Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.10.3-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, for the Greens, decentralised cooperation is an essential element of cooperation and development policy. In fact, it is one of the only constituents of that policy which guarantees the real use of funds by the nations of the South. Mr Zimmerling’s report is a step in the right direction, in that he has created a real instrument which guarantees the participation of citizens in developing countries. The Howitt report had already opened up some interesting lines of action, and this new report improves even further the collaboration with non-governmental organisations.
We welcome the development of the list of potential partners. It is particularly important to us that account should be taken of the organisations of the indigenous populations. They are in many cases minorities and suffer opposition from the public authorities, which more often than not represent authoritarian powers.
As far as those who are actually involved are concerned, however, the question of the churches gives rise to problems. Although it seems obvious to everyone that charitable organisations, including those of a religious nature, can benefit from funds for decentralised cooperation, on the other hand it seems inconceivable to me that the European Union should, under this heading, be funding the churches themselves, since by definition their aim is proselytisation. Are we going to finance Catholic churches or Protestant chapels in Moslem countries, or the building of mosques in Christian countries? We discussed this with the rapporteur, who seemed to have understood the problem that was raised. The fact that this viewpoint was retained before the vote in committee may have looked like an oversight. Now, however, when the Committee on Development and Cooperation has rejected this word, and by a large majority, its re-insertion through the intervention of the Council Presidency, which has used a version of the Treaty of Amsterdam – minus its philosophical elements – leaves me somewhat puzzled as to the final objective of this text. In the absence of any clarification on this point, we shall not be able to vote in favour of this report. I would therefore strongly urge my fellow Members to return to the amendment adopted at the committee stage, whereby the list was restricted to charitable organisations.
It is vital that as many representatives of civil society as possible can make their opinions known, and can have recourse to funding which is independent of their state authorities, so as to strengthen the independence of social movements which are campaigning for sustainable development, for human rights and for social rights, for democratisation or for cultural pluralism. This is why we are asking that the overall funding should be increased from EUR 18 million to EUR 36 million. This appears to us to be vitally important if all those involved are to take part in the debate. In other words, it is not enough to create a good policy: it is even more important to provide it with adequate financial resources."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples