<CHAPTER ID="1">
<SPEAKER ID="1" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="Vice-President">
<P>
(1)
<SPEAKER ID="2" LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Rovsing (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, I see we have two clocks in this Chamber, and they seem to be completely out of sync.
When I look at the clock over there, the impression is of Parliament’s having ground to a halt and of its no longer moving.
That is how it has been for quite a long time, and I think we should do something about it.
<SPEAKER ID="3" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr Rovsing, I have been informed that the wall clock that you mentioned is indeed broken, and perhaps has been for a few months.
We do, though, have another clock that works but which is located behind you.
You will therefore have to turn around to check the exact time.
<P>
We will, however, have the technicians carry out the necessary repairs and so prevent you from having to speak again on the same subject.
<SPEAKER ID="4" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0053/2004) by Mr Belder, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU-Russia relations.
<SPEAKER ID="5" LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Belder (EDD )," AFFILIATION="rapporteur">
<P>
   . – Mr President, the intent of this proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU-Russia relations is clear – a partnership that is truly worthy of the name.
Accordingly, a strengthening of these mutual relations rather than growing mutual separation is what is required.
Looked at in a matter-of-fact way, that is also what our many common interests require.
In all fairness, however, relations between the EU and the Russian Federation are anything but ideal, and for this both parties are to blame.
That is, therefore, the angle of this proposal for a recommendation: European self-criticism and criticism levelled at Moscow.
In the autumn of last year, that is the very course on which this House’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy embarked.
To our satisfaction, we can conclude today that the Commission, according to its communication of 10 February, is more or less on the same wavelength, and so, apparently, is the Council.
Incidentally, the Council should, in the view of this House, aspire to achieve more transparency in such an important and comprehensive area of policy as relations with Russia.
<P>
This current European consensus with regard to Russia is undisputed, but what matters is its concrete implementation, and that is where Europe's self-criticism comes in.
Differing positions have been adopted on Kaliningrad, Chechnya and the Yukos affair.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that is why I cannot wait to hear about new agreements for new consistent policy.
Yesterday, the press once again confronted me with confusing accounts from a prominent European statesman.
<P>
A second point of important self-criticism is broached in Recital S and paragraph 2 of the proposal for a recommendation.
The EU-Russia partnership is based on common values of respect for democratic principles and human rights.
Parliament has expressly advised the Council and the Commission to apply this guiding principle consistently to all areas of cooperation with the Kremlin.
<P>
In any event, the situation in Chechnya is completely at odds with the principle of the EU-Russia partnership.
This is a wholly depressing situation of rampant violence and lawlessness at the expense of, in the main, a defenceless civilian population.
At the same time, the Chechen tragedy is a problem that is avoided in international politics, as the title of a thorough recent study aptly suggests.
In paragraph 13, this House recommends the Council in all seriousness to emphatically refute this shameful analysis.
In the final analysis, the internal and external effects of the Chechen impasse affect the European Union's values and interests just as much.
To start with, the Council should lodge a vigorous protest with President Putin against the disappearances, tortures or, worse, the killings of Chechen citizens who had the courage to lodge complaints with the European Court for Human Rights.
<P>
Talking of disappearances in the Chechen region, I would refer to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the fate of my compatriot Arjan Erkel.
I fully subscribe to the amendment tabled as No 25, which I will quote: ‘reiterates its deep concern once again about the fact that to date, no political solution has been found in the case of Arjan Erkel and regrets the fact that no progress whatsoever has been made in the direction of a solution, insists therefore on a determined political move on the part of the federal and local authorities in Russia, the Commission and the Council to ensure that Mr Erkel is released safe and well’.
<P>
Much more so than Chechnya, there is another obstacle to the EU-Russia partnership that is receiving political and public attention: the extension of the partnership and cooperation agreements to include all new EU Member States from 1 May 2004.
Parliament is supporting the Council unconditionally in its position, according to which it will not enter into any negotiations with the Russians in this respect.
Could the Council perhaps tell us whether a provisional solution to this difference is in the offing?
Good neighbourly relations and, above all, good partnership, should be accompanied by Russian foreign policy that reinforces stability on the continent.
If anything, though, the failure to sign or ratify the border agreements between Russia and its Baltic neighbours, Estonia and Latvia, has a destabilising effect, as do, and to an even greater degree, Russia's unfulfilled obligations to withdraw its troops from Transnistria and Georgia at long last.
The present proposal for a recommendation urges the Council to stand firm on these sensitive security issues.
<P>
I could mention many other areas of concern with regard to the development of the EU-Russia partnership, as is evident from a careful scrutiny of the proposal for a recommendation, but I would add that it was certainly not our intention to draft a catalogue of complaints.
The intention is quite simply to define the mutual frictions, to facilitate and maintain debate on them and join together in seeking a solution.
It is logical in this connection that the European Union should set out its priorities unambiguously and repeatedly and should indicate its so-called red lines during negotiations.
This practical approach is reflected in the Commission communication. This gives me, as rapporteur, real satisfaction.
The relatively considerable attention received to date in the Russian media by the proposal for a recommendation gives ample reason to rejoice.
It appears that our message is well received by the Russian Federation, to whom it is also addressed.
I am indebted to you, the MEPs concerned, for this response.
I found your thoughts and contributions indispensable.
I would repeat this praise for the excellent assistance from the secretariat of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in the person of Mr Dag Sourander.
Together with him and my personal assistant, Henk-Jan van Schothorst, we have, over the past few months, poured over these complicated EU-Russia relations with much dedication, because this House sets great store by a partnership that functions right across the board.
<SPEAKER ID="6" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Patten," AFFILIATION="Commission">
<P>
   . Mr President, those Members of the House who read the or indeed the will recognise that EU-Russia cooperation is not always as straightforward as it could be.
I have to say that I regret that deeply.
Why?
Because a stable and constructive relationship with Russia is essential to the EU, and also because a stable and constructive relationship with the EU is essential to Russia.
It is clearly in our interest to try to promote close ties with an open, stable and democratic Russia, acting, we hope, as a reliable partner which can uphold European values, continue reforms, implement commitments and, in cooperation with the EU, play a constructive role in the newly independent states.
<P>
The communication which the Commission adopted on 9 February, a communication which heavily influenced the report discussed by foreign ministers on Monday of this week, took as its starting point the interdependence of the EU and Russia and our wish to build a genuine strategic partnership, based on shared values and driven by our evident common interests.
There are positive elements to the relationship, but, overall, we have to accept that the results of five years of increasingly intensive cooperation are not as positive as we expected.
We have to do something about that.
<P>
There were three important outcomes from the review of EU-Russia relations discussed on Monday.
First, a strong, clear and public message was passed to Russia that we expect the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to be extended to the ten acceding Member States without pre-condition or distinction by 1 May.
The Commission has held intensive discussions with Russia.
We hope that we have been able to convince our interlocutors that the question of extending the PCA must be rapidly settled.
The EU, for its part, is ready, in parallel to the extension of the PCA, to discuss any of Russia's legitimate concerns over the impact of enlargement.
I hope that our attempt to resolve this issue as rapidly as possible will not be affected by the formation of the new government of the Russian Federation, with which we will look forward to working in due course.
<P>
Second, the Ministers confirmed the importance of the EU's relations with Russia.
It was agreed that the EU should engage with Russia, that we should be ready to discuss all complex issues of mutual interest, and that as part of this approach, the EU should stress that its partnership with Russia is not only driven by common interests but also founded on shared values.
This implies discussing frankly Russian practices that run counter to European values, such as human rights in Chechnya, media freedom and cooperation on the environment.
It also involves not hesitating to defend EU interests vigorously.
<P>
Third, the ministers recognised the need for the EU to change the way in which it does business with Russia – to become more 'joined up', to use the bureaucratic terminology.
It was agreed that the EU should establish clear, agreed objectives and positions ahead of every meeting with Russia.
If we wish to build what can honestly be described as a strategic partnership, EU messages must be balanced and coherent, and our ambitious political declarations must be matched by progress on substance.
This requires better coordination between policies defined at EU level, and the approach of individual Member States to relations with Russia.
Why, for example, is it that the EU subscribes to joint statements with Russia, in which we agree to step up cooperation on crisis management, yet the EU is unable to convince Russia to work with it to resolve the very real problems in Moldova and the southern Caucasus?
Why, in addition, do we see individual Member States agree to facilitate visas for Russia, at the same time as Russia is blocking conclusion of a readmission agreement?
<P>
Many of these views are shared by the report which the honourable Member has presented so eloquently this morning; the report is a welcome contribution, in my judgement, to the debate on our relations with Russia.
<P>
Our task now is to translate words into action and to establish a more coherent, strategic approach to Russia, reflecting the views of the enlarged Union.
It is important that the EU can make real progress in its work with Russia.
This matters to business people wishing to gain access to the promising Russian market – we should remember, after all, that after enlargement, more than 50% of Russia's trade will be with the EU.
It also matters to importers of energy, given Russia's position as a major supplier of oil and gas.
And not least, it matters because, if we are to tackle cross-border problems such as environmental pollution, illegal migration and organised crime, Russia will have to shoulder more of the burden than it has previously.
<P>
Discussions at the General Affairs and External Relations Council reaffirmed the interest of the EU in promoting integration in the long term, through the creation of a series of common spaces within the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
The Commission has advocated strongly that, once agreement is reached on PCA extension, the EU should be ready to present a draft joint action plan to Russia covering all these four spaces, consistent with our neighbourhood policy and incorporating relevant elements that are of common interest to both the EU and Russia.
This would help to establish an issues-based agenda, focused on substance, and be a further step towards the strategic partnership that we genuinely want with the Russian Federation.
<P>
I would like to thank the honourable Member once again for presenting such a thoughtful report and I am sure it will contribute to the outcome that we both wish to see.
<SPEAKER ID="7" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Arvidsson (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, a terrible war is going on in Europe.
The Second Chechen War is now into its fifth year.
It will soon have been going on for as long as the Second World War did.
Every day that the war continues, the leaders of the Russian State demonstrate their inability and unwillingness to bring the civil war to a peaceful end.
The war has become self-perpetuating.
European leaders and the EU must be more active in pursuing peace in Chechnya, and we must demand that the Russian army comply with the rules of war in their dealings with the civilian population.
There must be an end to so-called mopping-up operations, which amount to nothing other than robbery and kidnappings, and Russian soldiers who do violence to the civilian population must be brought before the courts.
<P>
With the collapse of totalitarian Soviet Communism, there were high hopes and expectations of the way in which Russia would develop and draw closer to the rest of Europe.
Now that we see how developments have taken another direction in certain parts of the country, we must make demands and not just express expectations.
State-controlled media and a so-called controlled democracy have no place in a modern, democratic constitutional state.
President Putin announced the departure of the Russian Government a few days ago.
He quoted as a reason for forming a new government the fact that it would work more intensively on developing democracy in the country.
That sounds all well and good.
We must hope that it will also become a reality.
<P>
It is unacceptable to the EU that, prior to enlargement, Russia has not approved agreements drawn up with Estonia and Latvia on the delineation of borders.
It is also unacceptable for Russia to oppose an extension to the partnership agreements.
<P>
Russia has huge environmental problems.
This is in large part a legacy of the Communist era when the environment had very low priority.
The greatest risk of an environmental disaster that might also hit the EU area is presented by the outmoded and oldest nuclear power stations of what is termed the Chernobyl type.
They exist in Sosnovy Bor, not far from Estonia’s border with Russia, and in Kursk, near Moscow.
We must clearly emphasise to the Russians that the continued operation of these first-generation RBMK reactors is unacceptable.
They should be phased out as quickly as possible, and other nuclear power stations in Russia must be upgraded from a safety point of view in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) safety standards.
EU cooperation with Russia on upgrading the safety of nuclear power must become more effective.
<P>
This report is no doubt of its time and has come in for a lot of attention.
I wish, in conclusion, to thank Mr Belder for his constructive cooperation.
<SPEAKER ID="8" LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Paasilinna (PSE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Russia has to accept the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
The European Commission has decided to threaten Russia with a trade boycott if it does not agree to extending this agreement to the future Member States.
There will not be much cooperation left if we end up squabbling over the partnership in this manner!
<P>
Our policy on Russia has failed badly.
Nothing concrete has been achieved for several years, apart from the Kaliningrad question.
The eastward expansion of the EU and NATO will reduce Russia’s sphere of influence and its trade by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Given this situation, Moscow has mentioned 14 areas of concern, such as transition periods for customs tariffs.
We, the old Member States, are now imposing transition periods with regard to the workforce in the new Member States.
The Union has not agreed to one of these.
To reciprocate, Russia will not sanction the Kyoto Agreement and is putting pressure on relations with the minority in the Baltic region.
<P>
A trade boycott would cause great harm to certain Member States as a result of an increase in the costs of raw materials.
Other countries would suffer less, some not at all, but my country, for example, would, as the share of trade with Russia is enormous there and we also have some experience in a history of dealing with difficult relations.
<P>
Now Russia is actually up against the wall as a result of this trade policy threat, while at the same time there are two kinds of expansion taking place.
We are pushing our way into Russia’s trading zones.
<P>
The country has just voted in a more nationalistic parliament than ever and the current presidential election campaign smacks of the same.
The EU ministerial troika now has to take the initiative and make a suitable proposal to resolve this issue prior to the summit, because this is an area of cooperation where we have to find new approaches.
We cannot force democracy on Russia: it will come about through wider channels of cooperation.
The best and most effective approach of all is to try to have an influence directly on President Putin, who has a key role in everything that happens, as was said just now.
This again will require cooperation, not boycotts.
I understand the criticism regarding Chechnya and Sasnovibor, for example, but they are part of the very cooperation that we must now build and eventually obtain results from, so that the benefits are discernible on both sides and in order to end all these peculiar threats, which are inappropriate with regard to the sort of cooperation we need in this day and age.
<SPEAKER ID="9" LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Väyrynen (ELDR )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is very satisfied with Mr Belder’s report on Russia.
We are nevertheless prepared to accept some amendments.
On the other hand, we hope there is support by the other groups for our own amendment, which concerns the position of national minorities in Russia.
<P>
Recently we in the European Union have been pondering our relations with Russia.
The conclusion we have jointly come to is that the formally adopted strategy has not worked satisfactorily.
The main reason for this is that the Union has been incapable of showing any united front in its dealings with Russia, but instead some Member States, the bigger ones in particular, have been inclined to go their own way.
This situation has to be rectified.
<P>
There is, however, another key reason for our failings, something that has been given too little attention in our deliberations.
In the Union there is insufficient knowledge or understanding of the political situation in Russia.
Russia, at least up till now, has not complied with the diplomatic and political principles that we and other Western countries take for granted.
This has been evident, for example, in the fact that Russia has been adamant about not agreeing to extend the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to the new Member States of the EU.
Perhaps the threat of sanctions would not have the desired effect either, but might instead lead to a trade war in which the Member States of the EU might come off worse than Russia.
I have not noticed any such threat being made as yet, however, although it has perhaps been discussed at times.
<P>
Calm and patience are needed in relations with Russia.
To be able to realise our own objectives effectively and keep a watch over our own interests, we always have to consider the special political circumstances that obtain in Russia, hard and wearisome though that sometimes is.
<SPEAKER ID="10" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Brie (GUE/NGL )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, my group strongly endorses the critical positions set out in the Belder report.
There is an unacceptable situation in Chechnya, where the Russian army is engaged in gross violations of human rights.
There are disturbing internal political changes within Russia, with what is termed ‘managed democracy’ increasingly taking on authoritarian characteristics, and we also take a highly critical line on Russia’s dealings with the new Member States of the European Union.
<P>
The European Union formerly adopted a two-track strategy in its dealings with Russia; underlying it was the fact that Russia is – and must be – one of our most important strategic partners.
A two-track strategy does not of course mean that we refrain from criticism – on the contrary; it is when strategic relationships are being developed that there has to be a central role for engagement with our canon of values, for the upholding of democracy, of the standards associated with the rule of law, and of human rights.
At the same time, though, it was also our concern to achieve the sustainable mutual interconnection of Russia and the European Union, and not only by means of the partnership and cooperation agreement.
I think this would not be the moment to put question marks against this strategy; in so doing, we would be letting go of the opportunities we have for really getting to grips with internal political developments or with the situation in Chechnya.
Moreover, I believe, we ought to be far more serious about concerning ourselves with social conditions in Russia.
The life expectancy of men in Russia has decreased by ten years over the past twelve years – a tragic development, and one that characterises the situation in many parts of that country.
<P>
Although I endorse Mr Belder’s criticisms of Russian policy, I would have liked the report to have made more explicit what he said in his speech just now, with his trenchant criticism of the Council’s actions and of the European governments whose dealings with Russia are based on economic rather than strategic considerations.
Ever since 11 September, many governments – and not only Mr Berlusconi’s, but also the German Federal Government – have been allowing the war in Chechnya to be trivialised as part of the war on terrorism, and so we keep quiet about it.
<P>
I do not think it is enough to think of Russia as a strategic partner only in the economic sense or in terms of securing our borders and preventing trafficking in human beings.
Our relations with Russia have to be characterised by mutuality and interpenetration.
<SPEAKER ID="11" LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Wuori (Verts/ALE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, I will continue what is very much a Finnish debate, although I am largely of the same opinion as Mr Brie, who has just spoken, although he is not my fellow countryman.
<P>
The fact that relations between the EU and Russia are now more unpredictable than for a time is the fault of both sides.
It would be worrying if Russia were to become our own Middle East, and, because of European dependence on energy, we were prepared to allow human rights violations such as those played out in the tragedy that is Chechnya to continue from one year to the next, and accept the increased risks attached to the transportation of oil, the collapse of nuclear safety, and the alarming restrictions on civil liberties.
The crucial issue here is freedom of speech, and one only has to go by Russia’s track record on other political rights to reach a reliable conclusion on that.
An independent media and judiciary are vital to allow a robust civil society to develop in Russia, which has never yet been a true nation-state.
<P>
The EU does not seem to have any coherent or consistent policy with regard to Russia; neither are issues given any sort of priority.
That is also shown by the way the Union’s Northern Dimension has been neglected, although it embraces regional cooperation, especially in Baltic and Arctic areas, which is vitally important for the stability of the EU’s neighbouring regions and the common stability that results from that, and although its importance will only increase as the Union is now expanding to include the Baltic countries.
The Northern Dimension is certainly different from Kaliningrad, which is symbolised, for example, by the Sami people who live in the Arctic region that stretches from Norway to Russia and who at the same time are the EU’s only indigenous people.
<P>
Ending on a positive note, let it be said that our land border with Russia has been remarkably peaceful and free of problems, and the EU does not really deserve the credit for that.
<SPEAKER ID="12" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Dupuis (NI )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think we need to emphasise what Mr Brie has already said to us.
We are discussing a recommendation to the Council in the Council’s absence, which is itself not a good sign of the Council’s potential interest in such an important question.
However, I think we are having a rich debate, certainly richer than what the press is reporting today, noting the remarks made by Mr Chirac, who seems to think Europe lacks respect for Russia.
<P>
But which Russia?
The Russia of the new parliamentary elections?
Elections where, as some of our fellow Members have pointed out, we have seen a virtual monopoly – even more so than in Serbia – of ‘nationalist parties’, as we say when we want to be tactful, although we know that, generally speaking, they are literally fascist parties.
But we cannot say that because we are talking about Russia.
<P>
I fully agree with what a number of other Members have said: Mr Arvidsson, Mr Brie, Mr Wuori and others, who listed a number of small things that are not going right, I do not think there is much that is going right.
The elections to the Russian Duma have shown that.
So far as the presidential elections are concerned, we cannot speak of an election campaign because no such campaign has taken place.
We all witnessed the scandal of the Rybkin affair, a candidate who was kidnapped, abducted to a foreign country, drugged and sent back.
There was the scandal surrounding the candidature of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who is undeniably one of Russia’s greatest entrepreneurs.
We would not have tolerated one tenth of one quarter of what was done to him.
I think the Strasbourg Court will be bound to agree, but sadly it will be three years before then, by which time the fate of Mr Khodorkovsky’s business and of Mr Khodorkovsky himself will have been sealed.
<P>
I have a question for Mr Patten. Mr Patten, at what point must we speak of a human rights violation?
When 20% of a population of a million people have been wiped out, is that a human rights violation, genocide or a disaster of biblical proportions?
I think we speak of human rights violations when we find a number of serious breaches of laws that are known and generally respected.
But when, as we have seen in Chechnya, we find that 200 000 people have been killed in nine years, with tens of thousands of cases of torture and rape, that is no longer a human rights violation, it is genocide.
I think a lot of honourable Members, myself included, are somewhat reluctant to use the word genocide.
We all know why.
What happened in Europe 60 years was genocide.
What happened in Rwanda was genocide.
And what is happening today in Chechnya is genocide, and, Commissioner Patten, has nothing to do with human rights violations.
<P>
I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Belder, and many other fellow Members who, I think, in the end were forced to admit that what is happening in Chechnya and in Russia is no longer about human rights violations and a lack of democracy.
It is something far worse.
<SPEAKER ID="13" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Brok (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, Russia is a major and important partner for us, one with whom we are joined – or one could say, from whom we are separated – by two things: shared interests and common values.
As regards the values, today finds us criticising the way in which democracy and the rule of law are developing, as well as the situation in Chechnya, but, in so doing, we must not lose sight of our many shared interests.
Now that the European Union is enlarging, it is vital that the borders between the European Union and Russia should not become new barricades; instead, we should also use them as bridges and as a means whereby the partnership and cooperation agreement may be extended.
Our provision of aid is important, for it also helps to promote liberalisation within Russia.
It is important that Russia should be able to join the WTO – in the same way as everyone else rather than subject to special conditions – and, if the normal conditions apply, then we should also support it in doing so.
We have shared interests in energy, security and the combating of terrorism.
<P>
This, I think, is something we should make clear, and we should not allow the situation in Belarus to result in energy not being supplied to the European Union as contractually agreed.
In many areas, the enlargement of the EU does not create a new situation, and we should not confuse the issues.
The continuation of the partnership and cooperation agreement after the European Union is enlarged must not mean that we accept claims for compensation arising out of trade issues, for then the whole world could do likewise, and I do not believe that a precedent of this kind would be acceptable; the question also arises of whether the figures Russia has produced are correct.
<P>
We also have to make it clear, though, that the Baltic States’ negotiation of accession to the European Union has helped to put minorities there in a position not shared by minorities in many other parts of the world and perhaps not in certain parts of Russia.
The issue of the minorities cannot be an excuse for delaying the signature of the border treaties or, in any case, for delaying their ratification.
This has to be done now, and for that clarity is needed.
Both by means of technology and through cooperation, we should help Russia to establish exemption from visa requirements, but this must be done in such a way that the Schengen standards for the acceding countries can be maintained, in order to maintain internal security.
<P>
In doing this, we should work for good relations with Russia, and recognise that it can be a factor for stability only if we accept that it, too, possesses territorial stability.
This is something else we have to take on board.
<SPEAKER ID="14" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Lalumière (PSE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, Commissioner, the draft recommendation presented by our rapporteur after the draft was amended and supplemented by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy is a document that I endorse and have no difficulty in voting for.
<P>
I will not reiterate here all of the many points raised in the text.
Mr Belder’s work was extremely thorough, in line with the Commission communications and Parliament’s previous resolutions on Russia.
I will therefore limit myself to addressing two aspects contained in the report.
The first is the lack of consistency between the governments of the Member States on this matter – a lack of consistency and a lack of coordination.
When dealing with such a large and difficult partner as the Russian Federation, it is intolerable to hear EU ministers, even prime ministers or Council presidents, expressing differing opinions, for example on the painful war in Chechnya or on President Putin himself or on the elections.
Such differing opinions, sometimes expressed only a few hours apart, weaken the Union and damage the credibility of its efforts to have a common foreign and security policy worthy of the name.
<P>
The second aspect I wanted to mention is also a lack of consistency, but this time between the Union’s different actions with regard to Russia.
Our partnership and our strategy have many facets, which are reviewed in the report, but it all needs to be put in perspective with priorities and much more consistency.
It is true that the EU and Russia have set themselves the long-term aim of creating a common economic space, a common space of freedom, security and justice, a common space of cooperation in the field of external security and a space of research and education, including cultural aspects.
That is all very well, but once again it needs to be done consistently, which will require a great deal of determination, organisation and know-how: in other words, we still have a long way to go.
<SPEAKER ID="15" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Malmström (ELDR )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, Commissioner, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is very concerned about the evermore authoritarian developments in Russia, linked to the person of President Putin.
The sudden dissolution of the government is further illustration of this.
<P>
Democracy appears to be in retreat, instead of the reverse being the case, and the presidential election resembles more and more a farcical one-man show.
The terrible acts of cruelty in Chechnya must cease, and the EU must act in such a way as to help bring about a solution as soon as possible.
There are huge needs in the environmental area, and we regret the fact that Russia is unwilling to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
<P>
The EU needs to have a strategic partnership with Russia.
We wish, are able and ought to play our part, but such a partnership is not unconditional and cannot be dictated by Moscow.
In this area, the ball now lies largely in Putin’s court.
I also wish to thank Mr Belder for a very constructive report, which we can without difficulty vote in favour of.
<SPEAKER ID="16" LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Frahm (GUE/NGL )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, quite a few people, including Mr Patten, have said that EU-Russia relations have not always been ideal, and right now can probably be characterised as being quite strained.
As several people have said, there are good reasons for this.
<P>
Last Monday, we were able to ‘commemorate’ the 60th anniversary of Stalin’s deportation of the Chechens and, thus, also the 60th anniversary of a genocide that has never been properly acknowledged.
We have also, in the last few days, been able to see how journalists of a critical disposition have been denied visas for Russia.
These are journalists who wish to cover the election and who are not therefore being given an opportunity to offer a critical analysis of what is happening.
We see other things.
Mrs Malmström mentioned how, with a snap of his fingers, Putin dissolved the Russian Government.
All these things mean that the situation is extremely worrying.
There are good reasons for being very critical of what is happening in Russia.
<P>
I sincerely support Mr Belder’s report but, conversely, I have, in recent days, been astonished that we can talk so clearly about Russia but so unclearly about China.
I do not understand how, on the one hand, we can pursue a critical line – which I think is correct – on Russia and, on the other hand, consider lifting the arms embargo against China which, in my view, is more or less as difficult, troublesome and unreasonable as Russia in its behaviour.
<P>
I believe that genocide has taken place, and is continuing to take place, in Tibet.
I believe that the oppression of the Chinese people is without parallel.
I believe that we are here seeing problems similar to, and in reality still greater than, those in Russia.
Nonetheless, we are considering lifting the arms embargo.
<P>
In one way or another, the EU must ensure that its foreign policy is adjusted in such a way that the policy lines adopted are commensurate with the behaviour of the countries with which we work.
I do not, moreover, think that this is the situation at present.
<SPEAKER ID="17" LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Speroni (NI )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, I do not want to address the entire issue of relations between the Union and the Russian Federation, and so I will confine myself to the Chechen issue, by recalling that human rights, in the sense of the rights of individuals, have been discussed more than once in this Chamber.
This is entirely reasonable, but it seems that we have now forgotten another fundamental right, and that is every people’s right to self-determination.
Whilst this is still considered blasphemy, or something that should never be uttered, it will not be possible to resolve issues such as those of Chechnya or Tibet that we have just raised.
<SPEAKER ID="18" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Tannock (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, Russia is a vast country and its contribution -historically speaking – to European culture is immense.
It remains a major military power and deserves recognition on the global centre stage.
Although economically it has shrunk, it is a vital source of gas and oil to the EU and has a common enemy in international Islamist terrorism.
<P>
I believe that Mr Putin will win the presidential election, and that we must recognise his democratic mandate to rebuild a strong Russian state.
I do not accept calls to expel Russia from G8 because of its handling of the Yukos affair.
Only two weeks ago the Russian courts handed down a lenient sentence to one of its executives convicted of tax evasion: hardly the signs of judicial bias.
<P>
I sympathise at the loss Russia faces with the ending of the bilateral free trade agreements with the acceding EU states, but overall, the tariffs drop from 9% to 4% and Russia cannot fail to extend the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements to the Baltic Republics because of disputes over ethnic Russian minority rights there.
The Kaliningrad question is settled now and work on visa-free or flexible travel to the EU should commence once a readmission agreement is struck.
<P>
Russia sees the EU as muscling in on its sphere of influence from Georgia to Ukraine, hence its attempts to reconstitute some of the binding elements of the former Soviet Union in the Yalta agreement with Ukraine, Belarus – a country where Russia could use its special influence to do more to encourage democracy – and Kazakhstan.
I also urge Russia to withdraw its troops from Transnistria, allow a peaceful reunification of Moldova and consign the Tiraspol gangster regime to the dustbins of history.
<P>
Lastly, I am concerned that there has been mass migration west of ethnic Russians away from the far eastern territories, where Russia is attempting now to forge close links with Japan and Korea on resource exploitation.
These ethnic Russians are being replaced by illegal Chinese migrants, a situation which may cause tensions in the future in that vast, under-populated but resource-rich territory.
<SPEAKER ID="19" LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Iivari (PSE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, it is a positive move that the General Affairs Council signalled collectively that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia should automatically extend to cover the new Member States.
There is no reason to have separate negotiations on that.
If there are problems in economic and trade relations between the enlarged Union and Russia they can then be discussed separately between the Union and Russia.
<P>
Russia is the EU’s most important neighbour.
It is in the interests of both the Union and Russia that relations between them develop favourably in all areas of life.
Furthermore, we must be able to discuss sensitive issues such as human rights.
We must ensure that the Union is consistent in its policy on Russia and that in Russia they understand that the EU cannot be split politically.
From the beginning of May, the Baltic countries that join the EU will form just as solid a part of the Union as the old Member States.
Their condition for membership was fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria regarding such matters as human rights and the rights of minorities.
These conditions have been met.
Moreover, Russia is committed to compliance with human rights as a member of the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe and the Council of Europe.
It is very important that there are assurances that the work of the OCSE in Chechnya can proceed.
<P>
Strategic cooperation based on common values has been spoken of with regard to relations between the EU and Russia.
Perhaps such grand-sounding aims should move a step closer to something a bit more concrete.
There are good grounds for that, too, as the EU will account for 55% of Russia’s foreign trade.
The EU needs oil and natural gas so there is a need for cooperation on energy to be developed. The environment must play a part in that, whether it is a matter of energy production or its transportation.
<P>
One of the areas of cooperation mentioned at the St Petersburg Summit was research, education and culture.
I am a firm supporter of more exchange programmes for researchers, teachers and students and cooperation between educational institutions.
If we are to build sustainable cooperation our citizens will need to network with one another.
Here too we will have to provide young people with the right facilities and opportunities.
They cannot bear the burden of a divided world.
<SPEAKER ID="20" LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Andreasen (ELDR )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, there is a subject that raises concern when we talk about Russia.
It is the subject of freedom of the press, and I am pleased that Commissioner Patten mentioned this.
<P>
We know that, according to Russian law, there is freedom of the press in Russia, but there is a big gap between the law and everyday practice.
The organisation Journalists Without Frontiers has published a list in connection with press freedom on which, out of 158 countries, Russia is in 148th place.
Moreover, the situation is getting worse.
Journalists are being murdered in Russia.
According to the International Federation of Journalists, four journalists were killed in Russia last year alone and, since 1 January 2002, thirteen have been killed.
<P>
Obstacles are placed in the way of journalists’ work.
I saw this for myself in St Petersburg in the run-up to the election for Governor when, for example, it was forbidden to show pictures, or quote the names of, candidates in the election.
Recently, a Danish journalist was denied entry to Russia. Her crime was to have written critically of Russian conduct in Chechnya.
<P>
I would ask the Commission and the Council to take press freedom seriously when the negotiations with Russia are begun.
The attacks on freedom of expression that take place in Russia are unacceptable!
<SPEAKER ID="21" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Stenzel (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, Commissioner, Austria currently enjoys perfectly trouble-free relations with Russia, as demonstrated by the most recent state visits and President Putin’s fondness for skiing in our country.
It is for that reason that I find this picture of the European Union’s relations with Russia all the more regrettable.
<P>
The EU’s relations with Russia are not a one-way street.
They need to be optimised if the interests of the enlarged EU are to be given the same weight as Russia’s.
It is also an indispensable requirement – let me repeat, an indispensable requirement – that the partnership and cooperation agreement, which has been in force since 1998, should now be extended to cover the European Union’s ten new Member States.
What formerly stood in the way of this was the objection that the enlargement of the EU would put Russia at a disadvantage on the market, so that it demanded that compensation be paid.
This line of argument really is questionable, as the enlargement of the European Union will automatically create, for Russia too, a market with a great deal of purchasing power, and that cannot fail to be good for its economy.
Cooperation in decommissioning nuclear power stations that are ready for scrapping, or in the disposal of nuclear waste off the Kola peninsula and in the North Sea leaves something to be desired, to say the least, and it is far from clear why Russia has so far turned a deaf ear to the demands for safe tankers in the Baltic.
What makes it astonishing that the alleged difficulties of the Russian minority in the Baltic states keep being brought up is the fact that both the OSCE and the Council of Europe believe that the problem is no longer there.
By way of contrast, the OSCE was barred from entering Chechnya.
The fact that most of the asylum seekers and refugees in Austria are Chechens can only be taken as an indication of how appalling the situation there is, although I do not want in any way to downplay the crimes committed by terrorists against the public in Russia.
And, even though the EU has been very accommodating with regard to Kaliningrad, there has not to date been any agreement to take back refugees or illegal migrants.
<P>
With presidential elections now in the offing, I deliberately do not now want to discuss Russia’s internal politics – reference has already been made to ‘managed democracy’ – even though they must inevitably have an effect on relations between Russia and the EU.
Even so, it does not make sense to keep quiet about problems when dealing with them cannot fail to help promote good relations between Russia and the EU.
<SPEAKER ID="22" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sacrédeus (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, I wish sincerely to thank the rapporteur, Mr Belder, for a very well written and politically well balanced report.
The controlled democracy that characterises Russia is a source of great concern.
We are all aware that democracy has not secured a foothold in Russia and that a climate of fear has been created in which people who express independent political views in relation to President Putin are exposed to threats.
People with considerable financial power have, in particular, ended up in difficulties with the judicial system.
<P>
I wish to emphasise that the administrative resources and control of the media were such that the parliamentary elections for the Duma on 17 December 2003 can scarcely be said to have complied with international standards.
An independent judiciary is required if it is to be possible to refer to Russia as a fully-fledged democracy.
At present, the prosecuting authorities have no independence from the executive.
<P>
Russia must act internationally to close down its current military bases in Georgia and Moldova without delay.
Russia must act constructively in the conflict in the South Caucasus, and I wish to issue a special appeal to the Russian Government to solve the protracted conflict between Turkey and Armenia and to promote reconciliation between the peoples of these countries.
Turkey should also recognise the genocide to which the Armenian people was exposed between 1915 and 1918.
<P>
Russia has a special responsibility for developments in Belarus, a new neighbour of the enlarged EU, which can scarcely be described as a democracy but, rather, as a country under the authoritarian control of President Alexander Lukashenko.
<P>
Last of all, I want Russia to promote freedom of religion in a much more open and tolerant way.
<SPEAKER ID="23" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Gahler (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   – Mr President, in the aftermath of the profound changes in Europe, relations with Russia have become very complex.
Dialogue and cooperation have been enshrined in a plethora of treaties and agreements in many international institutions, and partnership and cooperation agreements make meetings between the EU and Russia at the highest level a regular, and indeed fixed, occurrence.
<P>
I increasingly get the impression, though, that this comprehensive dialogue is becoming a fossilised and predictable ritual.
I think it was Commissioner Patten who, a few months ago, told the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy that he had the impression that the speaking notes prepared for him on Russia had not substantially changed for some considerable time.
Politics is, of course, always the art of the possible, and that means that one will always have to take an approach to a large country like Russia that differs from the approach one would take if a small country were misbehaving itself.
In terms of proportion, one can certainly compare atrocities against civilians in Kosovo and in Chechnya, but it is obvious that our response to Russia will be different – as it indeed is.
I would, however, ask the Council, as a matter of urgency, to address the issues that have not been satisfactorily resolved and are still on the agenda rather than dodging them – which is what it is doing, in a sense, by the mere fact of being absent from this debate.
There can be no compromise where partnership and cooperation agreements are concerned, nor in relation to their adoption by, and extension to, all the new accession countries; Russia can, for example, take a good look at how customs tariffs change from what they were before, at a time when we had bilateral agreements with some of the candidate countries.
Once they are in the EU, customs tariffs will fall.
It follows that these countries’ accession to the European Union does not have only detrimental effects.
<P>
Many references have been made to Chechnya.
There too, I believe, we should not merely allow ourselves the luxury of making appeals or of ignoring it outright.
I have always taken the view that we have to find different ways of targeting the funds that we appropriate for cooperation with Russia.
We must try to prop up the weak structures of civil society in Russia, in order that this society may undergo democratic change from the bottom up and not in the lamentable way we have seen in recent months.
<SPEAKER ID="24" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="Vice-President">
<SPEAKER ID="25" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Ainardi (GUE/NGL )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, Mr Belder’s report makes a number of comments and proposals in line with the recommendations from the Council concerning relations between the Union and Russia.
I support the two main lines pursued in the report.
First, the reaffirmation of the desire to develop the vital partnership between the European Union and Russia.
Russia is a big country and it is essential to develop economic relations with her in the areas of industry, research, health and energy.
Common ambitions and objectives must be set, as the rapporteur proposes. They are of strategic and political importance.
We must set priority objectives, such as cross-border cooperation in the fight against crime, defence of human rights, democracy, independence of news media and the rule of law, cooperation to resolve conflicts in the region and disarmament; we must also promote improvements to public health and social development.
<P>
The second line pursued in the report seeks to be more critical, especially concerning basic freedoms and democratic rights in Russia.
I agree with the rapporteur when he deplores the weakness of the Union’s role in the Chechen conflict, which has caused more than 200 000 deaths in ten years and is really genocide.
The report calls on the Russian authorities to investigate the disappearances, torture and all violations of human rights.
In November 2003, several of us intervened following President Berlusconi’s statements justifying the Russian military’s intervention policy.
Europe must indeed play a much greater role in strongly and clearly condemning Russia in its handling of the war in Chechnya.
There will not and cannot be a military solution in Chechnya.
<P>
The desire for a partnership between the European Union and Russia must follow a plan that includes peace and security for all peoples.
Europe can no longer be content with mere rhetoric.
It must act and, from that point of view, the report is a step in the right direction.
<SPEAKER ID="26" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President. –" AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place at 11 a.m.
<SPEAKER ID="27" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President. –" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="28" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Gahrton (Verts/ALE )" AFFILIATION="rapporteur.">
<SPEAKER ID="29" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Patten," AFFILIATION="Commission">
<SPEAKER ID="30" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy">
<SPEAKER ID="31" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Stenzel (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="détente">
<SPEAKER ID="32" LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Volcic (PSE )." AFFILIATION=".">
<P>
   Mr President, the problems of the South Caucasus are as easy to identify as they are difficult to solve.
In addition to significant aid, we need an extremely ambitious European strategy and perhaps a broader mandate for Mr Heikki Talvitie, the European Union’s Special Representative for the South Caucasus. Commissioner Patten too has spoken about this, but I do not believe that the fight against corruption to reduce poverty and drug trafficking, or even the analysis of the elections can be enough to establish these measures as a strategy for the zone.
It is clearly difficult to operate in a fragile situation in which at least three endemic disputes are simmering.
Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more essential that a plan is presented.
The usual procedure sometimes calls for global objectives to be achieved with just one conference. I do, however, believe that, in the case of the South Caucasus, we need to proceed gradually, step by step, in the disputes and in cooperation; otherwise we risk obtaining a very poor result.
<P>
The report by Mr Gahrton gives a very detailed description of both the situation and the needs, and I agree with the rapporteur that the South Caucasus region needs to be given a well-defined status in the context of the policy we call ‘Wider Europe’

<P>
If stability is to be achieved, then it is essential that Russia is involved.
President Putin – having the day before yesterday dissolved a government that has always maintained considerable ambiguity towards the countries of the former Soviet Union, and in particular, towards the South Caucasus – will also have to indicate some direction for the Caucasus.
The meeting between the European Union and Russia, which will take place next March, could be an opportunity for this to happen.
<P>
The interests and values that are all necessary for cooperation must be clarified in both form and substance. Furthermore, we must consider the fact that the opening, in two years, of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be of enormous strategic importance.
We do not know if the billionaire Mr Khodorkovsky, for example with his company , intends to conclude agreements with the US company and nor do we know to what extent the new President Putin would be in favour of such a development. Similarly, we do not know what the chain reaction would be in either case.
Discrediting the pipelines for environmental reasons is merely a rhetorical exercise.
The oil must, in any event, go from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea.
During the cold war, the planning of the pipelines sought to avoid Soviet territory, but the situation is now changing. I do, however, believe that the report by Mr Gahrton expresses appropriate concerns about this and other unknown factors in the region.
<P>
Thanks to oil resources, Azerbaijan will be rich and Georgia will have transit rights whilst Armenia will have nothing.
This is how the new sources of wealth can create new imbalances, which can be smoothed out only though political mediation.
One simply has to realise that the future situation will not allow a stalemate, or status quo, to continue for long in areas where conflicts rage.
<SPEAKER ID="33" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Schmidt, Olle (ELDR )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="34" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="35" LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schleicher (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="36" LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Souladakis (PSE )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="37" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Ludford (ELDR )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="38" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="39" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Howitt (PSE )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="40" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President. –" AFFILIATION="(The sitting was suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed for the vote at 11 a.m.)">
<SPEAKER ID="41" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Souchet (NI )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="42" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="(The sitting was suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed for the vote at 11 a.m.)">
<SPEAKER ID="43" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="Vice-President">
<SPEAKER ID="44" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Tannock (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="45" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="46" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="Approval of Minutes of previous sitting:"/>
<SPEAKER ID="47" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="(Parliament adopted the text)">
<SPEAKER ID="48" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="President">
<SPEAKER ID="49" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="(The House rose and observed a minute's silence.)">
<SPEAKER ID="50" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="Vice-President">
<SPEAKER ID="51" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Banotti (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="please">
<SPEAKER ID="52" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   We will give one of the Quaestors a stepladder and ask them to sort it!
<SPEAKER ID="53" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Watson (ELDR )." AFFILIATION="(Laughter)">
<P>
   Mr President, I would advise Mrs Banotti to follow the advice once given to me by the Station Master at Crianlarich, when I pointed out to him that the two clocks, one on each platform, showed different times. He replied, 'What good would it be having two clocks if they both told the same time?'
<SPEAKER ID="54" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="Before the vote on Amendments Nos 4 and 9:">
<P>
   We now continue with the vote.
<SPEAKER ID="55" LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Bigliardo (UEN )," AFFILIATION="rapporteur">
<P>
   . Mr President, in the English version the word ‘regrets’, the correct translation of which should have been ‘ has been translated by I would like the services to note in the Minutes that the Italian translation of the phrase, as we believe it be in the report, was ‘and not
<SPEAKER ID="56" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="(Parliament adopted the resolution)">
<P>
   The services will ensure that all language versions correspond.
<SPEAKER ID="57" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Arvidsson (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, the fact is that Russia has not signed the agreement made on the delineation of the border with Estonia and Latvia, and the agreement cannot thus be ratified. I therefore propose that paragraph 6 be worded as follows:
<SPEAKER ID="58" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<P>
'Recommends the Council to demand that Russia immediately sign and ratify the already negotiated border agreements with the accession states Estonia and Latvia.'
<SPEAKER ID="59" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="(The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment)">
<SPEAKER ID="60" LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Belder (EDD )," AFFILIATION="rapporteur">
<SPEAKER ID="61" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="Before the vote on recital F:">
<P>


   The original certainly says 'society' so we shall stay with that.

<SPEAKER ID="62" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Arvidsson (PPE-DE )." AFFILIATION="">
<P>
   Mr President, if the Duma is to be able to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the matter must be put before the Duma, and that has to be done by the Russian President. I therefore propose that recital F should be worded as follows:
<SPEAKER ID="63" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<P>
'Whereas the delay in transmitting the Kyoto protocol for ratification to the Duma is preventing this treaty from entering into force.'
<SPEAKER ID="64" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="(The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment)">
<P>
That concludes the vote.
<SPEAKER ID="65" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<P>
- Report: Daul (A5-0082/2004)
<SPEAKER ID="66" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="67" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="68" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="69" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="70" LANGUAGE="" NAME="De Rossa (PSE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="71" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="72" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Coelho (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="73" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   We are in agreement with the position expressed by my group's Members on Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who, once again, have highlighted that the policy on readmission agreements is in the repressive tradition of the Laeken, Seville and Thessaloniki Council meetings, which focused on the so-called ‘fight against illegal immigration’, in accordance with which refugees and migrants are an economic resource to be exploited, or very ‘simply’ people to be deported back to their countries of origin.
<P>
Readmission agreements are an extension of the EU's asylum and immigration policy, which is focused on increased border controls, repression and deportation, but which continues to ignore the causes of immigration, such as poverty, exploitation, war, and many others. This attitude is totally at odds with the much-vaunted role of EU solidarity in the world, as it ignores the EU's responsibilities in relation to the appalling conditions in which a large proportion of the world's population has to live.
<P>
We do not support this type of migration policy since it is giving priority to profit interests over people.
Anyone wanting to support the rights of migrants cannot vote for an agreement whose main goal is the most efficient expulsion of migrants.
<SPEAKER ID="74" LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Meijer (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="75" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="76" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="77" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="78" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="79" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="80" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="81" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Fitzsimons (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="82" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Goebbels (PSE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="83" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="84" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="85" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="86" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   I support the agreement that any new system should involve eliminating the present compensation mechanisms, financing of the budget by the Member States in accordance with uniform criteria and shaping own resources in a transparent and democratic manner.
<P>
The own resources system has undergone many changes of fortune – and has even been blocked at times – largely as a function of trends in traditional own resources, that is to say customs duties and agricultural levies, which have fallen. However, a fourth own resource was introduced in 1988, in addition to VAT, namely the resource based on GNP or gross national product.
In view of this, I believe that it is now possible to provide for a more transparent system. Furthermore, the Commission itself has proposed simplifying the financing structure so as to create a system based more on GNP contributions, and has at the same time recommended the gradual elimination of correction mechanisms.
<P>
I consider the intention to carry out reform and the declaration of the principles of transparency to be important.
However, I am still waiting for the proposals promised by the Commission, and for that reason, because of doubts I have about the impact of adopting, or not, a single own resource – in particular the implied inevitability that there will eventually be a European tax – I feel obliged to abstain.
<SPEAKER ID="87" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sacrédeus (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="88" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="89" LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Claeys (NI )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="90" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="91" LANGUAGE="" NAME="De Rossa (PSE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="92" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Howitt (PSE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<P>
   .
The European Parliamentary Labour Party believes this resolution to be unbalanced in comparison to the recent EU common position on Weapons of Mass Destruction – which we fully support.
<P>
In particular, we cannot support paragraph 2, which seeks to assign a role to the EU which is best dealt with in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The UK itself has reduced its nuclear deterrent by more than 70% since the end of the Cold War, and will continue to play a full role in international efforts to strengthen arms control and prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
<SPEAKER ID="93" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<P>
   .
Nothing is more important than the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because nothing is more apocalyptic than the threat of such weapons, nor more suicidal than their original design. We call for a consensus of parties and nations to rally behind the EU objective of eliminating all such weapons; in particular, we call on the European Council to strengthen the declaration stipulating that the Non-Proliferation Treaty be maintained in its entirety.
<P>
Only by remaining constantly aware and vigilant will we be able to restore confidence in international security through salutary nuclear de-escalation.
That will require sustained cooperation between the EU and its international partners to completely deny terrorist organisations access to weapons of mass destruction and other states access to nuclear weapons. All the EU’s partners, even – especially – the USA, must sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the CTBT, which could then enter into force.
Constructive joint dialogue is required with the urban populations and their elected representatives who are potential targets for annihilation.
Let us here pay heed to the call by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a timetable for eliminating nuclear weapons, bearing in mind the Prepcom 2004 meetings and the NPT Review Conference in 2005. The rejection of the Greens’ amendment, urging nuclear disarmament on the part of France and Great Britain, is regrettable, but we will certainly persevere with this aim.
<SPEAKER ID="94" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="95" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="96" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berthu (NI )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="97" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Butel (EDD )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="98" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   I voted in favour of the report because I believe that the balance of institutional relations within the European Union depends on the correct interpretation and application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, to which I believe that appropriateness should also be added. Action at Community level, the positive effects of which include solutions such as the open method of coordination, the sharing of best practice and the adoption of common quality standards, should, as the rapporteur says, focus on, if not actually be restricted to, those issues for which there is a legal mechanism attributing competence to Europe, or those issues where action at Community level is genuinely effective.
It will be all the more important to clarify these principles if, in terms of the legal system, we definitively opt for an approach based on consolidating the division of competences, as opposed to a policy of legislative expansionism. The principle of subsidiarity means acting at a higher level if, and only if, this means obtaining better results than would generally be the case with more effective action at a level closer to citizens.
<P>


In short, I welcome the rapporteur's position on the need for the Commission to focus on truly European issues.

<SPEAKER ID="99" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="100" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Bastos (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="101" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berthu (NI )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="102" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Hermange (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="103" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="104" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="105" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="106" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Butel (EDD )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="107" LANGUAGE="" NAME="De Rossa (PSE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="108" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   There are a great many gaps in the description of the European Union's economic and social situation contained in the report, although there is no denying the marked slowdown in economic performance since 2000, the rise in unemployment and the continuing high levels of poverty and of early school dropout rates.
Nevertheless, the trends identified have not altered one comma of the guidelines for economic and monetary policy being followed, which continue to favour the ‘structural reforms’ of the ‘Lisbon strategy’ as a means of achieving the sacrosanct objective of increasing competitiveness. I am therefore voting against this report.
<P>


It has been overlooked that due in large part to the constraints imposed by the Stability Pact and by an excessively restrictive monetary policy, there has been a continuous decline in the rate of GDP growth in the European Union, with Europe's economy in a state of stagnation leading to an increase in unemployment.
<P>
A policy should be implemented to boost economic growth and to support short- and medium-term demand, through a commitment to promoting output and jobs with a view to fostering economic growth, employment and social cohesion, and based on a sustained increase in public investment at national and Community level, especially in basic infrastructure, in professional skills and training, in research and innovation, in the environment and in support for small- and medium-sized enterprises.
<SPEAKER ID="109" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="110" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="111" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berthu (NI )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="112" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="113" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Pasqua (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   The federalist majority in Parliament wanted to make this report a political act of support for the Commission in its dispute with the Council. This is why I voted against its adoption.
<P>
By making an appeal to the Court of Justice regarding the Council’s action of 25 November 2003 to suspend the court proceedings instituted by the Commission against France and Germany for ‘excessive’ budget deficits, the Brussels college has shown that it has well and truly become a free electron, a completely irresponsible and uncontrollable body.
Indeed, what is more ‘stupid’ – to quote Mr Prodi on the subject of the Stability and Growth Pact – than this budgetary yoke if it is not the decision to apply it no matter what and, if necessary, by force?
<P>
This arbitrary choice is a direct consequence of the wayward federalist tendencies of the European Union.
The Member States are paying the price of the many transfers of national competences that have been implemented since Maastricht, benefiting technocratic, centralist and bureaucratic institutions that are totally disconnected from reality. There is no doubt at all that this assault on politics, carried out with the complicity of Parliament, will be severely judged by citizens.
<SPEAKER ID="114" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="115" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sacrédeus (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="116" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="117" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Arvidsson, Cederschiöld, Grönfeldt Bergman, Stenmarck and Wachtmeister (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="118" LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Meijer (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<P>
   . Although my party, the Dutch Socialist Party, has always supported the ambition to achieve a Members’ Statute, we asked the Dutch Government as long ago as at the end of 2002, ultimately as part of this statute, to reject in the Council the excessive monthly salary of EUR 8 600 for MEPs, as determined by Parliament.
Such a salary attracts the wrong people for the role of MEP.
An increase is totally indefensible at a time when many people are laid off and social security is being halted.
I am surprised at the eagerness with which Social Democrats and Greens are tabling amendments aimed at getting the Member States to accept the Members’ Statute at this stage, without indicating that the salaries mentioned in the statute are excessive. Similarly, I certainly do not support the use of Parliament’s funds to secure funding for European political groups – the object being to sidestep the Commission's objections.
For the time being, the EU still has a surplus of funding available if we put an end to the incidents of major underspending, the useless prestige project Galileo that has been overtaken by the competition, the waste of agricultural subsidies to large companies, the military plans and the costly frauds.
This does not justify politicians seizing the right to spend this surplus on themselves.
<SPEAKER ID="119" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   This explanation of vote is intended solely to highlight what we see as a reversal of priorities as regards the budget, something that this report might be said to illustrate very fully indeed.
First and foremost, it is only possible to discern the limits of budgetary restrictions once we look at how they operate and can be improved, and, almost importantly, how to deal with both existing and new requirements.
By way of illustration, we wish to underscore the fact that for us multilingualism issues are not technical ones but rather of vital political importance.
Similarly, the creation of a parliamentary assembly for the WTO is one which we have great reservations about, and not just for budgetary reasons.
We will be referring on other occasions to the many other questions contained in this report.
<SPEAKER ID="120" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="121" LANGUAGE="" NAME="De Rossa (PSE )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="122" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   Although in a somewhat uncritical way, this report addresses the Commission document on its proposals with regard to common objectives divided into two priority thematic areas: the participation and information of young people.
In fact it does little to follow up the White Paper itself and does not even question the way in which some initiatives are being carried out, in particular European Youth Week, which has gone virtually unnoticed in Portugal.
<P>
Nevertheless, it does emphasise some aspects and brings forwards proposals which need to be taken into consideration, especially when it calls on the Member States to identify opportunities for young people to participate in decision making at local, regional and national level and to find effective ways for young people's views to be heard.
<P>
In this area of participation, however, it is important for certain factors that impact on participation to be taken into account, such as equality of access to education; participation in school life over and above curriculum requirements; freedom and autonomy of association for students; the right to work and to employment with full rights and trade union freedoms; and an appeal to young people to become involved in various social and political areas in connection with diverse local, regional and national circumstances.
<SPEAKER ID="123" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="124" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Esclopé (EDD )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="125" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Figueiredo (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   The report emphasises certain aspects that must be taken into consideration, in particular the need for those Member States whose GDP is lower than the EU average to focus more on their educational budgets and to insist on the need for pupils to learn two languages.


<P>
There are, however, a number of contradictions in the report, and it advocates a federalist view that we do not share.
Indeed we fear that there is a dangerous trend towards differential financing for schools according to whether or not they provide programmes encouraging a ‘European identity’, which is yet another way of introducing arbitrary pressures into the financing of education, and a thinly veiled means of interfering in national curricula and educational systems.
We need to pay more attention to recognising and raising awareness of the history of each country, not to rewrite history and restrict ourselves to the ‘European dimension’.
<SPEAKER ID="126" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="127" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="128" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Queiró (UEN )." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="129" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="130" LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Meijer (GUE/NGL )," AFFILIATION="in writing">
<SPEAKER ID="131" LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Pasqua (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="132" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   The problems wreaking havoc in Russia today are quite clear, as is the fact that some of these problems are such as to have a negative impact on relations between Russia and the European Union.
The most worrying of these are the situation in Chechnya, the decline in democracy and curbs on freedom of information, not to mention the declining social climate. The recent news of the sacking of the Russian Government ten days before the presidential elections justifies fears of a worsening of these symptoms and of a heightening of internal tensions, which is unlikely to improve relations between the Union and Russia.
<P>

On the basis of this proposal for a recommendation, which objectively speaking has the merit of enumerating the problem areas without any sleight of hand, I consider that the Council would be well advised to use moderation in tackling this issue, as it must not overlook either the vital strategic importance of Russia as a bridge between Europe and Asia or the progress that has been made so far.
<P>

Without lessening its criticism and its vigilance, it is up to the European Union to encourage the creation of a framework based on trust and the strengthening of links with this important partner.
<P>
I accordingly voted in favour.
<SPEAKER ID="133" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="134" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Queiró (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="135" LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro (UEN )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<SPEAKER ID="136" LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sacrédeus (PPE-DE )," AFFILIATION="in writing.">
<P>
   I have voted in favour of the report, especially since quite a few of my amendments were approved by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and have now also been approved in plenary.

<P>
Thus, the European Parliament has, for example, emphasised to Turkey, in recital P, that trade blockades constitute an obstacle in the region.
It has also pointed out, in recital U, that ‘criticisms have been directed by international civil society against the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project’. ‘Securing religious freedom’ in the South Caucasus has been incorporated into recital D.
<P>
I regret, however, that my amendment concerning the demand for Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide between 1915 and 1918 was not adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. In the interests both of itself and of the development of the whole region, Turkey has, in this respect, a lot to learn from the way in which Germany has dealt with the dark historical period of the Second World War and, especially, with its annihilation of the Jewish people.
<SPEAKER ID="137" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="">
<SPEAKER ID="138" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="Corrections to votes – Communication of common positions of the Council – Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting – Dates for next sittings"/>
<SPEAKER ID="139" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="(The sitting was closed at 12.45 p.m.)">
<SPEAKER ID="140" LANGUAGE="" NAME="" AFFILIATION="President">
<P>
President Mesic, it is my great pleasure to welcome you here today, though this pleasure is clearly tinged with such great shared sadness at the news of the death of President Boris Trajkovski.Mr President, you come to the European Parliament at a crucial and defining time in the life of our European Union.
This will be a year of renewal for our Parliament, our Commission and our strategic planning for the next five years.
It is also a moment of renewal in the definition of the relations between the European Union and Croatia.As you are aware, Mr President, this parliament was the first in the Union to give its support by majority to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Croatia, which was the early and indispensable first step on your journey – our common journey – towards fulfilling a Croatian European vision.Our relationship is now at a moment not just of definition, but also of transformation, moving from ambitious declarations to action plans and fulfilling criteria.
Our common goal is to see Croatia eventually as a Member State of the European Union.
We should not underestimate the magnitude of that challenge: the prospect of membership of the European Union represents a powerful incentive for those with a reformist instinct in your parliament and in your public life at home.The perspective of membership is related not only to concrete progress and delivering results in many different areas of policy; it is also about exercising responsible and reliable partnership and solidarity with your regional neighbours and between the region and a wider Europe. It will demand – and I know you have this, Mr President – a deep respect for the rule of law and full, unconditional cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague.
I know that you have shown your personal attachment to this rule of international law by bearing witness before that tribunal in The Hague and setting your example, as a national leader, of the necessity to engage.
We in this House have on several occasions been encouraged by recent dialogue with Croatian leaders.
I know that these responsibilities are well understood by those who are charged to lead.Mr President, echoing the private tribute I paid you on a visit to Croatia some months ago, I should like, on behalf of this House, to pay tribute once again to your courageous act of leadership and reconciliation, when, with President Marovic of Serbia and Montenegro some time ago, you respectively apologised for what had happened in the past decade.
This was not immediately received by all the political forces and commentators in your homeland as an act designed to give you popularity, but it is a measure of the man you are in terms of the leadership you are willing to give, and yours is a region which badly needs the healing power of that kind of leadership.Mr President, it is my pleasure to invite you to address the European Parliament. – I would ask the honourable Member to respect the dignity of the house.Mr President, you, and you only, now have the right to address the house.
<SPEAKER ID="141" LANGUAGE="" NAME="Stjepan Mesic," AFFILIATION="President of the Republic of Croatia">
<SPEAKER ID="142" LANGUAGE="" NAME="President." AFFILIATION="(The sitting was closed at 12.10 p.m.)">
