Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.11.3-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we all bite off more than we can chew at times, and that applies to politics too; that is what both the European Union and the countries of the Western Balkans risk doing during that region’s Stabilisation and Association Process. Concerned internal and external Balkan experts have expressed this warning. According to them, the European Union is trying too hard to copy the success of the process of the ten accession countries in South-East Europe. By doing so, the European Union is making excessive demands of states that are not ready for this. The result is that the Stabilisation and Association Process is threatening to degenerate into feigned developments in the countries in question. A simpler, realistic approach to moving closer to Brussels would avoid mutual disappointment. Moreover, it would give the governments of the Western Balkans a real opportunity of scoring political successes in the direction of Europe. This is certainly not insignificant from an electoral viewpoint. Does the Commission share this opinion and is it prepared to help give this shape?
Allow me to be very direct and specific. These days, I am picking up vibes that, generally speaking, the educational level in the Western Balkan is dropping to a worrying level. This applies to primary, secondary and university education alike. I would ask the Commission whether that is true. If so, then here lies an opportunity for us to offer a helping hand by providing the Western Balkans with free access to European education programmes. In that light, Mr Lagendijk’s useful report offers ample opportunity for European self-reflection. Allow me to make three observations.
First of all, in paragraph 10, does the rapporteur not turn matters on their head in connection with the present visa regime between the European Union and the so-called SAP countries? It seems more logical to me to link a possible easing of the visa regime to a number of EU conditions. This has nothing to do with the humiliation of Balkan citizens to which the rapporteur refers.
Interestingly enough, in paragraph 42, Mr Lagendijk urges the European Union to play a role of neutral mediator between Serbia and Montenegro. It is irrelevant to him what form the relationship between Belgrade and Podgornica will take at the end of it. As far as I know, the European Union has to date not practised such neutrality and, as far as I can see, will not attempt to do this either.
My third observation concerns paragraphs 51 and 52. In paragraph 51, the rapporteur is still cautiously positive about the start of direct talks between Belgrade and Pristina, with good reason. Incidentally, with this, the UNMIK itself is putting the principle of standards before status under time pressure. That is by the by. Mr Lagendijk subsequently proposes an extra-fast time frame for a final solution to the thorny political issue of Kosovo. Within the next two years! It seems to me that the Serbian-Albanian race for Kosovo is certainly not served, nor helped, by such a political march at top speed. Moreover, we should not overlook the direct regional effects of any actual attempt to address the Kosovo issue. Think of the Albanians in Macedonia and the Serbs in Bosnia. Political stability in the Balkans remains for the time being a precarious matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples