it
en
fr
es
eo
Nl
European Parliament: Outcome of EU-Russia summit, speeches by Nielson (Commission) and Dupuis (Radical-NI)
Tweet
Outcome of EU-Russia summit - Résultat du sommet UE/Russie
Parlement européen, Strasbourg, le 20 Novembre 2002
Nielson, Commission. - Mr President, the European Union/Russian Federation Summit that took place on 11 November in Brussels succeeded in producing an understanding, as you already know, on the issue of transit between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia.
As you are also aware, as a result of the discussions held at the May Summit in Moscow, the EU had agreed to carry out a review of the matter, taking further into account Russia's concerns about unimpeded travel of Russian citizens throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation, including Kaliningrad.
In the relatively short time between the two summits, the Union completed a comprehensive review of the situation.
Following a communication from the Commission in September, this review formulated a new position on Kaliningrad transit issues, which was adopted in October by the European Council meeting in Brussels.
In parallel discussions with both Russia and Lithuania, the Presidency and the Commission managed to develop ways and means to ensure that the vital interests of all parties concerned would be respected. In addition to Russia's legitimate interests, the EU was very much aware that any arrangements requiring further definition could not undermine the sovereignty of Lithuania - a future member of the Union - or carry negative implications for Lithuania's future accession in full to the Schengen regime.
Last but not least, the European Union must adequately protect its borders at all times, a task for which it was essential to respect the Schengen acquis.
The European Commission is confident that the understanding reached at the Brussels Summit strikes the right balance between these parameters, making it possible to resolve the issue of Kaliningrad transit in a manner which is acceptable to all parties concerned.
The Commission has already started work to prepare for the implementation of the understanding reached at the Summit.
Time is short and we are fully aware of the need to launch preparations without delay in order to meet the deadline of 1 July 2003, when Lithuania will introduce the new regime for Russian rail travellers crossing its territory. We are confident that by then the conditions will be in place to allow the introduction of simplified travel documents.
I would like to add that resolving the issue of Kaliningrad will allow us to substantially deepen and accelerate our cooperation with the Russian Federation in a number of important areas. Among these, the European Commission regards justice and home affairs as particularly important. Indeed cooperation with Russia on issues such as the fight against organised crime, illegal migration, drug trafficking, women trafficking and child pornography among others, is crucial.
On this matter, Russia confirmed at the Summit that the agreement between Europol and Russia will be rapidly concluded.
In addition, Russia and the European Union will immediately launch negotiations with a view to concluding a readmission agreement as soon as possible.
In this context, the Summit also produced a joint statement defining areas for further cooperation in the fight against terrorism, which is a clear priority for both sides. We intend to increase the exchange of information in a number of relevant areas, as well as to deepen cooperation against terrorism in multilateral arenas and in regard to the provision of assistance in this field to third countries.
Other important issues were discussed at the Summit. The on-going conflict in Chechnya featured prominently among these. In this regard, the European Union raised its serious concerns over Chechnya. I would like to assure you that the well-established position of the Union on the matter was put forward to President Putin in quite clear terms. While expressing its support for Russia against terrorism in all its forms, the Union explicitly stated that the fight against terrorism cannot be conducted at the expense of basic human rights. This is also valid for Chechnya.
The Union raised again the problem of unimpeded and safe access for humanitarian workers on the ground in Chechnya.
In addition, the EU urged the Russians to promote without delay a political solution that provides a framework for lasting peace, stability and reconstruction in Chechnya.
At the Summit we also had a good discussion on a number of international issues, including the Middle East, on which we agreed a joint statement.
We reviewed the situation in Afghanistan, as well as the need for Iraq to comply fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. We also exchanged assessments regarding the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula.
Finally, we reviewed the situation in Moldova and Belarus. Russia has already agreed to the withdrawal and destruction of ammunition in the breakaway region of Transnistria.
The EU stated that it is essential that this takes place rapidly in order to promote a solution to the conflict which continues to impede the development on Moldova, which is now the poorest country in Europe.
We also made it clear that we expect Russia to use its influence on the government of Belarus to adopt a more positive approach towards democratisation and respect of human rights.
On the economic side, progress was less marked, except for the change in the EU anti-dumping regulations, which now accord Russia market economy status. In addition, the Summit endorsed progress reports on the energy discussions and on the concept of a common European economic space.
The EU also raised a number of its commercial concerns, including the discriminatory charges levied by Russia for European aircraft flying over Siberia.
The EU pressed Russia to confirm expectations of early Russian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and to commit itself to conclude a long-delayed agreement on the clean-up of nuclear waste in north-west Russia, the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR).
I trust most of you are already aware that the 11th EU/Russia Summit will take place in St Petersburg, in commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the city. Taking this into account, Russia has invited all EU leaders to this special summit, which should serve to deepen our bilateral cooperation with Russia even further.
...
Dupuis (NI - Radical). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, on parle beaucoup de stabilité, mais quelle stabilité voulons-nous? Veut-on la stabilité de 1956 à Budapest ou la stabilité de 1968 à Prague? Nous avons entendu parler de brouillard de la part de M. Marchiani, qui nous fait un petit discours fondamentaliste chrétien absolument raciste, absolument à l'opposé de ce que nous devons faire. Le problème de la Russie aujourd'hui est un problème de démocratie et la question tchétchène est utilisée aujourd'hui par des oligarques en Russie pour conforter leur pouvoir et pour empêcher, précisément, que cette démocratie s'inscrive dans la réalité en Russie.
C'est ce problème que nous ne voulons pas affronter, c'est ce problème que nous n'avons pas voulu affronter avec Kaliningrad, parce qu'on aurait pu avoir, somme toute, des solutions plus audacieuses. On aurait pu répondre de façon positive à M. Poutine, qui proposait un marché commun, pas seulement des finances et des biens, mais aussi un marché commun des personnes, on aurait pu lui dire: Oui, Monsieur Poutine, à condition que vous résolviez la question tchétchène, à condition que vous résolviez la question nucléaire, à condition que vous résolviez la question de la liberté de la presse en Russie. C'était tout à fait possible mais nous préférons nous obnubiler sur les oléoducs, nous préférons nous obnubiler sur un discours avec des technocrates alors que le problème, c'est sauver la Tchétchénie, pour sauver aussi l'âme russe. Aujourd'hui, nous allons exactement dans la direction opposée.
Je voudrais demander à M. Paasilinna s'il pourrait - puisque ça fait quand même à peu près deux ans maintenant qu'avec mon ami Posselt et d'autres, nous demandons au commissaire Nielson de se rendre en Tchétchénie - s'il pourrait, dis-je, puisqu'il y va le 20 janvier, trouver une petite place en plus dans son avion pour emmener le commissaire Poul Nielson. Je voudrais aussi demander au Président du Conseil, puisqu'il y a, soi-disant, une amélioration au niveau de l'échange de l'information sur le terrorisme, où on en est en ce qui concerne le vice-Premier ministre tchétchène, qui se trouve toujours en prison au Danemark, alors que les chefs d'inculpation russes apparaissent absolument dérisoires, absolument infondés.
...
Nielson, Commission. - Mr President, I shall start by saying very clearly that I can agree 100% with the statement just made by Mr Haarder. That is a good clear description of the reality. It is also a reminder of what the Union needs to do and how it needs to do it.
I have listened very carefully to all the contributions. I shall repeat what I have said before in Parliament when discussing the problem of Chechnya. The division of responsibility in the Commission is quite meaningful. If we were not careful in defining the tasks and responsibilities of the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid, we would blur the whole issue, especially when it comes to ensuring that access to delivering humanitarian aid is respected.
That is why I am very careful to give a clearcut definition of my responsibilities as the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid. If I were to fall into the temptation of engaging in political discussion on this issue, I would reduce the legitimacy and efficiency of my efforts to protect the access of humanitarian workers in places like Chechnya. That is why I resist becoming involved in political manoeuvres or political projects, even if I might sympathise with them. It is for the Commissioner on external relations to do that, and it is important, especially in this case, for us to be careful in our use of the instruments and commissioners available. If, with my responsibilities, I fell into the temptation of politicising, we would reduce the weight of our efforts and our attempts to insist on having access. I have, on the other hand, publicly criticised the Russians on that issue, and do so quite frequently. I feed elements of this kind into every summit that we have with Russia.
Unfortunately there has been no progress. There are the well-known issues of work permits for humanitarian workers, the ability to use the UN VHF radio system which is important for the safety of people moving around there and the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in the camps. All these issues are raised over and over again, and I would repeat my call for Parliament to view the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid as keeping to a relatively narrowly-defined remit, which is what I do.
We have others who deal with the political side of the discussion. This is important not only as regards Chechnya, but also for many other places. You will see the same approach when we talk about accessing victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being a political animal myself, I will not engage in a more substantive political discussion on the nature of the conflict and these other issues, however tempting that might be.
Mr Paasilinna and a few others raised the question of the energy dialogue with Russia, and especially cooperation in the area of natural gas. It is quite difficult to rush into a conclusion in an area where negotiating realities also have to reflect who engages commercially and who does not. The issue of the gas pipeline negotiation is a long-term one. There is a risk of contradictions between establishing the very long-term basis of those kinds of deals and the liberalisation of the gas market inside the Union, to which we would give priority. Against that background it is not that simple to accommodate the desire shown by the other side to have a very long-term, stable kind of contract as a basis.
In any case, it would not be for us but for the companies and the market to establish such a contract, which is another reason why things are not that simple. Furthermore there are other interesting strategic issues concerning the geopolitics of Europe's energy supply in the years to come, including issues relating to natural gas, and it is no surprise that this is a complicated and demanding question. For tactical reasons I would urge some caution as to how Members of Parliament pursue this issue. It may be worthwhile and important to ensure that we have long-term cooperation and supplies from Russia, but it is also important not to jump into negotiations that ultimately meant our not getting as good a deal as everyone thought we should. I would therefore advocate caution.
Finally, as regards Mr Oostlander's clear question about whether Lithuania can join Schengen after this agreement on Kaliningrad, this has been one of the defining points in our approach to negotiations. This is why we find the solution in which there are no complications of that nature to be a good one.
I will end by commending the cooperation between the Council and the Commission on this issue. This is one of the areas in which we have been quite successful. It is also something which has been duly recognised by Lithuania and which has certainly demonstrated to the other candidate countries that we take their situation seriously.
...
Dupuis (NI - Radical). - Madame la Présidente, je voulais dire que c'est une histoire qui dure depuis des années. Cela fait trois ans que la Tchétchénie vit une tragédie, alors ou Monsieur Paul Nielson, qui a été nommé commissaire en charge de l'aide humanitaire, a quelqu'un à dénoncer qui l'empêche de faire son travail, ou bien il démissionne car il n'y a pas trente-six solutions. Cela fait trois ans que cela dure, cela fait trois ans qu'on lui demande d'y aller et il ne nous répond jamais. C'est impossible! Ou il démissionne ou il nous dit qui l'empêche de faire son travail.
...
Nielson, Commission. - I was there two years ago. My area of responsibility is not being neglected. We are continually working on this and also in relation to the UN initiative and as the main funder of humanitarian aid to Chechnya. We are, in fact, the only ones keeping funding activities alive and functional inside Chechnya.
I do not want to discuss my travel schedule here. For the reasons I gave previously, I remain resolved to avoid mixing up my main responsibility with general political work in this respect.
Parlement européen, Strasbourg, le 20 Novembre 2002
Nielson, Commission. - Mr President, the European Union/Russian Federation Summit that took place on 11 November in Brussels succeeded in producing an understanding, as you already know, on the issue of transit between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia.
As you are also aware, as a result of the discussions held at the May Summit in Moscow, the EU had agreed to carry out a review of the matter, taking further into account Russia's concerns about unimpeded travel of Russian citizens throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation, including Kaliningrad.
In the relatively short time between the two summits, the Union completed a comprehensive review of the situation.
Following a communication from the Commission in September, this review formulated a new position on Kaliningrad transit issues, which was adopted in October by the European Council meeting in Brussels.
In parallel discussions with both Russia and Lithuania, the Presidency and the Commission managed to develop ways and means to ensure that the vital interests of all parties concerned would be respected. In addition to Russia's legitimate interests, the EU was very much aware that any arrangements requiring further definition could not undermine the sovereignty of Lithuania - a future member of the Union - or carry negative implications for Lithuania's future accession in full to the Schengen regime.
Last but not least, the European Union must adequately protect its borders at all times, a task for which it was essential to respect the Schengen acquis.
The European Commission is confident that the understanding reached at the Brussels Summit strikes the right balance between these parameters, making it possible to resolve the issue of Kaliningrad transit in a manner which is acceptable to all parties concerned.
The Commission has already started work to prepare for the implementation of the understanding reached at the Summit.
Time is short and we are fully aware of the need to launch preparations without delay in order to meet the deadline of 1 July 2003, when Lithuania will introduce the new regime for Russian rail travellers crossing its territory. We are confident that by then the conditions will be in place to allow the introduction of simplified travel documents.
I would like to add that resolving the issue of Kaliningrad will allow us to substantially deepen and accelerate our cooperation with the Russian Federation in a number of important areas. Among these, the European Commission regards justice and home affairs as particularly important. Indeed cooperation with Russia on issues such as the fight against organised crime, illegal migration, drug trafficking, women trafficking and child pornography among others, is crucial.
On this matter, Russia confirmed at the Summit that the agreement between Europol and Russia will be rapidly concluded.
In addition, Russia and the European Union will immediately launch negotiations with a view to concluding a readmission agreement as soon as possible.
In this context, the Summit also produced a joint statement defining areas for further cooperation in the fight against terrorism, which is a clear priority for both sides. We intend to increase the exchange of information in a number of relevant areas, as well as to deepen cooperation against terrorism in multilateral arenas and in regard to the provision of assistance in this field to third countries.
Other important issues were discussed at the Summit. The on-going conflict in Chechnya featured prominently among these. In this regard, the European Union raised its serious concerns over Chechnya. I would like to assure you that the well-established position of the Union on the matter was put forward to President Putin in quite clear terms. While expressing its support for Russia against terrorism in all its forms, the Union explicitly stated that the fight against terrorism cannot be conducted at the expense of basic human rights. This is also valid for Chechnya.
The Union raised again the problem of unimpeded and safe access for humanitarian workers on the ground in Chechnya.
In addition, the EU urged the Russians to promote without delay a political solution that provides a framework for lasting peace, stability and reconstruction in Chechnya.
At the Summit we also had a good discussion on a number of international issues, including the Middle East, on which we agreed a joint statement.
We reviewed the situation in Afghanistan, as well as the need for Iraq to comply fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. We also exchanged assessments regarding the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula.
Finally, we reviewed the situation in Moldova and Belarus. Russia has already agreed to the withdrawal and destruction of ammunition in the breakaway region of Transnistria.
The EU stated that it is essential that this takes place rapidly in order to promote a solution to the conflict which continues to impede the development on Moldova, which is now the poorest country in Europe.
We also made it clear that we expect Russia to use its influence on the government of Belarus to adopt a more positive approach towards democratisation and respect of human rights.
On the economic side, progress was less marked, except for the change in the EU anti-dumping regulations, which now accord Russia market economy status. In addition, the Summit endorsed progress reports on the energy discussions and on the concept of a common European economic space.
The EU also raised a number of its commercial concerns, including the discriminatory charges levied by Russia for European aircraft flying over Siberia.
The EU pressed Russia to confirm expectations of early Russian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and to commit itself to conclude a long-delayed agreement on the clean-up of nuclear waste in north-west Russia, the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR).
I trust most of you are already aware that the 11th EU/Russia Summit will take place in St Petersburg, in commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the city. Taking this into account, Russia has invited all EU leaders to this special summit, which should serve to deepen our bilateral cooperation with Russia even further.
...
Dupuis (NI - Radical). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, on parle beaucoup de stabilité, mais quelle stabilité voulons-nous? Veut-on la stabilité de 1956 à Budapest ou la stabilité de 1968 à Prague? Nous avons entendu parler de brouillard de la part de M. Marchiani, qui nous fait un petit discours fondamentaliste chrétien absolument raciste, absolument à l'opposé de ce que nous devons faire. Le problème de la Russie aujourd'hui est un problème de démocratie et la question tchétchène est utilisée aujourd'hui par des oligarques en Russie pour conforter leur pouvoir et pour empêcher, précisément, que cette démocratie s'inscrive dans la réalité en Russie.
C'est ce problème que nous ne voulons pas affronter, c'est ce problème que nous n'avons pas voulu affronter avec Kaliningrad, parce qu'on aurait pu avoir, somme toute, des solutions plus audacieuses. On aurait pu répondre de façon positive à M. Poutine, qui proposait un marché commun, pas seulement des finances et des biens, mais aussi un marché commun des personnes, on aurait pu lui dire: Oui, Monsieur Poutine, à condition que vous résolviez la question tchétchène, à condition que vous résolviez la question nucléaire, à condition que vous résolviez la question de la liberté de la presse en Russie. C'était tout à fait possible mais nous préférons nous obnubiler sur les oléoducs, nous préférons nous obnubiler sur un discours avec des technocrates alors que le problème, c'est sauver la Tchétchénie, pour sauver aussi l'âme russe. Aujourd'hui, nous allons exactement dans la direction opposée.
Je voudrais demander à M. Paasilinna s'il pourrait - puisque ça fait quand même à peu près deux ans maintenant qu'avec mon ami Posselt et d'autres, nous demandons au commissaire Nielson de se rendre en Tchétchénie - s'il pourrait, dis-je, puisqu'il y va le 20 janvier, trouver une petite place en plus dans son avion pour emmener le commissaire Poul Nielson. Je voudrais aussi demander au Président du Conseil, puisqu'il y a, soi-disant, une amélioration au niveau de l'échange de l'information sur le terrorisme, où on en est en ce qui concerne le vice-Premier ministre tchétchène, qui se trouve toujours en prison au Danemark, alors que les chefs d'inculpation russes apparaissent absolument dérisoires, absolument infondés.
...
Nielson, Commission. - Mr President, I shall start by saying very clearly that I can agree 100% with the statement just made by Mr Haarder. That is a good clear description of the reality. It is also a reminder of what the Union needs to do and how it needs to do it.
I have listened very carefully to all the contributions. I shall repeat what I have said before in Parliament when discussing the problem of Chechnya. The division of responsibility in the Commission is quite meaningful. If we were not careful in defining the tasks and responsibilities of the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid, we would blur the whole issue, especially when it comes to ensuring that access to delivering humanitarian aid is respected.
That is why I am very careful to give a clearcut definition of my responsibilities as the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid. If I were to fall into the temptation of engaging in political discussion on this issue, I would reduce the legitimacy and efficiency of my efforts to protect the access of humanitarian workers in places like Chechnya. That is why I resist becoming involved in political manoeuvres or political projects, even if I might sympathise with them. It is for the Commissioner on external relations to do that, and it is important, especially in this case, for us to be careful in our use of the instruments and commissioners available. If, with my responsibilities, I fell into the temptation of politicising, we would reduce the weight of our efforts and our attempts to insist on having access. I have, on the other hand, publicly criticised the Russians on that issue, and do so quite frequently. I feed elements of this kind into every summit that we have with Russia.
Unfortunately there has been no progress. There are the well-known issues of work permits for humanitarian workers, the ability to use the UN VHF radio system which is important for the safety of people moving around there and the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in the camps. All these issues are raised over and over again, and I would repeat my call for Parliament to view the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid as keeping to a relatively narrowly-defined remit, which is what I do.
We have others who deal with the political side of the discussion. This is important not only as regards Chechnya, but also for many other places. You will see the same approach when we talk about accessing victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being a political animal myself, I will not engage in a more substantive political discussion on the nature of the conflict and these other issues, however tempting that might be.
Mr Paasilinna and a few others raised the question of the energy dialogue with Russia, and especially cooperation in the area of natural gas. It is quite difficult to rush into a conclusion in an area where negotiating realities also have to reflect who engages commercially and who does not. The issue of the gas pipeline negotiation is a long-term one. There is a risk of contradictions between establishing the very long-term basis of those kinds of deals and the liberalisation of the gas market inside the Union, to which we would give priority. Against that background it is not that simple to accommodate the desire shown by the other side to have a very long-term, stable kind of contract as a basis.
In any case, it would not be for us but for the companies and the market to establish such a contract, which is another reason why things are not that simple. Furthermore there are other interesting strategic issues concerning the geopolitics of Europe's energy supply in the years to come, including issues relating to natural gas, and it is no surprise that this is a complicated and demanding question. For tactical reasons I would urge some caution as to how Members of Parliament pursue this issue. It may be worthwhile and important to ensure that we have long-term cooperation and supplies from Russia, but it is also important not to jump into negotiations that ultimately meant our not getting as good a deal as everyone thought we should. I would therefore advocate caution.
Finally, as regards Mr Oostlander's clear question about whether Lithuania can join Schengen after this agreement on Kaliningrad, this has been one of the defining points in our approach to negotiations. This is why we find the solution in which there are no complications of that nature to be a good one.
I will end by commending the cooperation between the Council and the Commission on this issue. This is one of the areas in which we have been quite successful. It is also something which has been duly recognised by Lithuania and which has certainly demonstrated to the other candidate countries that we take their situation seriously.
...
Dupuis (NI - Radical). - Madame la Présidente, je voulais dire que c'est une histoire qui dure depuis des années. Cela fait trois ans que la Tchétchénie vit une tragédie, alors ou Monsieur Paul Nielson, qui a été nommé commissaire en charge de l'aide humanitaire, a quelqu'un à dénoncer qui l'empêche de faire son travail, ou bien il démissionne car il n'y a pas trente-six solutions. Cela fait trois ans que cela dure, cela fait trois ans qu'on lui demande d'y aller et il ne nous répond jamais. C'est impossible! Ou il démissionne ou il nous dit qui l'empêche de faire son travail.
...
Nielson, Commission. - I was there two years ago. My area of responsibility is not being neglected. We are continually working on this and also in relation to the UN initiative and as the main funder of humanitarian aid to Chechnya. We are, in fact, the only ones keeping funding activities alive and functional inside Chechnya.
I do not want to discuss my travel schedule here. For the reasons I gave previously, I remain resolved to avoid mixing up my main responsibility with general political work in this respect.
