Mr President, it is first of all impossible to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since it is dramatic for their populations, and also prevents any development of the Euromed partnership. Only a fair and lasting solution can allow peace to be established in the region. Only an end to the Israeli military occupation, the destruction of the wall of shame and the creation of the Palestinian State beside the Israeli State, will lead to peace and put an end to the unbearable and murderous chain of events suffered by the occupied Palestinian population as well as the Israeli citizens. A glimmer of hope has been offered by the so-called Geneva accords, negotiated over more than two years by the delegations led by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo. It would be appropriate for the Foreign Ministers meeting in Naples to offer their support for this plan which demonstrates that there are interlocutors on both sides seeking a fair peace, in contrast to what the politicians, in particular the Sharon Government, ceaselessly demonstrate. The Euro-Mediterranean framework may be a valuable asset in terms of contributing to the establishment of a climate of trust allowing genuine dialogue. A first signal would consist of high-level delegations from both the Union and from the Arab countries in particular attending the official signing of these agreements on 1 December in Geneva, on the very eve of the ministerial conference. Another undeniable sign would be for the Union to apply all its efforts to persuading the Quartet to support this initiative as well. With regard to the conference’s tasks in general, the fact that Europe is concerning itself with its future neighbours, particularly in the south, is a good thing, as is the announcement of a Foundation for dialogue between cultures, the creation of which still depends on the allocation of financial resources. Nevertheless, the orientations proposed by the Commission in its preparatory communication are still worrying. It is not certain that the new neighbourhood policy is sufficient to instil ‘a new dynamism into the Barcelona process’, since the approach of simply integrating these countries into the great European market means imposing liberal formulae on them, without taking account of their specific characteristics or the serious economic and social problems they are facing. Since this model is being increasingly criticised, and since even the French proposals for a relaunch of the partnership mention ‘consequences which could have a serious destabilising effect’, the Commission is not challenged at any point. Without taking account of the impact study of the free trade area which it itself has launched, it is moving in the opposite direction by enhancing the reciprocal liberalisation of agricultural and service exchanges. As for the call to turn to the private sector, it still falls far short of the needs of the Mediterranean countries. This short-term thinking is extremely dangerous. All of this means that we need joint construction in the Mediterranean, otherwise the almost constant stigmatisation and humiliation which the Arab-Muslim world, in particular, is subjected to, in addition to inequalities, can only feed religious fundamentalism or the use of terrorism by increasingly dangerous groups. I will end with two further challenges: we must put an end to the obsession with security and establish freedom of movement. With regard to human rights, we should establish genuine specific mechanisms. I would like to express my solidarity with Radhia Nasraoui, the Tunisian lawyer, who has just begun a new hunger strike.

Political group: GUE-NGL