Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-25-Speech-3-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061025.25.3-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am grateful to the Commissioner for her presence here today. The EU-Syria Association Agreement is the missing piece in the Barcelona process, but it is also the Godot of the European Parliament: continually heralded, but never concluded.
The negotiations on this agreement started in 1996, before Syria withdrew from Lebanon. They were difficult, but they nevertheless resulted in a much-revised draft that laid down, for example, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorism. The agreement was signed in the Council in October 2004, but the ratification process was interrupted by the appalling assassination of the former prime minister Mr Hariri on 14 February 2005. We all know what happened next. People in Lebanon and all over the world immediately pointed the finger at the government in Damascus. An investigation, led initially by Mr Mehlis and now by Mr Brammertz, was carried out
and Resolution 1559 called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops and secret services from Lebanon.
The presumption of innocence is one of the pillars of our legal systems, but we must also bear in mind the precautionary principle. Although Syria made haste to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, it was initially hesitant about cooperating with Mr Mehlis. Europe therefore cautiously distanced itself from the Damascus Government. Is this caution still acceptable today, when various events both on the international stage and within Syria's internal political system should encourage us to reopen dialogue? The Council will be the judge of that, but I, for my part, am in favour of dialogue and the Committee on Foreign Affairs supported me in this by a large majority. This dialogue could ultimately lead to the signing of the agreement, but that question is still premature and is not the purpose of the recommendation.
So, then, what are these events? First of all, there is the renewal of effective cooperation with Mr Brammertz's investigation, as attested to in his latest report. Next, it has become apparent that our isolation of Syria has been counter-productive in terms of democracy within the country, and has failed to weaken a strong government. Our empty-chair politics have contributed to destabilising a reforming tendency that was cautiously raising its head. What is more, the voice of Europe, which in the past has been raised to defend activists and political prisoners, is now hardly to be heard. Finally, and this is my third point, the tragedy in Lebanon has been a terrible lesson. The war between Israel and Lebanon was proof, if proof were needed, of the danger and uselessness of force. It demonstrated the need to work politically with all those involved in this conflict, and we know that, behind the two protagonists, other influences are at work: the United States without doubt, but also Iran and Syria. As Europe closed its doors, Syria found other allies, notably Iran, which provided not only oil but also a war-like ideology that does nothing to promote peace in the Middle East.
Europe has now made a strong commitment to the Middle East, and there have been successive diplomatic missions on a regular basis. Support for the reopening of dialogue with Syria regarding the association agreement forms part of this preventative strategy, because another conflict in this region could be even more devastating. Let us be under no illusions. Syria will not break off from Iran in terms of trade, but its highest authorities claim to be prepared to distance themselves from Iran in terms of the Middle East peace process. This is an important step. This is a country with a strong and hardline government, where human rights are not sufficiently respected, and my report discusses these problems quite unambiguously. Having said that, Syria is a great and civilised country that must be treated with respect, dignity and honesty. It could be a stabilising influence in the Middle East and we need it. When Mr Siniora was here, he put forward the scenario of a solution to the problem of the Shebaa farms, and there are other possible points of conciliation. I would advocate that we open up all avenues. I would like to thank my fellow Members from all parties for their valuable assistance in drawing up this recommendation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples