commission could only be in support of a comprehensive government strategy. It could never replace a strategy by Belarus itself. The driving force for this sort of change would need to come from Belarus. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be there yet."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples