Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-14-Speech-3-293"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071114.33.3-293"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to say, firstly, that I am sorry this is a joint debate because the crisis in Georgia ought to have been the subject of a debate in its own right. Last weekend, the President of this House sent me to Georgia. I have just returned and I should have liked to deliver a report on events there and the various meetings I had. Two minutes – sadly – will not be long enough for me to do that.
Before talking about Georgia, however, I should like to welcome the latest arrival among the European Neighbourhood Policy countries, namely Mauritania – a country which I recently visited as head of our election observation mission there.
What is clear today is that the serious crisis in Georgia has certainly put our European Neighbourhood Policy to the test. Can this neighbourhood policy be really useful? It is now legitimate to ask that question in the light of the situation in Georgia.
What I can tell you, colleagues, is that, four years on from the non-violent Rose Revolution, the communities in Georgia are truly shocked by the violence of which we saw something on our television screens: the violence directed against Georgia’s people and the violence used to close down Imedi TV. They are shocked because they do not understand what is going on.
I am therefore grateful to the Commission for calling on the Georgian authorities to instigate an inquiry – an independent and transparent investigation – because people want to know exactly what happened and how it happened.
We visited the country and, of course, we heard two versions of events: the opposition version and the authorities’ version. Both are admissible. It is very clear that two versions exist, but people are calling for genuine transparency. Obviously we must remember not only, as our colleague reminded us, that Georgia is vulnerable – and we do know that – but also that Georgia has to compromise with a ‘big brother’ constantly lying in wait to catch it out.
When the Georgian authorities draw our attention to Russia’s omnipresence, we need to consider the sort of things that happen. We had an example with our visa facilitation arrangement with Russia, benefiting people from Abkhazia and South Ossetia who hold Russian passports, even though these areas are part of Georgian territory, and thus placing Georgia in an awkward position.
None of this is news to you, Commissioner. What we must demand today – in addition, obviously, to lifting of the state of emergency – is the immediate restoration of freedom of expression and media freedom and of course, most importantly, an assurance that there will be free and transparent elections. Georgia today is capable of organising such elections. It demonstrated that just last year when it held transparent, democratic local elections in full accordance with international standards. It is now time – and I am addressing the Council here, for I believe it has been somewhat harsh with the Georgian authorities – for us, with our European Neighbourhood Policy, to demonstrate that we can be useful. We need to show the people of Georgia that there is some point to the ENP. The European Union must not let them down. That is the message we should convey very strongly to the Georgian authorities."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples