Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-11-Speech-3-355"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070711.31.3-355"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been carved up into six internationally recognised states and it looks as though Kosovo will be added to the list soon. What is striking is that the European Union has chosen a different approach for each of these seven states.
Slovenia has been a Member State for more than three years, successful negotiations with Croatia are under way and, since 2005, Macedonia has had the status of candidate country without this being accompanied by any negotiations. As for the other regions, only stabilisation and association have been discussed, in which respect Serbia and Bosnia have incurred major delays because they failed to meet the associated conditions.
This is all in stark contrast to the simultaneous admission in 2004 of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which, until 1991, were occupied by the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which formed a common state until 1993, on the other. I have always argued in favour of at least allowing the accession process of Croatia and Macedonia to coincide as much as possible, and I regret that, due to the delay in negotiations, Macedonia is now lagging behind Croatia by two years.
I am not saying that I think Macedonia is completely ready for accession. The serious environmental pollution and complicated status of trade unions are out of step with the European standard. Problems in the area of corruption and jurisdiction identified among other acceding countries have not been resolved yet either. The role of the state in the abduction and handover to American interrogators of a German citizen has not yet been clarified. In its initial phase, the present government placed a disproportionate level of pressure on economic growth, by, among other things, imposing extremely low taxes capable of ruining the country. These and other problems must be resolved in the next few years.
Two other things, however, have been dominating public opinion and the world of media both inside and outside Macedonia, namely the relationship among the different population groups in that country and the relationship with the neighbouring countries, Greece in particular. Other European states, especially Belgium and Switzerland, but also Spain, Italy and Finland, have shown how it is possible to successfully put residents on an equal footing despite major linguistic and cultural differences within those countries. In the initial years of independence, the impression was created too readily that Macedonia is mainly the state of the people who speak the Macedonian language, which is related to Bulgarian, and Serb to a lesser extent. Meanwhile, it is generally being recognised, fortunately, that education and administration in its own language are crucial for the huge Albanian population group, which makes up the majority in the North West.
Also, closer relations are pursued with future neighbour Kosovo, a country with which many residents have family ties. The recent agreements between the largest government party and the largest party of the Albanian-speaking residents, which had boycotted the parliamentary sittings for months, give hope for reconciliation and an increasingly more equivalent position of the Albanian population. In addition, the members of the much smaller populations, the Roma and Turks being the most well-known, are entitled to equal treatment, participation in decision-making and the holding of government positions. Macedonia now presents itself as a multi-ethnic state, which creates obligations.
Macedonia denotes a geographical region with a long-standing history of changing inhabitants, some of whom now belong to Greece and Bulgaria. The use of the same name for a state which comprises part of the region has created contradictions. Bulgaria, the state that, in 1878, was forced to give back to Turkey much of the part of Macedonia that had already been assigned to its territory, and subsequently had to watch as this area was taken over by Serbia, reconciled with the neighbours that had gained independence and was the first state to recognise the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia.
Its neighbour Greece, on the other hand, has strongly objected to this constitutional name since Macedonia’s independence in 1991. These days, the Greek position is that the name Macedonia is acceptable, provided that another phrase is added which makes it clear that the area concerned is only part of the historical area of Macedonia. The use of this name without any prefixes, certainly if this is accompanied by the use of symbols from Greek-Macedonian history, raises the suspicion in Greece that claim is being made to the territory of three provinces in the north of Greece that carry the same name.
I am not surprised by the invitations which my rapporteurship has yielded to opt unilaterally for one of the conflicting positions of the two neighbouring countries. I remain neutral and believe that both sides together should find a solution for dealing with their long-term difference of opinion in a constructive manner as quickly as possible. This includes agreements in a bid to avoid, and cancel out, any provocations with regard to symbols or maps. Even though public opinion may appeal to the national pride of its politicians on both sides of the border, it also wants tranquillity and cooperation. Without any proper agreements, there is the risk that the accession of Macedonia to the European Union will be delayed unnecessarily, even though its accession is what public opinion both at home and in Greece wants."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples