Indiċi 
 Preċedenti 
 Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
Dibattiti
L-Erbgħa, 28 ta' Settembru 2005 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

24. Riforma tan-Nazzjonijiet Uniti u l-għanijiet tal-Millenju għall-Iżvilupp
MPphoto
 
 

  Πρόεδρος. – Η ημερήσια διάταξη προβλέπει τις δηλώσεις του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τη μεταρρύθμιση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών και τους αναπτυξιακούς στόχους της Χιλιετίας.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, two weeks ago at the 2005 World Summit, our Heads of State and Government met to decide how the international community, through the United Nations, should tackle the world's most pressing problems: the interrelated challenges of development, security and human rights.

The decisions they took after two years of debate and consultation, now enshrined in the so-called outcome document, set the United Nations agenda for the years ahead. The challenges to the world's security and prosperity have been starkly and comprehensively set out by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, head of the United Nations Millennium Project, and by Kofi Annan himself in his In Larger Freedom report. All concluded that until we took urgent action to address poverty, disease, environmental degradation and social injustice, we would not be able to prevent or resolve conflict. We would not be able to build peace, and without peace and security, development cannot take hold. Neither is possible without respect for human rights.

These, as all the Members of this Parliament will know, are not new concepts. Indeed the United Nations was created 60 years ago to build peace and security throughout the world. But the world is very different 60 years on. Through technology and communication, countries are more closely bound together than ever before. That means too that the impact of conflicts and disasters is increasingly global in its reach. We all, therefore, have an overriding interest in working together to secure peace and build prosperity.

Some, I know, were disappointed and frustrated by the results of the World Summit. Many felt that the commitments made did not go far enough. Reaching a consensus amongst 191 nations was never going to be easy. We know that only too well from our own experience with 25.

So we should take heart from the fact that the far-reaching commitments made by G8 leaders in July to increase aid, to reduce debt and to expand trade have essentially been safeguarded at the United Nations summit. As Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General said, and I quote directly, 'taken as a whole, the [UN summit] document is still a remarkable expression of world unity on a wide range of issues'.

Our task now is to ensure that the agreements are implemented. As my Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in New York, if we start implementing with urgency the agreements on doubling aid, on opening up trade and establishing fair-trade rules, on debt relief, on HIV/Aids and malaria and on conflict prevention and stopping genocide, we would have more democracy, less oppression, more freedom, less terrorism, more growth, less poverty.

I am proud that the European Union was at the forefront of efforts to reach consensus on all of the issues under debate. We had many priorities for the summit across the four so-called clusters of development, peace and collective security, human rights and the rule of law, and strengthening the United Nations.

I believe that the conclusions reached at the summit set us out on the right path towards improvements in all of these areas, as long as the momentum is sustained and as long as we act now. The interest and commitment shown by Members of this Parliament towards improvements in these areas is truly admirable and was demonstrated in the expertise of the European Parliament delegation who attended the summit, led by co-Chairmen Nirj Deva and Michel Rocard.

The summit secured firm and unambiguous commitments from both donor and developing countries on what is needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals. It strengthened the partnership between developed and developing countries set out at Monterey and consolidated all the achievements of this year so far. It broadened the consensus around the commitments established back in July at the Gleneagles summit to 191 countries, in particular the need to accelerate progress towards the Millennium Goals in Africa and to make international progress once again on climate change. It also agreed, as set out clearly in the outcome document, that development must be sustainable and take account of its impact on the global environment.

Under the UK's Presidency, the European Council has continued to press for more international action to increase development aid in the fight against poverty and deprivation. We, the European Union, are already easily the world's largest aid donor: 80% of the extra USD 5 billion of aid pledged at the G8 summit in Gleneagles will come from Europe.

We have also made a historic commitment to double aid to Africa by 2010. We have spearheaded the important agreements reached this year to reduce debt and launch global immunisation programmes against illnesses and diseases in the poorest countries.

There has of course been criticism that not enough progress was made on trade, back at that summit in July. But it will ultimately be through the Doha Development Round that the international community can and must deliver real gains for poor countries by abolishing export subsidies and reducing all barriers to trade, including trade-distorting domestic support. We will work as hard as we can to ensure that political leaders focus on getting results at the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December and indeed focus on these issues before the December Hong Kong ministerial meeting.

As my Prime Minister has said, if we end up with a failure in December, that will echo right round the world. To make progress on development we need peace and security. As Kofi Annan set out in his document, In Larger Freedom: 'We will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights.'

The summit agreed to establish a new peace-building commission, which will bring together United Nations member states, UN agencies and the international financial institutions to close a critical gap in the UN's ability to help countries emerging from conflict to make that vital transition to long-term stability and avoid relapsing into war. You know, as Members of this Parliament, that the European Union is committed to meeting the summit deadline of establishing the commission by the end of this year.

More could have been said in the summit document regarding terrorism. The strong condemnation of terrorism 'in all its forms and manifestations' was certainly a welcome political statement. But we must now work on fulfilling our pledge to conclude the comprehensive convention on terrorism by September 2006. That will mean agreeing on a legal definition of terrorist acts, something that all of our governments have a real interest in securing. Despite the summit's failure to reach agreement on measures for non-proliferation and disarmament, I can assure Parliament that we will continue to work to move forward the agenda on these important issues.

Ensuring respect for human rights lies at the very heart of the United Nations mission. We are fully supportive, therefore, of the creation of a new human rights council to replace the maligned Commission on Human Rights. We must urgently agree on its size, its mandate and composition so that it can begin its work and ensure that human rights are once again at the core of all UN activity.

Perhaps the decision of greatest significance to emerge from that summit was the agreement on 'the responsibility to protect' – a political commitment that the international community has a duty to act when states cannot or will not protect their populations from the worst atrocities: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is an important recognition that in today's world we cannot fail to act when vulnerable populations face these terrible atrocities.

We must also work to strengthen the United Nations Secretariat, to make it a more effective and efficient body. We should begin by encouraging Kofi Annan to use the executive powers he already holds to effect change from within the organisation. But we, as member states, also have a key responsibility to ensure that the United Nations is structured and equipped to meet today's and tomorrow's challenges. The European Council welcomed the commitments to reform the main UN bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council. If the UN is to be effective it has to work collectively with all of its members. That means winning their support. UN organisations must therefore be representative, open and efficient.

We will continue to work on improving the effectiveness of the General Assembly and Ecosoc in particular. We particularly welcome the mandate given to the Secretary-General to consider longer-term reform of the UN's development, humanitarian assistance and environment organisations so that their work is better managed and better coordinated.

To be effective the United Nations must have the resources that it needs, but it cannot afford to waste funds on inefficiency and duplication of effort. The European Union fully supports the long-standing principle of budgetary discipline. We are therefore seeking to adopt a budget for the next financial year that will enable the Secretary-General and the United Nations to deliver what its members ask and expect, including under the new mandates agreed at the summit in New York.

The key to the success of that 2005 Millennium Review Summit and the UN's reform programme in general is, of course, implementation. Some of the proposals will be explored in the Committee of the General Assembly, in session from now until the end of this year. Others will be taken forward independently. The European Union will again be at the forefront of this process. We, as United Nations member states, are responsible now for turning words into action.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I was proud to be at the Millennium Summit and at the ministerial week that followed. It was the biggest gathering of world leaders ever seen and I hope it will usher in a new era of international cooperation. Despite all the criticism – which I myself also made – we must clearly state that the United Nations lies at the bedrock of modern world order.

The outcome – as my colleague has mentioned already – has been mixed, but the glass is half full and not half empty. The European Union was very ambitious and took the lead, together with President Jean Ping of the United Nations General Assembly. In the end, we could not achieve everything we wanted. That is normal at multilateral gatherings. One has high ambitions but in the end one has to compromise.

Having said that, there are a number of very important achievements and other matters on which we were disappointed. What were the achievements? For the Commission it was remarkable to have the Millennium Development Goals enshrined in the Millennium Declaration. That was thanks to my colleague Mr Michel. I am happy to say that the European Union has set the example with 0.56% up to 2010 and 0.7% up to 2015. That showed that other colleagues, especially from the developing countries, were very happy about it. This reaffirmation of acknowledgement of the Millennium Development Goals as a galvanizing framework for development efforts has been achieved for the first time at an intergovernmental level.

The second great achievement was the endorsement of the principle of responsibility to protect populations from atrocities. This was a major success because it redefines the concept of sovereignty as a positive concept, putting human beings at the core of security concerns. That should enhance the credibility of the international community, and the United Nations means to act in the face of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I come from a country close to the Balkans and remember the Kosovo intervention. That intervention has in a way triggered this new development of international law and, for the first time, this enshrining of the development goals.

The third achievement was the Peace-building Commission, which is an important concrete result that should make the international community’s response to the needs of countries dealing with the aftermath of conflicts more effective and coordinated. The Commission has been working with all the same factors, from humanitarian efforts to reconstruction efforts and institution building, to trade and all questions surrounding democracy and human rights; from military peacekeeping missions to election observation missions. All that will now be coordinated in the Peace-building Commission and we therefore feel that the Commission there has to have its place at the table.

There are other matters on which I personally was disappointed. The first of these relates to the Human Rights Council. It was more of a name change than a real achievement, but at least the principle has been accepted and we hope that together we can work to make the new human rights architecture a better, more crucial one, together with the new President of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson. It is important to have a strong, credible, standing institution comprising Member States that have a human rights credit.

On the other hand, there were some positive steps on human rights, such as the doubling of the budget for the Human Rights Special High Representative, which opens up the possibility of direct action in the field. I also note with encouragement that the summit outcome contains a resolution to 'strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery with the aim of ensuring effective enjoyment by all of human rights'.

Another negative point was the whole question of disarmament. It was described by the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan as nothing less than a disgrace. We clearly have to go on working on that very important item.

There are two further questions, one of which is the environment. Environmental sustainability is instrumental in our fight against poverty, for stabilisation and for greater security. Especially now, with the tsunami, Katrina and Rita, and floods in the European Union, a real United Nations environmental organisation would have been the right response by the international community.

Finally, a word on the United Nations management reforms. I think it is very important that the Secretary-General not only has accountability and responsibility, but also gets the authority to lead this management reform and be able to implement it.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Francisco José Millán Mon, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE. Señor Presidente, yo coincido con la Comisaria, señora Ferrero-Waldner, en que la Cumbre de Nueva York arroja un resultado diverso y heterogéneo, en el que elementos positivos están acompañados de otros negativos.

En todo caso, tengo una sensación de alivio ante el documento final de la Cumbre, porque, en efecto, no puedo olvidar que hace dos años la comunidad internacional estaba muy dividida y las Naciones Unidas atravesaban una etapa de bloqueo. Es más, incluso horas antes de que se abriese la Cumbre, parecía difícil llegar a un documento final que contuviera algo más que simples generalidades.

Afortunadamente, se ha podido alcanzar un acuerdo sobre un documento que contiene logros sustantivos, aunque ciertamente también recoge insuficiencias y fracasos.

Quiero destacar —como lo ha hecho la Comisaria— que, por ejemplo, la Cumbre ha logrado una importante reafirmación de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio.

En lo relativo a la seguridad, yo llegaría al mismo diagnóstico: es lamentable el nulo resultado obtenido en "no proliferación y desarme".

En materia de lucha contra el terrorismo —tema tan importante—, creo que los avances son muy escasos. No hemos podido redactar siquiera una definición de mínimos del acto de terrorismo con la que toda la comunidad internacional pudiera estar de acuerdo. El aspecto positivo es, desde luego, y como ya se ha mencionado, la creación de la Comisión de Consolidación de la Paz.

En el área de la reforma de las Naciones Unidas, creo que a nadie sorprende el fracaso de la reforma del Consejo de Seguridad. En la comunidad internacional hay profundas y, aparentemente, insuperables divisiones a este respecto. En la propia Unión Europea carecemos de una posición común. Lo único que quiero subrayar aquí es que la mayoría de este Parlamento, en su Resolución de junio de este año, se pronunció a favor de un asiento para la Unión Europea.

En otra gran área, como son los derechos humanos, celebro —como han señalado el representante del Consejo y la Comisaria— el reconocimiento del derecho o deber de protección de la comunidad internacional en caso de genocidio. Pero, en esta misma área de derechos humanos, lamentablemente, sólo se ha adoptado la decisión de crear el Consejo de Derechos Humanos, sin más detalle. Por consiguiente, mucho me temo que la puesta en marcha de la negociación para delimitar el mandato del Consejo, sus miembros y la forma de elección se demore mucho.

En resumen, creo que queda mucho por hacer, pero lo cierto es que tras la Cumbre —y estoy terminando, señor Presidente— existe una base sobre la que seguir construyendo. La ocasión del 60 aniversario de la creación de las Naciones Unidas era muy propicia para reagrupar a la comunidad internacional y adaptarla a los retos del nuevo siglo.

Espero que los pasos dados puedan traducirse en algunos avances a lo largo de este año tan decisivo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glenys Kinnock, on behalf of the PSE Group. Mr President, I wish to begin by welcoming the President-in-Office – who, I know full well, is a very committed internationalist himself – to this debate. I thank the Commissioner for the support she gave us in the delegation that attended the summit in New York.

As you have all mentioned, NGOs and others have been somewhat critical of the Outcome Document of the summit. However, I would argue, as you have done, for a more measured approach in the assessment that we make and would agree that we should describe it as a glass half-full. I also believe that exaggerated accusations of failure will not help to create the right incentives for policy makers to take risks and take action.

In the Outcome Document there are strong commitments on how we should meet the MDGs by 2015. However, one of the things I regret is that global target 8 is not strong enough to ensure that countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada or Italy are not let off the hook and to keep pressure on them to do the same as the European Union has done. Promises of 0.7% are simply not enough and, therefore, we need to see action from these countries and others.

I also welcome – as I am sure the President-in-Office does – the strong reference in the document to the need for innovative sources of finance to be sought in order to meet the MDGs.

I also believe that the endorsement given by George Bush to the MDGs represents significant progress – perhaps the best progress of the week. Perhaps self-interest is pushing the United States along that multilateral road that many of us believe it is not prepared to take.

I am also keen to acknowledge that in the Outcome Document they make a very clear link between security, development and conflict resolution in the measures that they take. It also clearly identifies the responsibilities of both developed and developing countries. The EU development policy statement is now the appropriate vehicle for us to move this forward and to show that we firmly believe in the need to rebuild, in Europe and elsewhere, that strong sense of unity, purpose and action. The document is also strong on governance and the rule of law, which are very important aspects of our work with developing countries.

You have mentioned the Peace-building Commission – which is very important – and peace-making, peace-keeping and peace-building. I regret that the Human Rights Council is now going into the General Assembly, where it will be subject to wrangling and horse-trading. Therefore, again, the European Union has a role to play in pushing this forward in a positive way.

Most of all, I welcome the fact that we now have collective responsibility to protect civilians against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and all crimes against humanity. Now we look forward to the proof that in the future the UN will be able to avoid those failures that we so tragically saw in Bosnia and Rwanda.

On reform issues, we regret that the Secretary-General will continue to be micro-managed by the member states of the United Nations.

The biggest disappointment is the failure to address the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That means that we now have a yawning gap in our international arrangements and the EU again must apply pressure to move this forward.

Finally, I wish to refer to the amendment tabled by the PSE Group on sexual and reproductive health rights. This is an important position for us to take if we are to meet the Millennium Development Goals. It underpins all those goals, particularly on HIV/AIDS and maternal and child mortality. I trust that this Parliament will reinstate this in the text; that we will commit ourselves, as we did in the vote on my report on the Millennium Development Goals, to this important aspect. This Parliament should then subsequently support the international legitimacy of the UN. In 1945 the stakes were high for the policy makers; the stakes are high now, but the reasons for moving forward are just as great as they were then.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Lambsdorff, im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion. Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Wir Europäer sind uns einig, die Welt braucht die Vereinten Nationen, mehr noch, die Welt braucht starke Vereinte Nationen.

Selten in ihrer sechzigjährigen Geschichte stand die UNO derart im Mittelpunkt der Öffentlichkeit, selten ging es dabei um wichtigere und notwendigere Reformen als in diesem Jahr.

Was im Abschlussdokument letztlich erreicht wurde, ist nicht zufrieden stellend. Trotzdem ist meine Fraktion, die Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten für Europa, der Auffassung, dass die Fortschritte gewürdigt und Nicht-Erreichtes, noch intensiver als bisher diskutiert werden muss.

Das Glas ist halb voll. Die EU hat nun die Aufgabe dazu beizutragen, es ganz zu füllen. Das Europäische Parlament insbesondere muss das Ergebnis des Gipfels als Chance begreifen. Wir sehen das Parlament als einen der Mitgestalter des weiteren Reformprozesses. Wir als Parlamentarier haben die Schlüssel in der Hand, die Akzeptanz der UNO in der Bevölkerung zu sichern und zu stärken, die Demokratisierung der Organisation erfolgreich voranzutreiben und vor allem dafür zu sorgen, dass Millionen Menschen Zugang zu Nahrung, sauberem Wasser und verbesserten Gesundheitsdiensten erhalten.

Wir müssen die Millennium-Entwicklungsziele umsetzen. Der Fortschritt der Mitgliedstaaten ist hier unbefriedigend. Das Abschlussdokument des Gipfels enthält keinen präzisen Zeitplan, der die Staaten an ihre Verpflichtungen bindet. Das ist enttäuschend. Auf der anderen Seite steht – und Glenys Kinnock hat es erwähnt – das in dieser Klarheit unerwartete Bekenntnis der USA zu den Millenniumszielen – eine sehr positive Entwicklung, auf die wir aufbauen müssen. Ich denke, Glenys, wir sollten unsere amerikanischen Freunde hier beim Wort nehmen.

Meine Fraktion bewertet die Schaffung einer peace building commission sehr positiv. Das ist eine Entscheidung, die das Profil der UNO in Krisenregionen stärken wird. Die Aufgabe der EU muss es sein, wertvolle Hilfestellung zu deren Aufbau und Arbeitsweise zu geben. Die EU ist einer der größten peace builder weltweit, als Geber, als Helfer und als politische Kraft. Das muss übrigens im UN-System noch sehr viel deutlicher werden als bisher. Wir freuen uns, dass wir uns hier mit Ihnen so einig sind, Frau Kommissarin.

Ein erster Schritt, zu dem ich auch gerne eine Stellungnahme der Kommission und des Rates hätte, wäre eine Zusammenlegung der Vertretungen des Rates und der Kommission in New York und an den anderen UNO-Standorten.

Eine weitere wichtige Funktion sieht die ALDE-Fraktion in der Demokratieförderung. Die Einrichtung eines Demokratiefonds ist ein wichtiger Schritt in die richtige Richtung, weitere Maßnahmen könnten die Einrichtung eines caucus of democracies innerhalb der Generalversammlung sein. Auch über eine parlamentarische Versammlung ist nachzudenken.

Klar ist, dass die Reform der UNO nicht abgeschlossen ist und konsequent fortgesetzt werden muss. Das gilt besonders für den Sicherheitsrat. Die Vorschläge von Kofi Annan sind bekannt. Es ist jetzt an der Generalversammlung, sich bis Ende dieses Jahres für einen zu entscheiden. Wir hier halten darüber hinaus die Vision eines ständigen Sitzes für die Europäische Union aufrecht, sobald die politischen, rechtlichen und verfassungsmäßigen Voraussetzungen hierfür vorliegen. Dies betonen wir erneut in unserer Entschließung, über die wir morgen abstimmen werden.

Wir können es uns nicht erlauben, die UNO aus der zweiten Reihe agieren zu lassen. Sie muss an vorderster Stelle stehen. Denn nur sie hat die Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen unserer Zeit multilateral und in globalem Maßstab zu meistern. Das Europäische Parlament muss sie auf diesem Weg unterstützen, denn wir brauchen starke Vereinte Nationen. Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, dass wir diese Debatte in Brüssel führen sollten und nicht in Straßburg.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frithjof Schmidt, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Minister, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Man muss es einmal klar aussprechen: Die Vereinten Nationen haben die historische Chance zu einer systematischen Reform hier gerade verpasst. Das Ergebnis ist enttäuschend, und die gute Vorarbeit von Kofi Annan ist nicht in einen wirklichen Erfolg umgesetzt worden.

In vier Schlüsselbereichen ist die Reform gescheitert. Es gibt keine Reform des Sicherheitsrates, die wirklich zu einer regionalen Repräsentanz führt. Es gibt kein Konzept zur Abrüstung und gegen die Weiterverbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen. Es ist nicht gelungen, eine UN-Umweltorganisation zu schaffen. Ich füge hinzu: Gerade vor den Herausforderungen der internationalen Klimapolitik ist das ein ganz schwerwiegendes Versäumnis. Wir haben hier kein wirkliches Instrument für die Politik der Vereinten Nationen. Es ist auch nicht gelungen, den Wirtschafts- und Sozialrat – gerade vor den großen Herausforderungen, die wir in der Entwicklungspolitik haben – weiterzuentwickeln. Deswegen gilt heute der Satz: Nach der Reform ist vor der Reform.

Aber es gibt natürlich auch Fortschritte, an die wir anknüpfen können. Es ist gut, dass es einen UN-Menschenrechtsrat gibt, dass er eingerichtet wird, auch wenn seine Zusammensetzung noch nicht klar ist. Es ist gut, dass die Mittel für den Hochkommissar für Menschenrechte verdoppelt werden. Es ist gut, dass es die Kommission für peace building geben wird. Es ist gut, dass die Millenniums-Entwicklungsziele bekräftigt wurden und verschiedene Aktionsprogramme und Solidaritätsfonds geschaffen werden.

Vor diesem Hintergrund gibt es eine konkrete Herausforderung für die Europäische Union. Ich möchte deshalb den Rat und die Kommission auffordern, einen präzisen Aktionsplan vorzulegen, wie sich die Europäische Union konkret finanziell und organisatorisch an der Umsetzung dieser Maßnahmen beteiligen will. Es geht jetzt darum, nach dem Gipfel der großen Worte die Vereinten Nationen konkret materiell zu unterstützen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Portas, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. Também eu gostaria de dizer que o copo se encontra meio cheio, mas toda a gente aqui sabe que não é verdade. A cimeira foi um fracasso. É certo que a cimeira reafirmou os modestos objectivos do Milénio, mas foi proibida de passar das palavras aos actos. Alguém impediu que os países doadores se comprometessem com metas claras em matéria de ajuda financeira. De concreto o que temos é um copo cheio de palavras e uma mão cheia de nada.

A assembleia ensaiou também votos piedosos contra a proliferação das armas nucleares, mas muitos impedem o compromisso com uma estratégia de desarmamento. Sem ela, o clube nuclear continuará inevitavelmente a proliferar. A assembleia também queria uma reforma das Nações Unidas, mas alguém fez tudo para que tudo fique na mesma. Esse alguém tem nome: John Bolton, a voz autorizada do império nas Nações Unidas.

A Senhora Comissária referiu o "Katrina". Entre a tragédia de Nova Orleães e o fracasso de Nova Iorque há, de facto, um elo evidente - é a administração norte-americana. Em Nova Orleães, a lei é simples: quem tem carro safa-se, quem não tem lixa-se. No mundo idealizado pelo imperador também é assim. Washington não quer ouvir falar de pobres, porque nem dos seus trata, para a Casa Branca os pobres são pura e simplesmente uma perda de tempo e de dinheiro.

Senhor Presidente, o meu grupo votará favoravelmente a resolução porque, embora tímida, vai na direcção certa, porque precisamos de Nações Unidas fortes e valorizamos tudo o que se possa fazer por isso. Mas entendamo-nos: só teremos Nações Unidas credíveis quando a Europa e o resto do mundo enviarem a Washington os sinais correctos. Hoje falou-se aqui grosso sobre a Turquia, gostaria de ver igual altivez em relação a Washington.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hélène Goudin, för IND/DEM-gruppen. Herr talman! Junilistan är vän av FN och anser att denna organisation kan få god kapacitet att bidra med konstruktiva lösningar på internationella konflikter. Vi anser dock inte att EU och dess parlament skall diktera hur FN skall arbeta och vad som bör vara organisationens målsättningar. Debatten om FN:s framtid skall föras mellan FN:s medlemsländer och i bredare internationella sammanhang än det europeiska. Vi är kritiska mot förslaget att EU skall representeras med en gemensam plats i FN:s säkerhetsråd. Vi stödjer inte heller parlamentets vilja att upprätta gemensamma EU-delegationer vid FN:s olika högkvarter. EU:s medlemsländer har skilda synsätt på de frågor som behandlas av FN och dess säkerhetsråd.

Sverige, till exempel, har spelat en viktig roll i FN som brobyggare mellan fattiga och rika länder, som medlare och som pådrivare för nedrustning. Det visar ju att även små länder har en viktig roll att spela i FN och i internationell politik. Vi befarar att de små ländernas röster inte kommer att höras om EU skall tala med en röst i FN-sammanhang. Vilken av EU:s 25 röster skulle då tala genom denna gemensamma plats? Om det vore så att EU kunde tala med en gemensam röst i FN-sammanhang, varför försvarar då Storbritannien och Frankrike sina nuvarande permanenta platser i säkerhetsrådet? Varför eftersträvar Tyskland att erhålla en plats i säkerhetsrådet? Sanningen är att EU-länderna inte har någon enhetlig syn på internationella politiska frågor. Detta har visat sig vid åtskilliga tillfällen, inte minst i samband med USA:s intervention i Irak. Låt oss bejaka det mångfasetterade Europa och låt oss arbeta för att samtliga röster skall höras i debatten.

Applåder

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inese Vaidere, UEN grupas vārdā. - Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Godātie kolēģi! Aktīvu diskusiju rezultātā Eiropas Parlaments maijā pieņēma rezolūciju par ANO reformu. Parlaments cita starpā aicināja pildīt solījumus, sniegt palīdzību jaunattīstības valstīm, panākt vienošanos par kopīgu terorisma definīciju, pieņemt rīcības plānu genocīda novēršanai un reformēt arī Drošības padomi, kura joprojām atspoguļo pēckara situāciju pasaulē. No tā nekas netika panākts. Savukārt nedaudzās panāktās vienošanās ir kompromisu caurvītas un visdrīzāk nebūs pietiekami efektīvas. ANO reformas jautājumā pašlaik ir vairāk neveiksmju nekā sasniegumu.

Šāds rezultāts liek uzdot jautājumu, vai Eiropas Savienība ir spēcīgs globāls spēlētājs. Atbilde ir acīmredzama. Eiropas Savienība nav darbojusies pietiekami efektīvi. Tāpēc es vēlētos aicināt Eiropas Komisiju izvērtēt ANO reformas rezultātus no Eiropas Savienības perspektīvas, kā arī domāt par to, kā koordinēt turpmākās aktivitātes ar citām valstīm, lai lēmumi, kas pieņemti pie mums, nepaliktu tikai rezolūcijās. Šajā situācijā ir arī būtiski izvērtēt, vai ANO vispār ir spējīga pati sevi reformēt, varbūt ir vajadzīga jauna līdzīga tipa organizācija. Bet tā ir tālāka nākotne. Tieši pašreiz ir svarīgi izstrādāt stratēģiju, kā sasniegt iepriekš nospraustos mērķus, lai ANO pilnvērtīgi varētu kalpot mūsdienu pasaules drošībai un labklājībai.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Irena Belohorská (NI). Každý bude súhlasiť, že reforma Spojených národov je nutná. Problémom je len to, aká by to mala byť reforma. Súhlasíme, že systém Spojených národov je príliš komplexný a že je potrebné ho zefektívniť, avšak myslím si, že najväčším problémom nie je reforma orgánov OSN, ale neschopnosť dosiahnuť dohodu na politickej úrovni medzi členmi OSN, keďže existujú fundamentálne názorové rozdiely na činnosť OSN ako takú. Niektorí členovia si želajú silnú OSN, niektorí sa tejto sile bránia, a práve toto znemožňuje dosiahnutie akejkoľvek dohody.

Viac ma však zaujíma záväzok OSN dosiahnuť takzvané ciele vývoja tisícročia, teda znížiť na polovicu chudobu, hlad, boj proti malárii, chorobám, ako je HIV/AIDS a ďalej rešpektovanie ľudských práv, menovite ženských práv. Zatiaľ čo OSN sa zaviazala k naplneniu týchto cieľov do roku 2015, chudoba sa neznižuje, ale práve naopak, vzrastá. Odhaduje sa, že ak budeme pokračovať terajším tempom, dosiahneme ciele vývoja tisícročia za sto rokov.

V septembri tohto roku som sa ako jediná z inštitúcií Európskej únie zúčastnila konferencie o ženských právach v Číne. Bola to takzvaná Konferencia Peking +10. Prvá konferencia bola v sedemdesiatom piatom a potom sa každých desať rokov uskutočnila ďalšia. Je zaujímavé, že od roku 1995 nebol žiaden zo štátov sveta schopný zorganizovať piatu konferenciu o problematike žien. Pýtam sa, či Európska únia nemá záujem o informácie, ako sa deklarácie, ku ktorým sa hlásime, implementujú, a ako sa pomoc, hlavne finančná, niektorým štátom zo strany Európskej únie využíva.

Na dosiahnutie cieľov milénia do roku 2015 sa finančná pomoc musí viac ako zdvojnásobiť. Európska únia, ktorá je významným donorom, musí monitorovať, ako je táto pomoc využitá. A to tak, aby nebola pomoc zneužitá na iné účely, aby daná krajina rešpektovala dodržiavanie ľudských práv. Ak nerešpektuje ľudské práva, finančná pomoc by mala byť odňatá. Ak však nebudeme participovať na konferenciách a nebudeme počúvať, aké problémy vznikajú pri implementácii, naša pomoc na nákup liekov a budovanie škôl bude možno využitá na nákup zbraní alebo nábor detí do armády.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). Mr President, I wish to thank the President-in-Office and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner for the excellent work they have already done at the UN. I was privileged to co-chair the delegation to the UN with my distinguished colleague, Michel Rocard, the former Prime Minister of France.

We need a United Nations which reflects the shared values of ordinary people and which delivers them. Today we live in a global market full of images. The tsunami in Indonesia, the floods in New Orleans and terrorism in London become local events: local in my village, in my reality, in my home and among my friends. This is 'unity through diversity', not 'one-size fits all'. How can the UN exist in this brave new world and still be relevant? The UN has no legislative powers, nor is it a world government. It is merely an organisation that delivers. The best thing to have happened to the United Nations, in hindsight, is the United States suddenly having become more serious about its delivery capability.

Business as usual is therefore no longer an option and Messrs Ping and Annan have done excellent work in starting the process of reform. Excellent work is already being done by the UN's specialised agencies such as the WHO, UNDP, the World Food Programme, the IMO and the ICO, but even here there is scope for an in-depth review to ensure best value for money and the highest quality of management.

Those organisations may be delivering, but the UN process itself in New York is not. That must change. We should limit the process in New York and instead focus on UN agencies as outputs. We need to draw upon best-practice in government and large corporations. A long-range planning group should be established to predict crisis situations well in advance.

Poverty, disease, conflict and despair are often the result of poor national governance. We should help to increase capacity and give aid to those who can use it wisely.

I am pleased to announce that the European Parliament, through the Committee on Development and Cooperation has already proposed that an amount of around EUR 2 million be allocated under the budget for quick-win impacts and also, following a meeting with the Commissioner in New York, for the Peace Building Commission.

An effective system of international governance and justice is one that brings to justice those who have committed crimes against humanity. We also have a right to protect. UN peacekeepers must be better trained, and under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, they could have right of enforcement powers for conflict resolution.

Mr President, I wish to say that this has been a very important and excellent debate. Thank you.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jo Leinen (PSE). Herr Präsident! Der UNO-Gipfel ist zwar nicht gescheitert, aber ich pflichte doch vielen Kollegen bei, dass er enttäuschend war. Dank des Engagements der Europäer und vieler Entwicklungsländer sind doch konkrete Ergebnisse herausgekommen. Man kann hoffen, dass die Generalversammlung in den nächsten Monaten noch weitere Fortschritte bringt.

Die größte Enttäuschung ist für mich der Mangel an Verpflichtungen zur Abrüstung in der Welt. Die Menschheit gibt jährlich 1 000 Milliarden Euro für Rüstung aus und 60 Milliarden Euro für Entwicklungshilfe. Wenn jemand von einem fremden Stern auf diese Erde schauen würde, so würde er sagen, dass diese Menschheit sich vernichten und nicht überleben will. Da ist die Frage an Kommission und Rat: Was tun die Europäer, damit eine Initiative ergriffen wird, um diesen Mangel an Abrüstung – vor allem der Massenvernichtungswaffen – wettzumachen? Ich finde es auch schade, dass die Reform der Organe der UNO fast nicht gelungen ist. Der Generalsekretär ist kaum gestärkt worden. Die Generalversammlung hat sich nicht reformieren können, und der Sicherheitsrat ist ein reiner Anachronismus. Hier ist doch erstaunlich, dass die Afrikanische Union anscheinend besser funktioniert als die Europäische Union. Die 53 afrikanischen Staaten hatten konkrete Vorstellungen, wer von diesem Kontinent im Sicherheitsrat sitzen soll. Die Europäer sind sich diesbezüglich nicht einig und haben vielleicht auch dazu beigetragen, dass der Sicherheitsrat nicht erweitert werden konnte. Daher auch die Frage an Kommission und Rat: Was tun die Europäer, um diesen Mangel zu beseitigen?

Mein letzter Punkt: Demokratisierung der UNO. Nach 60 Jahren kann es nicht allein den Regierungen überlassen bleiben. Wir brauchen eine parlamentarische Komponente. Die Interparlamentarische Union ist zwar gut und schön, aber sie reicht nicht. Eine parlamentarische Versammlung ist irgendwann nötig, weil die Zivilgesellschaft der Union in der UNO besser aufgehoben ist als die Bürgerkammern, und das kann so nicht bleiben.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lapo Pistelli (ALDE). Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il mio collega e amico Lambsdorff è già intervenuto a nome del gruppo e fatemi scherzare così a nome della componente liberale del gruppo, descrivendo il bicchiere mezzo pieno. Tocca a me, forse perché faccio parte della componente democratica del medesimo gruppo, provare a riflettere un po' sulla parte mezza vuota del bicchiere.

Tutti noi abbiamo sperimentato una contraddizione in queste settimane: nel mondo esiste una crescente attenzione, mai come in passato, sul ruolo dell'ONU, sul ruolo dell'Europa. C'è una grande domanda, eppure le volte in cui abbiamo la chance di rispondere a quella crescente aspettativa, manchiamo il risultato.

Il documento da noi approvato alle Nazioni Unite non era un documento per aprire una riflessione sull'ONU, doveva implementare una discussione che aveva già due anni di vita. Invece sappiamo che, tra agosto e settembre, alcuni temi difficili sono scomparsi dal tavolo, altri sono stati ribaditi solo in termini di principio, e lì ci siamo fermati, altri ancora sono stati rinviati a negoziati successivi. Questo è lo stato delle cose.

Nessuna riforma del Consiglio di sicurezza, nessun passo in avanti nel rapporto tra disarmo e non proliferazione, nessuna condanna chiara del terrorismo ma una definizione vaga del terrorismo, un organo come l'Human Right Council esiste solo in termini di principio; anche ciò che è stato presentato come un grande avanzamento, cioè la nuova norma del right to protect, se uno la legge attentamente, si rende conto che, avendo scritto in quel documento che il Consiglio di Sicurezza valuterà su una base caso per caso, vuol dire che siamo come a prima del Ruanda.

Non è cambiato niente, abbiamo detto che esiste un principio, ma ogni volta dovremo stabilire se in quel caso si applica. Cosa significa tutto questo? Che anche se noi abbiamo ribadito gli Obiettivi del Millennio abbiamo mancato a un'occasione. Il documento è un po' simile al nostro lavoro in Europa, non siamo in crisi, la burocrazia funziona, produciamo documenti. Produciamo migliaia di decisioni, ma spesso sono le decisioni che i cittadini non si aspettano da noi e non siamo in grado di produrre le decisioni che i cittadini si aspettano da noi.

Questo è il nostro problema. Un documento di trentacinque pagine che rimuove i punti più difficili, non è un documento di successo: è un documento che affoga le sue difficoltà dentro la quantità e allora l'unica cosa che voglio dire è che questo Summit ha testimoniato, invece, quanto ci sia bisogno, oggi, che l'Europa conti come un'unità politica, come una singola unità politica dove noi pesiamo in termini commerciali perché abbiamo una volontà univoca. Abbiamo un ruolo nel mondo, là dove siamo divisi in venticinque non ne abbiamo o ne abbiamo molto di meno di quanto pensiamo.

Siamo in piena pausa di riflessione, dopo le bocciature referendarie, non facciamo in modo che questa pausa di riflessione diventi una siesta messicana, svegliamoci un po' prima.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). Señor Presidente, estimados y estimadas colegas, seamos claros: la Cumbre sobre la reforma de las Naciones Unidas supuso globalmente una enorme decepción para quienes creemos en esta institución y, sobre todo, en sus principios fundacionales.

La Cumbre concluyó —es cierto y se ha dicho— con algunos compromisos positivos, pero quedaron fuera aspectos clave —como también se ha dicho—,como, por ejemplo, la reforma del Consejo de Seguridad.

Las propuestas que sometió a discusión el Secretario General, Kofi Annan, eran buenas y razonables, pero además eran urgentes y había que apoyarlas, y por ello lamento, y así tengo que decirlo, que la Unión Europea haya sucumbido a las presiones estadounidenses, para aguar, así, lo que debía haber sido una oportunidad histórica.

En particular es preocupante la falta de compromisos para mejorar y fortalecer la gobernanza global en cuestiones ecológicas, sociales y económicas, pero también la retirada de las conclusiones del capítulo relativo al desarme y a la no proliferación. Y tampoco se dice nada de algo tan urgente y tan necesario como la adopción de un tratado internacional sobre armas, siendo la proliferación de armas la principal causa de muchas muertes en el mundo.

Por todo ello, yo tengo que pedir al Consejo y a la Comisión que, de ahora en adelante, la valentía y la osadía para defender estos principios se materialicen en medidas concretas y, como decía mi colega Schmidt, en un plan de acción que defina claramente cuál debe ser la postura de la Unión Europea, para no sucumbir —insisto— otra vez más ante las presiones estadounidenses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL). Herr Präsident! Hier findet im Moment die Debatte darüber statt, wie voll denn das Glas sei. Ich kann nur offen sagen, in dem Glas ist fast nichts drin, es gibt nichts zu trinken, und das sollte hier allgemein akzeptiert werden.

Dieser UN-Gipfel ist umfassend gescheitert. Das, was geplant war, wurde nicht erreicht. Das sieht man sehr gut an der Veränderung dieser Abschlussresolution, wenn man sich anschaut, wie sie am Anfang ausgesehen hat, und wie jetzt am Ende ein ganz dünnes Papier übrig geblieben ist.

Bei einem Punkt allerdings bin ich froh, dass er nicht verabschiedet wurde. Er betrifft nämlich das, was die hochrangige Gruppe, die Kofi Annan einen Bericht übergeben hat, vorgeschlagen hat. Sie wollte für die Vereinten Nationen ein Präventivkriegskonzept verankern, und damit hätte sie die Grundidee der Vereinten Nationen kaputtgemacht. Dieses Präventivkriegskonzept findet sich nicht mehr konkret, sondern nur noch angedeutet in Ziffer 92. Da bin ich sehr froh, dass das nicht mehr der Fall ist.

Frau Ferrero-Waldner, wenn Sie sagen, der Kosovo-Krieg habe hierfür quasi den Anlass gegeben, dann liegt doch genau darin das Problem: Das war ein Völkerrechtsbruch, und das ist genau das, was wir nicht wollen. Das Völkerrecht sollte eingehalten werden.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). Mr President, the United Nations evolved from various initiatives to bring the countries of the world together to promote true peace through the recognition of the dignity and worth of the human person and the value of the community – local, national, and global – in protecting the person. In many ways over 60-plus years the UN has accomplished this vital mandate. However, in recent decades there has been increasing criticism of the way the UN does business, the way it spends its money and the type of results it is getting or not getting.

The Millennium challenge is enormous and it will take a functional UN to meet it. Reform is nothing to be ashamed of. Even the tidiest house needs a spring-clean. Every organisation needs to step back and review its methods. I think the example of UNICEF is a good place to start in understanding the desperate and urgent need to reform the UN.

Jim Grant led and largely created UNICEF, the UN response to children, until he died in 1995. UNICEF justifiably earned the respect of countries and agencies everywhere for its programmes of oral rehydration, breastfeeding promotion, and primary education. UNICEF was in touch with the real needs of real children. Over the ten years since Mr Grant's death, UNICEF seemed to become a vehicle not for promoting children, but a political agenda focused on women's rights, which was not the appropriate place: it was a children's agency.

Ms Bellamy, who directed UNICEF after Mr Grant, was forced to resign last year. Although criticism was building over nine years of her tenure, the UN structures as they have evolved did not allow any internal investigation of UNICEF. Only from the outside did an accumulation of critics and a growing scandal about the neglect of children's programmes eventually force her resignation. Last year, amidst the final crescendo, publications such as The Lancet were reporting that UNICEF's failure to develop a coherent strategy for child survival and its shortcomings were contributing to 10 million child deaths per year. For an organisation to tolerate this, such a publicly known problem, shows it needs reform.

There is no disgrace in reform. No, there is only disgrace in resisting reform where it is needed. Success will come when we realise that the UN is an ideal that needs to be fostered and that we need an efficient organisation that can serve these ideals.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). Voorzitter, "le Machin" zei Generaal de Gaulle over de Verenigde Naties. Vandaag nu de 60ste verjaardag van de VN op een opvoering van "Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing" lijkt te zijn uitgedraaid, mogen we ons terecht afvragen of het Frans staatshoofd van weleer zijn gevleugelde woorden vandaag niet gewoon zou herhalen? Inderdaad, wekenlang werd er onderhandeld over een 35 bladzijden lang document dat uiteindelijk, laat ons een kat een kat noemen, niet veel meer is dan een vage intentieverklaring.

60 jaar na haar oprichting wordt al weer duidelijk de zwakheid van de VN aangetoond. De VN mensenrechtencommissie, zo gediscrediteerd doordat landen als Cuba, Zimbabwe en Soedan er deel van mogen uitmaken, wordt vervangen door een mensenrechtenraad. De tekst zegt evenwel niets over de samenstelling van deze nieuwe instelling of over maatregelen om dergelijke landen uit te sluiten. Terwijl alle landen het terrorisme afwezen, bereikten ze geen akkoord over de definitie van terrorisme.

Ook kwam er geen consensus tot stand over de principes voor de niet-verspreiding van nucleaire wapens en last but not least kwam er geen noodzakelijke hervorming van de Veiligheidsraad die alweer vooruit geschoven werd. In dat kader is het ook werkelijk hallucinant, om maar een voorbeeld te noemen, dat Japan 19% van de kostprijs van de VN vredesoperaties financiert en zelf zelfs geen inspraak heeft in een besluitvorming daaromtrent. Een democratischer antwoord is anders, mag men zeggen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). Señor Presidente, señor Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, señora Comisaria, Señorías, la Cumbre del Milenio tenía como ambicioso desafío la globalización humana, los derechos humanos, la paz y la prosperidad para toda la humanidad, y se puede decir que, básicamente, esa Cumbre lo que ha conseguido es frenar los intentos de desmantelamiento de las Naciones Unidas y señalar, aunque con muchas insuficiencias, tendencias de avance.

Y yo querría, señor Presidente, señalar una importante: la iniciativa del Secretario General, señor Kofi Annan, que ha hecho suya la propuesta del Presidente del Gobierno español, señor Rodríguez Zapatero, y del Primer Ministro de Turquía, señor Erdogan. Lo que hemos presenciado esta mañana en este hemiciclo demuestra la importancia de esa iniciativa sobre la alianza de civilizaciones.

Señor Presidente, para concluir, quiero decir que también hay que tener en cuenta que en este momento la Unión Europea no es miembro de las Naciones Unidas, pero sí es miembro decisivo de la OMC. Ése es un desafío que tenemos que saber afrontar con generosidad y con espíritu multilateral.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paul Marie Coûteaux (IND/DEM). Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, ainsi donc, ce qui devait arriver arriva. Il n'y a pas eu de réforme véritable de l'ONU, il n'y aura pas de siège européen au Conseil de sécurité, point sur lequel chacun se tait alors que c'était, il faut le dire, le principal espoir de l'Union à l'occasion de ce sommet.

L'une des conséquences de cet échec est que l'Union européenne, qui par ailleurs n'aura pas plus de ministre des affaires étrangères qu'elle n'a de quelconque politique étrangère commune, demeurera une sorte de forum international sans visibilité extérieure. Tout cela relevait d'ailleurs de l'évidence, malgré les considérations balancées que vient de nous délivrer Mme Ferrero-Waldner, qui aurait pu, soit dit en passant, puisqu'elle s'exprime sur une terre française, s'exprimer en français; de toute façon elle ne m'écoute pas, comme elle sait si bien le faire.

Si la machine dite européenne avait un peu de réalisme quant à sa propre importance, nous nous serions épargné ces longs débats au-dessus du vide sur le prétendu siège européen qui rejoindra dans nos armoires les amas épais de nos illusions perdues. Mais réfléchissons sur cet échec tout de même, car il devrait nous mettre en garde, comme l'a fait à plus large échelle l'échec de la Constitution, ou la déconstitution européenne, sur les limites étroites dans lesquelles peuvent s'inscrire nos prétentions. L'impossibilité de réformer l'ONU, impossibilité prévisible, que d'ailleurs nous avions prévue au fil de nos interventions précédentes sur le sujet, était elle-même inscrite dans les conditions propres à l'action internationale.

Ce qui préside et présidera toujours à la vie internationale, c'est la prééminence des souverainetés. Si, à l'intérieur des États, il peut exister un droit s'imposant à tous et des moyens de coercition légitimes, capables de pacifier les relations entre les hommes, dans l'ordre international en revanche, il n'y a pas, il n'y aura jamais d'arbitre légitime, qu'il s'agisse d'une organisation internationale ou d'un État qui se prétendrait à lui seul garant de la paix entre les nations. Car, en face de cet État arbitral et en réalité impérial, comme en face de toute organisation supranationale, jamais les autres États ne perdront de vue leurs intérêts propres, leur personnalité propre et, je le répète, leur souveraineté, comme l'a dit mon excellente collègue Hélène Goudin.

Cela ne signifie pas que le monde soit nécessairement une jungle, cela signifie simplement que la paix ne repose que sur l'équilibre entre les nations et les groupes de nations et que le droit international ne peut que limiter à la marge le jeu naturel des États qui, aussi dévoués qu'ils veuillent se montrer à la cause de la paix, restent des monstres froids et n'oublient jamais de calculer leur puissance.

Que cela nous serve donc de leçon, le cadre multilatéral peut faire certaines choses mais là, et seulement là où, par miracle, les intérêts des nations viennent à coïncider. Que le réalisme nous ouvre les yeux et que nous sachions voir enfin l'étroitesse du cadre dans lequel est inscrite notre action, cela dans la nature même des choses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez (PSE). Señor Presidente, quiero hacer apenas seis comentarios.

Primero, quiero denunciar la actuación de la administración estadounidense, al torpedear las Naciones Unidas en general y estas reuniones de Nueva York en particular. Torpedearlas fue nombrar a Bolton como representante de los Estados Unidos ante la las Naciones Unidas y presentar 750 enmiendas al proyecto de texto final, largamente trabajado, negociado y consensuado por la comunidad internacional, para vaciarlo de cualquier contenido.

Por cierto, no deja de ser un sarcasmo que, cuando, por fin, los estadounidenses tienen que hacer un par de concesiones, todo sean parabienes y expresiones de gratitud porque no hayan llevado hasta las últimas consecuencias su más reciente remake de «Apocalipsis now».

Segundo, reconozco que el papel de la Unión Europea en la Cumbre ha sido relativamente digno y positivo. Ha sido además razonablemente eficaz, cuando sus Estados miembros han actuado de forma coordinada y coincidente.

Tercero, quiero destacar que el mejor ejemplo de esto se da en lo que, sin duda, ha sido lo más válido de la Cumbre de Nueva York: respecto a los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, no se ha retrocedido, pese a los esfuerzos de algunos para dar marcha atrás. La Unión Europea actuó con firmeza y se consiguió por lo menos que se mantuvieran los compromisos y el calendario aprobados hace cinco años.

Cuarto, es de lamentar el fracaso en la imprescindible reforma de las Naciones Unidas, punto igualmente ilustrativo que el anterior, pero en clave negativa. Aquí nuestros Estados miembros llegaron con planteamientos distintos y la Unión fue incapaz de manifestarse, ni con posturas ni con influencia alguna, haciéndose corresponsable de dicho fracaso.

Quinto, expresamos nuestra satisfacción, porque la Cumbre haya apoyado la estrategia de la alianza de civilizaciones, asumida por Kofi Annan, haciendo suya una iniciativa tan europea como la propuesta por los Primeros Ministros de España y de Turquía.

Y sexto, nos alegramos, en definitiva, de que Europa haya contribuido a mantener las Naciones Unidas a flote, salvándolas del naufragio que algunos habían preparado. Pero no basta con mantener las Naciones Unidas a flote, sino que es indispensable relanzar definitivamente la organización. A ese objetivo deben dirigirse los esfuerzos de la Unión Europea, pero para ello, será preciso que nuestra Unión esté algo más que simplemente a flote.

Terminaré con algo que nos decía un político africano: «Este mundo no entusiasma e incluso llega a dar asco muchas veces, pero produce espanto pensar lo que sería si Europa no estuviera operando como factor de racionalidad, de equilibrio, de una cierta coherencia y, a veces, de solidaridad».

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inger Segelström (PSE). Herr talman, rådet, kommissionen, ledamöter och åhörare. Vid FN:s toppmöte klargjordes behovet av samverkan mot terrorism, klimatförändringar, internationell brottslighet, migration och massförstörelsevapen och att det krävs mer och inte mindre samarbete. Den fredsbyggande kommissionen fick stort utrymme. Det har Europaparlamentet nu möjlighet att följa upp. Efter det initiativ som den svenska utrikesministern tog med 13 kvinnliga utrikesministrar och kommissionär Ferrero-Waldner har vi nu det fredsförebyggande arbetet att ta ställning till. Vi måste få med fler kvinnor och framförallt varannan kvinna på alla nivåer, så att den jämställda representationen gör att kvinnor och män kan göra en bättre insats. Och varför är det så viktigt? Jo, för att i moderna krig och konflikter är det en stor majoritet oskyldiga kvinnor och barn som är offer. I övergången från konflikt till en hållbar fred behövs alla resurser och civila lösningar. Hur följer vi nu upp detta i EU? När millenniemålet diskuterades blev det klart att givarländerna måste bli generösare. Därför är det med stor glädje vi i helgen fått besked om 18 länders skuldavskrivning. Jag beklagar att det bara är Sverige och andra fyra länder som uppnår 0,7-procentigt bistånd, vi måste bli bättre. Och år 2000 når Sverige nivån 1 procent. Så mycket som vi serverar här i EU, så borde vi lätt kunna fylla glaset.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Manuel António dos Santos (PSE). Participei em representação do Parlamento Europeu na Segunda Conferência Mundial dos Líderes dos Parlamentos Mundiais, organizada pela União Interparlamentar em Nova Iorque nos dias 7, 8 e 9 de Setembro.

Na alocução que dirigi às 145 delegações presentes, tive oportunidade de reafirmar as recentes posições do Parlamento Europeu nomeadamente no que toca à reforma das Nações Unidas e ao compromisso nos Objectivos de Desenvolvimento do Milénio. A minha mensagem acabou por ser amplificada pelo facto de, previamente, todas as resoluções do Parlamento Europeu sobre estas matérias terem sido divulgadas junto das delegações políticas nacionais e regionais.

No que respeita especificamente à reforma das Nações Unidas, tive oportunidade de referir que o Parlamento Europeu apoia totalmente as posições do Secretário-Geral da ONU e, nomeadamente, considera que a segurança mundial não pode ser dissociada do desenvolvimento económico e social, do respeito dos direitos do Homem e da protecção do ambiente. Também referi a necessidade de proceder à alteração da composição do Conselho de Segurança, defendendo a prazo a criação de um lugar permanente para a União Europeia e, de imediato, a criação de novos lugares que permitam a representação de novos países e emergentes regiões.

Finalmente sobre a Assembleia-Geral das Nações Unidas salientei não apenas a reforma dos métodos de trabalho, mas essencialmente a criação a longo prazo de uma verdadeira assembleia parlamentar das Nações Unidas.

Entendi registar neste debate este sintético testemunho que serve de igual modo para documentar a prestação de contas da missão que me incumbe fazer perante o Parlamento Europeu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to respond to this debate. I thank Members of Parliament for their insightful questions and challenging comments. I will endeavour to address as many of your points as possible in my closing remarks.

At the 2005 Millennium Review Summit our heads of state and government and those of another 166 countries took up the challenge set by Kofi Annan of reforming the United Nations to make it more efficient, more effective and indeed more relevant to today's challenges. The summit outcome document, to characterise the discussion we have had this afternoon, should be seen not as a glass half empty, but instead understood for what I believe it to be: a clear mandate for further change. I believe that we all share the view that a stronger, more effective and appropriately resourced United Nations is the only way to ensure global stability and prosperity in this interdependent world.

As the European Union set out in its statement to the General Assembly on 17 September: 'Without a shared effort to accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, rich and poor countries alike face a future of increased instability. Failure in UN-led efforts to tackle the threat of terrorism and proliferation would endanger the prosperity of the developing world as much as the developed. The United Nations should not be a forum for countries to push individual agendas, but one in which the international community can agree common action for the benefit of all of the world's citizens.'

That seems to me the appropriate context in which to address a number of the important points raised by honourable Members today. Mr Millán Mon, Mr Lambsdorff and Mr Schmidt raised the issue of Security Council enlargement. In relation to this issue, while European Union partners agree that the Security Council should be reformed, it is the case that there is no European Union consensus on the model. On the related issue of whether the European Union should have a seat on the Security Council, I would respectfully remind Members of this Parliament that the United Nations Charter is very clear on this point: it allows only individual member states to hold seats on the Council, not regional organisations. There is, therefore, no question of a single EU seat on the Security Council.

Mrs Kinnock paid fulsome tribute to the work that had been achieved and painted, I believe, an accurate picture of the progress that has been made, albeit against a context of much further work still to be undertaken. Her contribution is the rightful opportunity for me to pay tribute not just to her tireless efforts on this agenda over so many years – both before entering this Parliament and then thereafter – but also to the experience and expertise of so many other Members of this Parliament, which I believe has enriched the European Union's discussion of these issues and indeed Europe's voice in international fora. It will not surprise her to hear that I am indeed supportive of the references to the need for innovative funding mechanisms in relation to the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals.

In relation to her other specific question, whether Member States are already starting to roll back on their aid volume commitments, I would categorically say no. The 25 Member States signed up to collectively provide at least 0.56% of GNI by 2010 and, in the case of the EU 15, to all spend at least 0.7% of their GNI on aid by 2015. As I told the party conference I addressed only a couple of days ago, to imagine that 15 countries within Europe would make such a commitment even only a few years ago would have been a dream for many of us who have long pursued that objective.

The European Union reaffirmed that commitment in its statement at the Millennium Review Summit. The Commission and the Council will monitor progress on an annual basis. It is vital that guarantee is in place. I would also point out that the European Union is on course to exceed the targets for 2006, which is 0.39% of the EU average, set in 2002. There is no reason at this stage why we should not do so again.

The next point raised was by Mr Portas. He expressed views towards the United States with which I candidly disagree.

However, on the specific issue of non-proliferation, let me make clear the following points. It is important to reflect the fact that we all share the disappointment of many Member States within the United Nations, and indeed of many Members here in this Parliament, including Mr Leinen, about the lack of an international commitment to non-proliferation displayed in the ultimate inability of states to agree any language on these subjects. I can assure you all that although I speak for the Presidency today, the United Kingdom has worked tirelessly and literally to the last minute both nationally and in other fora representing the European Union as Presidency, to seek the best possible outcome on non-proliferation and disarmament at that Millennium Review Summit. I can also assure this House that we will continue to seek sensible and pragmatic solutions to overcome this deficit that will enhance the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Turning to the questions posed by Mr Guardans Cambó, I would respectfully say that smaller European Union countries did play a vital role in formulating the shared views of the European Union in the run-up to the Millennium Review Summit. To suggest otherwise would be a disservice to the contribution made by a number of countries other than the larger Member States of the European Union.

Mrs Vaidere then went on to question whether there was a role for a new international organisation to replace the United Nations. Again, I would say respectfully that I have to disagree with that proposal. Rather, the challenge on the basis of what I and some Members of this Parliament have made clear today is that we need to give tangible expression to the words agreed back in the United Nations Millennium Review Summit only a few days ago, and ensure that the further words that are now on paper can be translated in the weeks and months ahead into further action.

Mrs Belohorská addressed questions to the Commission about the Beijing follow-up summit. I can inform her that the European Union did not send anyone to the unofficial Beijing conference on 29 August and 1 September. The tenth anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was commemorated at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in March 2005. On that occasion the European Union was represented by the Luxembourg Minister for Gender Equality.

Mr Deva made a powerful case for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the operation of the United Nations. I believe there has been a broad consensus throughout this Parliament today on the need for that further action to be taken now.

Mr Pistelli asked – given his disappointment about the somewhat patchy nature of the progress, as he characterised it – in what areas the European Union could push further ahead for more progress to be made given the constraints of the summit's final document. I can give him the following assurances. We are encouraging interlocutors, including Kofi Annan, to move forward urgently on the reforms that are important to us, but were not included or were unsatisfactorily worded in that final Summit Outcome Document. Specifically, on the issue of management reform – about which there has been much discussion in this debate today – Kofi Annan has been mandated by the summit outcome to propose further reforms for the UN organisation and secretariat in the first quarter of 2006. We have already urged the Secretary-General to make bold proposals, not least in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, as it is important that such steps are taken.

The European Union supports the Summit Outcome Document's strong condemnation of terrorism – a matter that was again addressed by a number of honourable Members – and its call for an effective UN counter-terrorism strategy. However, we believe the text should have gone further.

For nearly a decade the United Nations has been discussing a global convention on terrorism that seeks itself to define terrorism. We want to see that definition agreed in terms that are unequivocal. It would leave no doubt what an act of terrorism is and that such acts are utterly unacceptable.

Finally, let me make this other specific point. We agree entirely with the UN Secretary-General that the lack of non-proliferation and disarmament language in the Summit Outcome Document was a significant disappointment. The European Union worked literally until the last moment to try to broker agreement on those key issues. Despite this setback, I reaffirm that the European Union will continue to seek out opportunities to strengthen the non-proliferation regime in all relevant fora.

Mr Romeva i Rueda expressed his disappointment on the Security Council. I have spoken about that already. We share, however, the disappointment that he expressed on the failure to pursue a treaty on the international arms trade. Again, I am conscious that I speak to this Parliament today representing the Presidency rather than any one individual Member State. However, I can assure him of our continuing commitment to this issue, not least because my own party was recently re-elected in the United Kingdom on an explicit manifesto commitment to try and take forward progress on an arms trade treaty.

Mrs Sinnott said that even the tidiest house sometimes needed to be spring cleaned. I certainly agree that reform has a real contribution to make to the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals and that is why we are so determined that the words of September are translated into action in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr Dillen quoted General Charles de Gaulle. I was tempted to reply in kind, but I shall resist that and leave that for another day. Instead he went on to raise the question again of United Nations Security Council enlargement and I have spoken at some length about the position of the Presidency in relation to that question.

Mr Barón Crespo raised an issue which frankly I expected we might have heard more of in the course of the debate today, which is the centrality of the World Trade Organization talks, just ten working weeks away, in pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals. It is hard to overstate the significance of the challenge that collectively Europe, the United States and the other representatives of the World Trade Organization face when they arrive, and in the weeks before arriving in Hong Kong. There is simply no doubt that 2005 will already be remembered as a year of real progress in relation to debt reduction and increases in aid flows, for all the reasons that I have described. The opportunity for Europe now is once again to grasp the leadership potential that is within its grasp and move actively and aggressively to try and make sure that the very development dimension to the original Doha Declaration is given expression in Hong Kong. I was heartened in that regard by the remarks of Pascal Lamy last week, in his first press conference as Secretary General of the WTO, for I believe that only by being clear as to the development dimension of the Doha round in Hong Kong, will we see the kind of progress that I believe many Members of this Parliament would wish to see made in early December.

Mr Coûteaux raised the issue of a seat at the United Nations, which I have already addressed, and Mr Martínez Martínez spoke of the United States. As I hope I have already made clear in my contribution in winding up this debate, it is with some relief that I speak on behalf of the Presidency of the European Union, rather than any other Administration, so I will leave it for others to answer for the actions of those outside the European Union.

Mrs Segelström raised the issue of terrorism and the need for more cooperation, something I wholeheartedly agree with, and heard very strongly articulated in this Parliament when Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, made a powerful case that it is not by building thicker or higher walls that we will effectively counteract terrorism, but rather by deeper and more fulfilling cooperation between the Member States of the European Union. She also made an important point in terms of gender representation in the high levels of office represented at the United Nations Millennium Review Summit. I certainly acknowledge the significance of that point and therefore respectfully suggest that perhaps the Commissioner is better qualified than I to answer it.

The final contribution came from Mr dos Santos, in which he explained his own presence at an important international meeting that preceded the Millennium Review Summit. Again, I would simply take this opportunity to reiterate the sincere gratitude, both of the Commission, I believe, and certainly of the Presidency-in-Office, for the tireless efforts of many Members of this Parliament in pursuing what was achieved in the United Nations Millennium Review Summit.

I fully accept that there is some disappointment that the Summit document ultimately did not go as far as many of us would have wished it to, but I am absolutely convinced that but for the effective action of members of the European Union, we would not have achieved the progress that we did in New York. For that, I believe, we can feel a real and genuine sense of shared pride.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I shall be brief and just say at the beginning that we were delighted to see a parliamentary delegation in New York. I thank Mrs Kinnock, Mr Deva and Mr Lambsdorff for having been there. I must say that this was very positive because you have seen for yourselves the positive and the rather negative side of this Millennium Summit.

Many of you have mentioned seeing the glass as half-full or half-empty. The picture was a mixed one, but I think it was very important that this Millennium Summit ended with a declaration from where we can go on, and this is the most important thing.

Knowing the UN as I do – I was chief of protocol for Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1994 and 1995 – I know that it can only be as good as its member states, and as good as the member states that are ready to go for a compromise. There are 191 member states, so it is not easy for a European Union with 25 member states and some associated member states with the same positions to bring the issue forward. The European Union has done a very good job, and this has also been mentioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and many others.

It is true that in the Human Rights Council, as I mentioned at the very beginning, on the definition of terrorism for instance, we have not achieved everything. Let me just go into this question a little. I would say the clear and unqualified condemnation by all governments of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations committed by whomsoever and wherever is a very important element, and it is a strong push, given that this agreement has been negotiated for nearly ten years. There is a good chance that at this General Assembly before the end of the year there might even be a conclusion of this agreement. If this were so this would be another positive outcome.

Let me also say with regard to women's issues that I was present at the evening dinner of the women's network. I was a foreign minister, but now I am a Commissioner for external relations. It is very important to think of the other part of the population that is not yet always represented in an appropriate manner, and therefore we think women can make a special contribution to peace and to peace-building, on which we have placed particular emphasis.

I would also like to say that the issues that we have mentioned today – and the issues of dialogue and alliance between civilisations and cultures – are a very crucial item. It has been around for a long time, but now it has been mentioned as a new concept and we will certainly work and cooperate with this concept because this might bring the peoples at large again to a common understanding that there has to be tolerance on religious civilisations, but that at the same time we share common values.

On the whole I can again say that the EU is indeed the natural partner of the United Nations and both organisations have been born out of the same experience, the experience of war, and are founded on the same conviction that acting together is much better than acting alone, even if we sometimes have to compromise in order to go on. But there is a very strong commitment from our side to go on, with an excellent President of the General Assembly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). Herr Präsident! Ich hatte Kommission und Rat um eine Stellungnahme dazu gebeten, wann das Parlament die Zusammenlegung der Vertretungen von Kommission und Rat in New York und an den anderen Standorten der Vereinten Nationen erwarten darf, damit wir bessere Kohärenzen der Vertretung der Union bei den Vereinten Nationen haben. Ich wäre dankbar, wenn Rat und Kommission hierauf eingehen würden

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Mitglied der Kommission. Herr Präsident! Verehrter Graf Lambsdorff! Sie wissen so gut wie ich, dass die Verfassung noch nicht weitergegangen und nicht ratifiziert ist. Es gibt inzwischen ein Ratssekretariatsbüro in New York. Die Kommission selbst ist Beobachter bei den Vereinten Nationen, und wir arbeiten sehr, sehr eng zusammen. Es ist aber derzeit nicht vorgesehen, die beiden zu fusionieren.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Πρόεδρος: - Έλαβα έξι προτάσεις ψηφίσματος (1) σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 103, παράγραφος 2, του Κανονισμού.

Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Οι ψηφοφορίες θα διεξαχθούν την Πέμπτη 29.09.2005, στις 12 το μεσημέρι.

(Η συνεδρίαση διακόπτεται στις 6.10 μ.μ. εν αναμονή της Ώρας των Ερωτήσεων και επαναλαμβάνεται στις 6.35 μ.μ.)

 
  
  

PRESIDÊNCIA: SR. dos SANTOS
Vice-presidente

 
  

(1) Βλ. Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά

Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza