Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-345"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.39.2-345"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that it is to be expected, given the nature of the Union, that we should hear a variety of positions in this House. This debate – and I am delighted to say this – was of a high quality, apart from the remarks by Mr Batten, which I personally found shocking. That speech apart, however, the others have been perfectly legitimate. I would also like to thank Mrs Neyts and Mr Couteaux for their recommendations for reading, which will enable us to enrich our perspective on the relations between Napoleon and Russia, and allow Benita and I to become better acquainted with those between Austria and Russia.
With regard, more fundamentally, to the origin and development of the conflict, I will make three remarks in relation to the EU Presidency: the first is that, obviously, the use of force was an error; the second is that there was a disproportionate reaction by Russia, but, as was emphasised this morning, in order for there to be a reaction, there had to have been some action, even if the reaction remains disproportionate; and the third is that the European Union would like an independent international enquiry on the origin and development of the conflict.
On the extent of the Russian withdrawal and the stability of the Caucasus, I would also like to say that we must not behave as though nothing happened, either. We have been told: ‘The Presidency is acting as though relations were normal’. No, I mean, certain things have happened since August, after all. Two months ago, we were confronted with an armed conflict; on 10 October we were able to observe the Russian withdrawal from the adjacent zones. As I said, this is a vital additional step.
This does not mean that Russia has fulfilled all of its obligations, of this we are fully aware – and I am responding here to the speakers who stressed the problems that are present in the region of Akhalgori – but, at this stage, the most important thing is to embark, now, on a political process. This is the goal of the talks currently under way in Geneva. The message of the European Union is that there must no longer be zones of influence on this continent. The European Union and Russia belong to the same neighbourhood, for the benefit of which we need to cooperate, not to oppose one another.
As regards the resumption of negotiations on the partnership, I would say that the negotiation of the future agreement has been postponed, not suspended, for the legal reasons also referred to during this morning’s debate, and, as the European Council said on 15 October, the continuation of these negotiations will incorporate the assessment that the Commission and the Council have been asked to carry out. This is entirely logical, as Mrs Neyts has moreover emphasised. I would point out that we need to distinguish clearly between the resumption of negotiations and the holding of the European Union-Russia Summit of 14 November. That summit will take place, and, as this debate has shown, it is more important than ever. The summit in itself is not intended to be an exercise in negotiating the future partnership agreement.
I would also like to return to what several speakers said regarding the notion of interdependence. It is true that such interdependence must be seen in a broad sense. It exists in all fields: it exists in the field of energy, obviously, and I would even say that, for certain EU Member States, it is a dependence that we need to solve by diversifying the sources of supply. Moreover, we are also dependent in the field of international security, and it is for this reason that the European Union must not leave unanswered the proposals of the Russian President, Mr Medvedev, in favour of a new European security framework, even if the European Union’s point of view is not necessarily the same as that of Russia.
I would like in this regard to point out, as a number of you have done, our adherence to the Helsinki Final Act and to the Charter of Paris, documents to which Russia is also a signatory, as Mr Onyszkiewicz rightly emphasised. In this context, we clearly need, as several of you have stressed, a sober analysis of our relations with Russia. There is no question of our returning to the Cold War, nor of our compromising our values and our principles. In order to ensure this, however, it is more necessary than ever for us to establish a dialogue with Russia.
I would like to thank all those who have congratulated the French Presidency of the European Union on its work, and especially Mr Wielowieyski and Mr Tannock. The French Presidency acted all the more effectively – and I wish to conclude with this – because it was able to rely on the support of all the Member States, of the European Commission and of this House. Division within the European Union would no doubt be the best way for Russia to weaken the EU.
In light of the very sharp polarisation of the debate between the States that have joined us most recently and the older members of the EU, it should be stressed that, now more than ever, what we need, and this debate has shown it, is unity in our handling of the Georgian crisis, and unity in our dialogue with Russia: unity on the part of the European Union in condemning the use of force by the parties and the violation of territorial integrity; unity of the European Union in its action, that is, in the deployment of civilian observers on the ground; and, finally, unity of the European Union in defining its interests, in particular in the area of energy and in the more global area of international security. It is on the basis of such unity that, when the time comes, negotiations of a future agreement with Russia will resume."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples