Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.5.3-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate focuses on the recent European Council: a Council that took place at a time of grave international crisis, which made the task of the Greek Presidency extremely difficult. I therefore wish to express particularly heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Prime Minister Simitis and the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Papandreou, for their skilful and sensitive handling of the summit.
How little the letter and the spirit of these Treaty provisions have been observed recently is plain to all. Moreover, this has come at a time when the representatives of all governments, institutions and parliaments meeting within the Convention are working on the Union's new constitutional charter and when the Union's now impending enlargement is bringing new opportunities and imposing new responsibilities. Let me take this opportunity to applaud the positive result of Slovenia's referendum on accession, which has followed closely on Malta's.
Ladies and gentlemen, the road we have travelled in the last 60 years towards a united Europe has not been easy. There have been many rough patches, but Europe has always drawn courage precisely from its deepest crises and used them as a springboard for its most spectacular advances. It was the failure of the EDC – of the plan to create a European Defence Community – which created the impetus for the Treaty of Rome. It was the United States' decision to float the dollar and the resulting collapse of the whole Bretton Woods system which set Europe on the long road to monetary union. Later, the oil crisis in the 1970s and the currency crisis in the summer of 1992 spurred us first to set up the European Monetary System and then to draft the rules on Economic and Monetary Union in the Maastricht Treaty.
Today, history is repeating itself. Europe's future hangs on the way we face this crisis. We could decide to go for a system of international relations based on the balance of power and entrust ourselves to the sovereignty and national interests of the individual European States but, as Commissioner Patten said in this very House, that would be like trying to tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century with the instruments and policies of the nineteenth century. Moreover, it would be contrary to the very nature of the Union, which is based on dialogue, solidarity, multilateralism and an inspiring combination of ethics and politics.
We must decide to carry through Europe's unification and give it the institutions, the instruments and the decision-making mechanisms it needs to make it a genuinely political Union – which is the road our fellow citizens want us to take – a Union that can apply unified policies for the economy, international relations and defence.
In the field of defence, the last few days have brought the launch of an initiative that could take us far. Belgium, France and Germany have decided to look jointly at closer integration. There is a background to this initiative, which these countries are right to say is open to all other Member States, because it must bring us together, not divide us. I am not just referring to the experience consolidated some time ago now in the integration of European armed forces within multinational corps such as the Eurocorps, Eurofor and Euromarfor.
Let us cast our minds back to Saint Malo in December 1998. A process was set in motion that led to the common European security and defence policy in the space of six short months and thanks to which we can now rely on instruments such as the Political and Security Committee and the Military Committee and Military Staff of the European Union. The countries behind the initiative – I would point out – were France and the United Kingdom, and, thanks to that agreement, the goal of a rapid reaction force of 60 000 troops can now be considered to be within reach. It is the first step towards what people are demanding for the first time in the history of the European institutions: our common defence.
The European Convention has created a working group on defence. In its conclusions, the working group stressed the need to develop European defence capabilities and to strengthen the industrial and technological base. Two weeks ago, the Commission adopted a Communication on defence-related industrial and market issues with the aim of facilitating and fostering more effective coordination of a European defence-equipment policy. Lastly, on 18 March 2003, the Council decided to launch the first military operation in the history of the Union and take over from the NATO forces operating in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the end of this month.
Ladies and gentlemen, we Europeans are not from Venus, as some would suggest. The peoples of this old, wise Europe have a long and painful past. A past that has led us to base our Union on law and to work for an international order founded on right, not on might.
We are fully aware, however, that humanitarian policies alone are not enough, just as it is not enough to outstrip the other main players in the area of development aid policy. We know the world will not take heed of us until we put an end to our divisions, until we stop relying on the European Union for economic growth and the United States for security – and there is nothing anti-American in what I am saying, not least because cooperation between the United States and the European Union has greatly increased recently, even in the most sensitive areas. Think of the remarkable cooperation between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after September 11 and the constant dialogue between the US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, and our own Commissioner Lamy. Experience shows that European unity is a condition for and a guarantee of effective transatlantic cooperation, and what I am saying stems wholly from a deep conviction that only Europe, only Europeans, can decide what Europe's interests are.
The Spring European Council is the time in the Union’s yearly calendar when it traditionally looks at economic issues, but the Iraq crisis cast a shadow over the whole of the Council held in recent days in Brussels. I will therefore begin my speech today with that.
Today, we are faced with a crisis, but history has a sense of timing: this challenge may be a deciding moment for Europe but it has come while the Convention is sitting. I therefore call on this House and all the institutions represented in the Convention, and I appeal to all its Members directly not to miss this opportunity. Today as never before, we can seek to forge our own destiny, but we must learn the right lessons from past experience.
At Maastricht, Europe laid the foundations for both Economic and Monetary Union and the common foreign and security policy, policies which we have too often disregarded. While the former has evolved to the point of putting the euro into the citizens’ pockets, the latter is still in its infancy. The institutions, the instruments and the decision-making mechanisms for implementing the two policies were quite different and so are the results. However much time it may take to fully implement our plans, the moment of truth for Europe's foreign and defence policy has come. The decision demands great far-sightedness and great political courage, but the choice is clear: do we want to be left out, all of us, of the management of world affairs, or do we want to play a part, on an equal footing with our allies, in building a new world order?
Ladies and gentlemen, I started off today by saying that the Spring European Council is the principle occasion when we review our economic progress each year. This year, there are some encouraging points, and we should not forget the great progress made recently in opening up markets. The process of opening up the telecommunications market is almost complete. The energy market is in the process of being opened up. Great progress has been made on mobility and on many aspects of social security. After years of work there is the agreement on the Community Patent.
Here, too, however, we must be honest with ourselves. Our progress in implementing the reform strategy decided at Lisbon three years ago is too slow. I am not just talking about the widespread disappointment on the issue of savings tax. The growth rate of our economies is alarmingly below that required to create the jobs we need and to support the process of convergence of the acceding countries' economies. That is why I told the European Council last Friday, as I am telling you today, that it is time to send a strong, clear signal of our commitment to support growth.
There are two sectors in which I believe action can and must be taken immediately: Trans-European Networks and research and development. The priorities for the Trans-European Networks were identified some time ago but, to date, they have not brought much in the way of results. Even the 14 projects given priority in 1994 at the Essen European Council are severely behind schedule. Meanwhile, new corridors are needed to take advantage of the opportunities enlargement will bring, as the amount of traffic on our roads and in the tunnels that pass through our mountains is increasing exponentially. Investment in the Trans-European Networks currently stands at below EUR 20 billion per year. At this rate, it will take over 20 years to complete them all.
Equally depressing is the state of the major research and development programmes, to the extent that, despite the funds made available in the Union’s budget and the loans granted by the European Investment Bank, public expenditure in this area is actually significantly down on last year, while private investment is still below the minimum required as well. It is therefore time to launch a major initiative to bring about a substantial increase in the funding of both the Trans-European Networks and the major research and development projects. I have therefore asked Philippe Maystadt, the President of the European Investment Bank, to work with me in seeking new sources of funding, exploring all possible options such as Union guarantees and special borrowing facilities.
These, ladies and gentlemen, are the preconditions for reinvigorating the Lisbon process and expanding the horizons of our knowledge. Joint research, networks of excellence, mobility of students and researchers and the key programmes on life sciences, renewable energy and the environment are vital. I am quite aware that financing is not the only obstacle to the speedy implementation of these major projects, and I am equally aware that many years are needed to complete them. That, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why there is no time to waste.
As I speak, a war is under way and no one can tell how much longer it will last. A war in which troops from some Member States are fighting in the region. A war that has caused great divisions within the Union. A war opposed by the overwhelming majority of European citizens and very many others throughout the world. A war which, like all wars, brings death and suffering in its train, even if it ultimately brings the fall of a dictator. First of all, I wish to express the Commission's – and my own – sympathy to those families who mourn loved ones and to all who have suffered as a result of the war. I also want to reiterate the need for respect for human dignity, even between the belligerents.
We should also bear another fact in mind: the extra funds requested for this operation – USD 74.7 billion – are much higher than the total amount of aid the world gives the poorest countries each year, which is only just over EUR 50 billion.
The statement on the Iraq crisis adopted at the end of the Council’s work gives a clear list of the many important points on which there is unanimous agreement within the Union. They need to be highlighted in this debate too. They include the central role of the United Nations, both during and after the crisis, combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, respect for Iraq's territorial integrity, the need for urgent action in terms of humanitarian aid, our commitment to multilateral management of world politics and the Atlantic Alliance, which continues to be a strategic priority.
There are many points we all agree on, then, and they are crucial. We should bear this in mind after all that has been said and written on our divisions in recent days and weeks. However, we must not try to pretend that these divisions are not there. We must not lie to ourselves or to our fellow citizens.
Having listed these crucial points on which the Union is in agreement, we must admit that the European Union is going through a very rough patch. I am thinking about the role the Union should be playing and is not. Indeed, the issue of the enlarged Union's foreign and defence policy is starkly highlighted by world events. We must ask ourselves what role we want to play on the world scene. I say ‘want’ because I am convinced that the Union has the means to develop with time into an active, influential international political player, not just economically but in terms of security too, on the basis of the values on which Europe is founded.
Let us start with security. The European citizens have already made it clear what they want. They want peace, multilateralism and a Europe – a Europe that brings security as well as peace – and they have made this abundantly clear recently. This is not an emotional reaction at a time of crisis, brought on by the natural anxiety and concern always triggered by war. It goes much deeper, and it would be a sin to ignore it, for it should unite us in purpose. Indeed, the Treaties require the Member States to ‘support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.’ They are, and I quote, to ‘work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity’. They must refrain from ‘any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.’"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples