Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 March 2006 - Strasbourg

8. Results of the informal Council of foreign ministers (10-11 March 2006) (debate)

  President. The next item is the statements from the Council and the Commission on the results of the informal Council of foreign ministers (10-11 March 2006).

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, in the western Balkans the EU can really make a difference. This was discussed at the Foreign Ministers’ ‘Gymnich’ meeting in Salzburg.

The region is at the crossroads and the EU will guide it down the peaceful and reformist path. We have seen many positive developments in recent years, but we should not be lulled into a false sense of security.

This year the remaining status issues, Kosovo and Montenegro, must be solved with patience and determination. We must also move the region beyond the era of war. We must thus clear the way for progress on issues that really matter to the citizens of the region: economic and social development and bringing the countries into the European mainstream.

How can we best encourage the countries to stick to an ambitious reform agenda? Most importantly, we must stick to our commitment that the countries can make progress towards the EU with membership as the ultimate goal, once they have managed to meet the rigorous accession criteria. Moreover, we must strive to make this perspective concrete and tangible, as the Commission has done in its recent communication. Let me mention a few examples of our concrete objectives and proposals.

Firstly, we should remove obstacles to trade, production and investment. The Commission, together with the stability pact and the countries concerned, is pursuing the creation of a regional free trade agreement, which would replace the existing patchwork of 31 bilateral free trade agreements. This may be attained through a simultaneous enlargement and modernisation of CEFTA, on which there will be a CEFTA summit meeting in April in Bucharest.

Secondly, we should ‘Europeanise’ the next generation – or why not the current generation? That is why we have proposed increasing the mobility of researchers and students by increasing the number of scholarships provided for them.

Thirdly, we need to facilitate people-to-people contacts. We shall put forward measures on visa facilitation, and I trust that the Member States will move them quickly forward through the Council, so that we can start negotiations on visa facilitation and readmission agreements. Let me underline the fact that the more the countries in the region can do to ensure border controls and document security, the easier it will be to convince the EU Member States to make progress on visa facilitation.

I am glad that the EU’s Foreign Ministers in Salzburg last weekend endorsed these practical measures and, even though she is not present today, I want to pay particular tribute to Mrs Plassnik and her personal commitment to ensuring progress in the western Balkans.

Finally, I must say a few words about the death of Slobodan Milosevic. When we received the news of his death at the end of the Gymnich meeting, my immediate reaction was to remember my visit to Srebrenica last July, at the tenth commemoration of the most appalling massacre in post-war Europe. I regret that Milosevic died before justice could be served for the hundreds of thousands of victims of the crimes for which he was indicted.

In his memoirs, Chancellor Kohl writes that each generation must work for a necessary consciousness of history to avoid repeating our mistakes and to ensure that ‘the voices of victims are heard’. These are very wise words.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is putting on record evidence that will help the Serbs of current and future generations to understand that many crimes were committed in the name of Serbia, while certain individuals were responsible for these crimes.

The death of Milosevic makes it even more important for The Hague Tribunal to complete its work and for the remaining indictees to be transferred there. This will help Serbia to close the tragic chapter of history over which Milosevic presided and to come to terms with the legacy of its past.

Today Serbia is truly at the crossroads and I sincerely hope that the leaders and people of Serbia have the will and wisdom to choose the European future instead of the nationalist past. The country now truly holds its future in its own hands. We can help the Serbs to make the right choice by keeping the European prospect open for them.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, this was announced as a debate with the Council. You have just said that the Council is not yet present, but I do think we should wait for it to arrive, for what we want to do is to hear, and then discuss, a report on the Salzburg summit. There is no point in us having the debate before we hear the report; it would be a pointless ritual.

  President. I agree with Mr Posselt's remarks, although it has come to my attention that the minister will be arriving shortly.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to add my voice to Mr Posselt's protest, because I believe that we in this Parliament must not forego what is really important just because of a failure to comply with formal arrangements, and if a debate with the Commission and the Council has been scheduled, the Council should be present.

Mr President, I would like to say that, as if the situation in the Middle East and in Palestine following Hamas's victory were not complicated enough, the assault on the Jericho prison by Israeli troops − which I believe we must condemn − makes the situation even more complicated and has unleashed a wave of indiscriminate violence which has harmed European Union citizens and interests and which we must condemn in the strongest terms.

Mr President, since I know that it has been debated in the informal Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers, I would like to ask the Commission what approach the European Commission and the Council, which is unfortunately still absent, is going to take to European Union aid to Palestine, and whether it is going to insist, as is logical, on the need to demand that Hamas renounce violence and recognise the State of Israel and the previous agreements.

Secondly, Mr President, with regard to the issue of Iran, which has been referred to the United Nations Security Council, I would like to ask the Commission whether it prefers a gradual approach, that is, that the Security Council should issue a statement, or whether it is hoping that sanctions will be applied.

With regard to enlargement, Mr President, in view of the comments by the French Home Affairs Minister, Mr Sarkozy, to the effect that there is a degree of fatigue when it comes to enlargement and his request for a debate in the Council in June on assessing the limits to the European Union’s capacity for absorption − and Mr Brok’s report is the next item on the agenda − I would like to know whether the Commission agrees with Mr Sarkozy’s request to the Council and whether it believes that the Austrian Presidency of the Union should provide a definitive response to the issue of the geographical limits of our political project.

  President. Some of the issues that you have raised should be addressed to Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, who is not here at the moment, whereas many of your other questions will be answered as part of the debate on the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), which will take place in due course.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, due to the fact that speaking time for the Commission is tight for this debate and it would be impossible to report on such a wide scope of issues, covering all external affairs, all global issues, it was agreed that Mrs Ferrero-Waldner would deal with Iran and Palestine and the cartoon crisis when she speaks later this evening. That is why I have concentrated on policies relating to the Western Balkans.

This is how the Commission’s contribution will be allocated, meaning that after the debate I will respond regarding the western Balkans and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner will respond on the other issues later this evening.

  Doris Pack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Rehn has described how things stand, so let us now discuss the Brok report, which has to do with enlargement, before we move on to doing everything else when Mrs Plassnik has got here. I urge you to do it this way, or else we will be unfair to the Commissioner and the debate will not be in the proper order.

  President. I understand the unusual situation in which we find ourselves, but unfortunately, according to the agenda, the debate on the Brok report will take place after statements by the Council and the Commission.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I too have a proposal to make. We can of course take a break if the absent Presidency of the Council invites us to take coffee with it in the meantime.

(Laughter)

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I am perfectly aware of the pressures involved in the drawing up of Parliament’s agenda, but you have said that we have a particular order of business, and what we cannot do is establish an item on the agenda which says that we are going to deal with the Informal Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers when it turns out that the Commissioner responsible for the majority of the items relating to that Council has decided that it should be done at a later point in our debate.

I believe that what Mr Posselt and Mrs Pack have proposed is entirely justified. If the Commissioner responsible is not here to deal with the main issues of the informal Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers, let us debate Mr Brok’s report and then we can deal with this item when the Commissioner responsible comes, because it is not acceptable for subjects to be distributed without hearing the opinion of the Members.

  President. I understand the concerns that you are raising, but I have to say that I am unaware of anything in the Rules of Procedure that would help us resolve this problem.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, the problem is, of course, that certain Members who are down to speak on the Brok report are not there now and will be arriving only later on. We can, of course, rearrange things somewhat. Mrs Napoletano was ready to speak, and I am speaking now because I do mainly speak on the subject of the Balkans. We can now, of course, simply combine the two, but some Members will be cross at not being able to speak to the Brok report because they were not there. That is the problem!

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, can I just, politely, ask whether you are in possession of information as to when the Council is actually going to turn up? If what I hear is indeed the case, and they will be here in another quarter of an hour, then we can wait for a quarter of an hour, for we have had plenty of 15-minute delays in this place. What I would suggest, then, is that, if the Council is going to be here in 15 minutes’ time, we can suspend the sitting for that long. If they are going to turn up in an hour’s time, then we will have to think of something else. We have no information on this whatsoever, but perhaps you do.

  President. I suggest that we suspend the sitting for a few minutes while we wait for the Council representative to arrive.

(The sitting was suspended at 3.20 p.m. and resumed at 3.35 p.m.)

Given that the Council representative has now arrived, we can resume proceedings.

  Ursula Plassnik, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, I crave your forgiveness for our late arrival. We have just had two traffic accidents to contend with, one on the road to the airport in Vienna and one on the road from Entzheim.

Thank you for the opportunity to inform you about our informal, Gymnich-format, meeting of foreign ministers, which took place this weekend in Salzburg. This was primarily concerned with two subject areas, the first of which was the challenges to foreign policy currently facing us, notably the developments in the Middle East and the imminent elections in Belarus and Ukraine. The second day was devoted to the Balkans, the Thessaloniki agenda, its implementation and its future.

If you will permit me, I would like to discuss the Middle East first and then move on to the Balkans.

To the Middle East, then: this region is, following the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council and in the run-up to the elections in Israel, in a transitional stage, one in which we have a very clear and consistent message to send to the future Palestinian Government, for we need to make clear what are our own fundamental principles, on the basis of which we are prepared for further cooperation. The fundamentals are perfectly clear and consist of three elements. We are calling upon them to abandon violence, to agree to negotiations – which means recognising the existing agreements – and to acknowledge Israel’s right to existence.

It is on this clear and consistent basis that our policy is developed, and on which we have launched an appeal to our partners in the Middle East. Hamas, in particular, will have to become aware of the fork in the road and come to a decision as to which path it wants to take in future. It must make clear which route it is going to take; we have spelled out what the conditions are, and in no respect has there been any change in them. We shall continue to support the Palestinian people, and also took the opportunity at ‘Gymnich’ to discuss what shape financial support might take in future. What is clear is that any such support must benefit the Palestinian people rather than being used for terrorism or for violence.

We are, then, with a great deal of attention, following developments, the efforts being made to put together a new Palestinian Government, and its future programme. Yesterday, President Mahmud Abbas and his delegation visited Vienna, where we had the chance to raise these issues with him. He and the interim government have our support in this difficult period, and I shall be happy to discuss events in closer detail if I get the opportunity to do so later on.

Turning to the Balkans, this issue was and is an important one for the Austrian Presidency, and I therefore regard the Gymnich meeting and its engagement with it as a message of encouragement, even in a dual sense of the term, addressed to the people of the states of the Western Balkans. The road they have to travel towards Europe and towards meeting European standards may well be a difficult one, but the journey is worth it, and on that road they have our good wishes and support.

It is also a sign to our own peoples, encouraging them in the belief that it is indeed possible to find solutions to difficult problems – even to the most difficult ones. I therefore see it as a sign of hope and confidence that we succeeded, in the Salzburg Declaration, in underlining and making visible the prospects that the Balkan states have of acceding to the European Union.

For it was important, particularly at a time when people are talking in terms of 'enlargement fatigue', that this signal should be sent out in order to give our partners a good idea of what to expect in view of the extremely difficult decisions that we will have to take in 2006. It was evident from the guest list for our Salzburg meeting just how much the path we shall take this year will demand of us, for our guests included Martti Ahtisaari, the UN special envoy to Kosovo, and his deputy Albert Rohan, and we were able to discuss with them the future of that region. We had also invited Christian Schwarz-Schilling, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina; Søren Jensen-Petersen, the head of UNMIK was present with his delegation, as was Ibrahim Rugova’s successor as President of Kosovo, Fatmir Sejdiu. I was also pleased that this segment of our Salzburg meeting managed to achieve something of a ‘first’ in the presence of Mr Brok, the chairman of your Foreign Affairs Committee, who took part in our discussions.

The Balkans are at the heart of Europe, and without them, European unification will be incomplete. We know that the road ahead of us will be a difficult one, but we are determined to go down it. We have decided to take a step-by-step approach to the work in hand, working through the issues one by one and resolving each of them in turn.

It is working on the European standards that is actually the core issue for each and every one of these countries. Yesterday, the Bosnian Prime Minister visited me in Vienna, and told me that what was crucial was not a date or a particular point in time in the course of development, but working together on European standards. Javier Solana, who has been keeping an eye on developments for a long time, describes what has been achieved since Thessaloniki in 2003 as a success story capable of being read on the agenda, and, more specifically on the order of business for the Salzburg meeting, since the issues with which this meeting concerned itself were issues of easier and improved trading arrangement, the fight against organised crime, young people and the facilitation of easier travel. We gave attention to the visa issue in view of the need to address the expectations that the people of these countries have of us. We also, though, have to make clear to them what options are open to us, and join with them in seeking, step by step, solutions to the problems that remain outstanding in this area and elsewhere.

There is no doubt about it: Europe is making a difference in this region, but we have also emphasised the responsibility that the countries concerned have for themselves, for in some of them, which have already been stabilised, we need to move on to their dynamic Europeanisation. As we proceed down that road, it must be made clear to them that they need the willingness to take the necessary action and demonstrate that quality that is described so well by the English term ‘ownership’.

We have stressed the need for regional cooperation, especially in view of the work being done on a regional free trade area, with a single free trade agreement, based on CEFTA, intended to replace 31 individual agreements. Speaking personally, I am very grateful to Commissioner Rehn and to the Commission as a whole for their commitment to this. The Council and the Commission are working on this hand in hand and side by side in the best sense of the word. I wish to thank the Commission for its communication at the end of January, and also for their willingness to join us in continuing to work towards the achievement of the goals set out in the Salzburg statement.

Continued work is also called for on the part of the ministers of the national government within their own remits, for it is they who, along with other things, will have to network with their partners in the Balkan states in addressing actual problems. The ministers of the interior, in particular, are highly committed to this and bear a great responsibility, for it is they and their cooperation that determine what practical headway can be made on important issues.

We also discussed the topic of the EU’s assimilation capacity and explored its implications. As you know, this is a topic that I brought into greater prominence last autumn, and I believe I was right to do so, for we are not seeking to put up an additional obstacle, but, essentially, to make us more aware of something that ought to be quite obvious, that being that it is not only the candidates for accession of whom homework is to be demanded, but the European Union itself also needs to do its own.

At this joint meeting, at a moment at which all of us were united around one table in Salzburg, we all had an experience that was not only disquieting but also, at the same time, gave us a sense of hopeful confidence: our deliberations were interrupted by news of the death of Slobodan Milošević, and there was a European symbolism in our being able, at such a moment, to work on our common European future.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would just like to make two brief observations on the subject of the Middle East. Firstly, we are right to demand that Hamas should face up to reality and renounce violence, but that must not be licence for Israel to continue with its policy of unilateral violence, which is what we have just seen it engaging in. Secondly, Europe, and the USA, must be consistent in their nuclear policies, particularly in view of the different ways in which India and Iran are being treated, and the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna must be given a larger role in a multilateral system of uranium enrichment and nuclear waste management. If we stick with these principles, we will make progress.

Turning to the Balkans, it strikes me that our actions are being guided by the principle that progress is to be defined as whatever is not regress. I have to say that my group and I are very embarrassed by the conduct of certain Member States, which are making themselves culpable for the way in which the business of making Europe fit for the accession of new Member States is being played off against the Balkan countries’ prospects of accession. Europe will not, however, be made any stronger by the Balkan countries being robbed of their prospects of accession or seeing them deferred to the distant future. The guiding principle must still be the vision of EU membership, for which this House – my group included – has so often voted unanimously. Perfectly understandable though it is that demand should be made for the EU to be made more capable of welcoming new members – I am thinking here of the constitution and of the financial basis – this cannot be used against the countries of South-Eastern Europe and as a means of fending off their efforts at accession. Preparations for this on our side and in the Balkans must run in parallel. The preparation of both sides must be consistent and thorough, and while it is in progress, practical action needs to be taken to prepare the countries of the Balkans for accession to the European Union, not least by making visa arrangements simpler and easier. Further to what you had to say about the ministers of the interior – Mrs Gottes and Mr Ohr – I hope that they will do something tangible in order to give this region’s young people, in particular, a chance to get to know Europe at last. Despite Slobodan Milošević’s death – which was in many respects premature – it remains in the interests of the victims and of Europe’s shared future that all those who committed crimes should be brought to The Hague for trial, and on that we must certainly insist.

The countries of the Balkans, which have so often in the course of our continent’s history been the playthings of the European Great Powers, must progressively be integrated into the European Union. We will not, in any case, accept their being relegated to an earlier stage of their relationship with it. When, tomorrow, we vote to adopt the Brok report, we must do so stating clearly only that which is in the text, and without the interpretations that have, regrettably, been placed upon it in the last few hours and have the effect of falsifying what it actually contains. We defend the Balkan countries’ prospects of membership of the European Union.

(Applause)

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I had hoped that a strong and positive message would have come out of the Balkan Conference. I believe that was also the hope of both the Presidency-in-Office and the Commission. You each can ill afford to voice your disappointment, so I will do it for you.

We all acknowledge that the entire Balkan region remains volatile and potentially unstable, which is why clarity is absolutely indispensable. The joint press statement, notably weaker than previous declarations, states that the future of the western Balkans lies in the European Union. We note the absence of any mention of membership. It adds that a debate on enlargement strategy is due in 2006 and that the EU’s absorption capacity has to be taken into account. That is disappointing. I will come back to that during the debate on the Brok report.

Allow me to comment on the Middle East. I fully share my group chairman’s reaction to the deplorable and unacceptable behaviour of Israel in Jericho yesterday, not to mention the strange behaviour – to say the least – of US and British troops. Needless to say, that action makes the EU’s position more difficult. While my group strongly agrees that Hamas must renounce violence and endorse existing international treaties and agreements, we must note with sadness that Israel is making it increasingly difficult to hold this line. We will nevertheless do so, but we must also make it very clear that actions like those witnessed yesterday run totally counter to the search for a peaceful outcome.

  Angelika Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Plassnik, the reason why we suspended our sitting in order to wait for you was that there are things about which we are very concerned and which we wish to discuss with you.

At the time they began their presidency, the Austrians were planning Thessaloniki II, yet there is no word of it in the Salzburg statement; nor has anything more been heard about the prospect of Member State status for the Western Balkans. The statement is a compromise, one, insubstantial though it is, that is given a critical hearing in the Balkans and was in no way a sign of encouragement, but at best invited misinterpretation. That, at any rate, is the valuation I would place on the statement by Mr Brok, who also took part in Salzburg and who has, since Monday, been telling the German media about an end to the Balkans’ EU prospects and talking up what he calls a third way, a privileged partnership.

If Europe wants some credibility, we have to uphold the European prospect for the Balkans not only in words but also by our actions, and this is where I agree with Commissioner Rehn in what he has said.

Mr Brok, let me conclude by saying one thing, namely that a third way is precisely what the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, was looking for as long ago as the 1980s. He, fortunately, failed miserably in this, and you will have the same experience.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me just say a few things about the matters that have nothing to do with the enlargement countries, which I shall shortly be discussing as part of my report. I would like to say something briefly about the Middle East.

We find ourselves in ever-greater difficulties, as a result not only of developments over the past few days, but of those that have taken place over recent weeks and months. On the one hand, there is the situation with which both sides in the Holy Land itself are presenting us; on the other, there is the issue of how probable it is that Iran will be deterred from a military nuclear programme. And if, as is indeed possible, there is a closing of the circle – with Iran, Syria, a multilateral agreement in Lebanon with Hisbollah and contacts with Hamas – there arises the great danger of an alliance that is highly problematic and to which we have to find a response, not only in order to secure peace and fight terrorism, but also to guarantee the security of our energy supplies.

I am grateful, Madam President-in-Office, for having been able to be present for some of the discussions. Whilst the negotiations will see us tackling hard political facts, we must also ensure that there is a real dialogue of cultures, so that the fundamentalists will be unable to prevent the moderates – who are present in all the regions – from forming a majority.

Perhaps, Madam President-in-Office, I might be permitted to address another aspect of great significance in some areas, that being the issue of the European Union’s mission to the Congo. I would be very interested to know whether there is already a mandate in place for this, setting out what it is to do and for how long and over what geographical area it is to do it, and whether the Congolese authorities have officially invited such a project and the European Union’s participation in it. If decisions are to be taken concerning this both here and elsewhere, it is extraordinarily important that there should be clarity as regards what the Presidency of the Council and the High Representative are doing about organising such a mandate.

  Cecilia Malmström (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, it is excellent that you are giving the Balkans a high profile. We do all have an interest in the region being stabilised and democratised, and the EU really has an opportunity to play an important role. I wish you both good luck in the task of raising the ambitions of your colleagues in the other Member States to the same high level. Be assured that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is with you on this.

The various initiatives for getting the countries to cooperate with each other and with ourselves are excellent. It is also good that, in the end, the decision has been taken to use CEFTA, which already exists and is already up and running, as a basis for doing this instead of creating something new, as there was talk of doing previously. I think that this was an extremely wise decision. At the same time, we are also talking about different countries with different traditions, different histories and different degrees of development. It is therefore important that we keep sending out the message that all these countries are welcome to apply for membership of the European Community if they wish to do so and that, in that case, they will be treated on their own merits. There is at present a concern in certain quarters that we wish to lump the countries together again and that they will be treated as a unit. I believe that that anxiety is exaggerated, but it is very important to be extremely clear on the point that has been made, namely that each country is to be treated on its own merits.

With regard to the death of Slobodan Milošević, we are talking here about an odious dictator, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and a large part of the tragedy that has taken place. I also regret that the trial could not be brought to a conclusion, and it was, I believe, an obviously quite pathetic man who ended his days. We must still be crystal clear about the need for Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladić to be extradited and to be so right now. There is no room for compromise on this.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on Saturday, the Union’s Foreign Affairs Ministers redefined the European prospects of the Western Balkans and stipulated that the ultimate objective of the stabilisation and association process under way with those countries is no less than accession to the European Union. They have therefore gone further than the Thessaloniki declaration of 2003, which talked about the great challenge represented by the integration of the five countries of the Balkans and their eventual accession to the Union. The MEPs from the UMP agree with this vision and this prospect and are convinced that, without the Balkans, European unification is not complete. They also share the view that it will be a long journey with many obstacles along the way, but first of all they would ask that, in relation to the Balkans and any other possible future enlargement, the real questions be set out clearly. What are the real questions? Firstly, does the European Union have the capacity to absorb these countries? I would point out that this is one of the Copenhagen criteria, a criterion that is too often forgotten; financial capacity, institutional capacity, but also political capacity. Are our Member States and their people ready to receive other Member States into the Union and, if so, when and how?

Furthermore, another member of the Union, France, has amended its constitution, making it obligatory to hold a referendum on any further enlargement, following the accession of Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. Our partners may welcome this, or lament it, but that is now the institutional reality.

Finally, for years, the MEPs from the UMP have been calling for an in-depth debate within the European Union on the subject of Europe’s borders. It is high time that that debate took place! We must look reality in the face and make a mature choice on the future of the European Union, in terms of political content and geographical borders. This is a duty for us, and it is a duty towards the countries that are knocking at our door. We must take on our responsibilities.

  Silvana Koch-Mehrin (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, while I would like to endorse what Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck said about my group’s stance on Israel’s policy over the past few days, I would also like to respond to what you said about the importance of this transitional stage. It is one in which the EU should send out a clear message highlighting the principles of cooperation, those being renunciation of violence, acceptance of existing agreements and the recognition of Israel’s right to exist. That is incredibly important, and the EU must not distance itself from it in any way. That is why I believe the EU is making a grave mistake in continuing to give the interim government financial support.

While the EU should send humanitarian aid to the Palestinian areas and help the people who live in them, it should not be supporting the authorities there, for Hamas has neither acknowledged Israel’s right to exist nor renounced violence, and the message we are sending is a deadly one, in that Hamas has reiterated its view that the EU’s decision to continue sending money is an indication that it accepts its policies, while it is still refusing to negotiate with Israel on the grounds that it does not recognise its legitimacy.

The whole object of EU support is the promotion of the peace process, but it is wrong to give financial support to those who seek its downfall. The EU must keep to the course it has set so far and must not abandon financial aid, which is its most important bargaining counter, and it is for that reason that I ask you to take another look at this.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SARYUSZ-WOLSKI
Vice-President

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I will start by congratulating you on your historic achievement in Luxembourg, in which you paved the way for the accession of Croatia, the only central European state other than Switzerland not yet to be a Member State of the EU. I will also congratulate you on the great courage with which you launched there the debate on the frontiers of Europe, which is long overdue.

Secondly, let me say how grateful I am to you for having, in Salzburg, argued in favour of the other South-East European states being given the prospect of accession. I do indeed believe that we must not budge on this; there must be no doubt whatever about the fact that the states of South-Eastern Europe are indeed European, and that they are entitled to become full members of the European Union as soon as all the criteria have been satisfied – which includes the enlargement criterion that applies to us.

Thirdly – and here I have to disagree with Mrs Koch-Mehrin – I would like to say that what we should be doing for Palestine is not just giving humanitarian aid, but also helping them to achieve pluralism – difficult though that must be conceded to be. Corrupt and dubious though the Fatah state was, a state ruled by Hamas would be even more objectionable. We must promote the peace process and pluralism by every means to hand in order to prevent an Iranian zone of influence extending from the Gulf to the Mediterranean coming into being.

Fourthly, Iran, which is second only to China as the oldest great power in the world, is not a monolithic block, and that is why we have to apply a combination of stringency and intense diplomatic effort to dealing with it. Here, too, no matter how unacceptable the country’s current President may be, we must not lose faith in dialogue. There is more to Iran than its president; it is one of the oldest states in the world, and we Europeans must do everything in our power to reinforce the pluralistic forces within it and to prevent it from degenerating into aggressive uniformity.

  Ursula Plassnik, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, returning to the subject of the Balkans, I do believe that the time was ripe, and I feel even more justified in my decision to make the Balkans a priority for the Austrian Presidency of the Council. The time was ripe for a debate on enlargement, and the one we had in Salzburg went well. I see that as progress, for the worst course of action is to keep silent and fail to address the issues that need to be addressed, to fail to make the public aware of them, or to explain to them what is at stake, what is being done and why. And so I am glad we had this debate, not least also that we gave attention to the frustrations felt by the states of the Western Balkans.

I reject the idea that the Salzburg statement was a superficial compromise or even a retrograde move, and I would ask you to examine the wording carefully. Let me remind you that, in paragraph 3, we explicitly speak of EU membership as a long-term objective, as the ‘ultimate goal in conformity with the Thessaloniki Declaration’, and so what matters, and was our concern in our discussions, is that the prospect of accession be made more credible and tangible, not least for the people of the Western Balkans. That explains why we discussed the topics we did, and why we discussed them in a very constructive spirit.

Moving on to the Congo, work is underway on clarifying the conditions in terms of time, scope and substance; this is being done at Council level, jointly with Mr Solana, and in liaison with the Congolese authorities. It is very much in the interests of all of us that this matter should be clarified.

Moving on to Iran, we are now in a period of diplomatic wrangling in the United Nations, and, as one speaker pointed out, what really does matter is that the authority of the International Atomic Energy Authority be reinforced and the implementation of the many resolutions adopted on this subject be proceeded with apace.

Let me close by saying something, briefly, about what is currently going on both in Jericho and in Gaza. What happened yesterday is a matter of grave concern to the presidency. We have emphasised the need for appropriate action to restore peace and order; we have said that Israel’s use of force in Jericho and the activity by Palestinian extremists in response to it are both capable of further destabilising a situation in the Middle East that is already tense.

We have urged restraint on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Both sides must now give very careful consideration to the consequences of their actions. We denounced in strong terms the taking of hostages and – as Mr Winkler told you today – immediately called on the Palestinian Authority to do whatever was necessary, both now and in the future, to ensure the safety and protection of European citizens and buildings. It has to be said that, while we are willing to give aid – aid of a humanitarian nature, that is – such aid can be effective only in a peaceful environment, and all parties must play their part in creating one.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, as I said before the break, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner will present the Commission’s views on the Middle East, Palestine and Iran later this evening.

I will comment on the next agenda item: issues related to enlargement and absorption capacity. I should also like to use this opportunity to congratulate Mrs Plassnik on her personal commitment to the policy on the western Balkans. It has been extremely important and the Austrian Presidency has taken new steps towards integrating this region into the European mainstream. That is indispensable to the security and stability of the whole of Europe and of the Union.

All participants in the debate have recognised that the road ahead for the western Balkans is a challenging one and that many reforms must be implemented before the countries meet the required criteria.

It is equally clear that there is a consensus in this House on the absolutely fundamental role the European Union plays and is bound to play in the western Balkans through a credible accession perspective – albeit a medium- to long-term perspective – but a credible accession perspective. That is the driving force behind the reforms and that is the basis of our work on security and stability.

Especially with a view to the Kosovo status process, we all have to be extremely responsible as regards the western Balkans and its stability. We should not undermine the EU perspective, which is the foundation of security and stability in the region. Thus, to avoid eroding our own credibility, we cannot take back with the left hand what we gave with the right hand. The key objectives to work for are security, stability and progress in the western Balkans.

  President. The debate is closed.