Mr President, in 1998, Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala) resulting in 20,000 victims and losses of more than EUR 5 billion (10% of the GDP of those countries which are already burdened by eternal foreign debt). It destroyed crops, homes and infrastructures of every type, thereby jeopardising the future of its peoples. Europe’s response was immediate and significant, through the Stockholm Conference, and it was consolidated, following the European Parliament’s proposal, in the Commission’s initiative which we are currently debating. I would like to highlight four issues. The first relates to our assumption of responsibility in the event of these catastrophes. The connection between our economic activity and the increase in pollution, with the greenhouse effect and the onset of climate changes makes it advisable for us to immediately ratify the Kyoto protocols on the reduction of the gases which cause this effect. Furthermore, our model of unequal development leads to poverty and indebtedness in these countries. It is a contradiction to preach the reconstruction of Central America taking account of respect for the environment, according to a model of sustainable development, while we continue to maintain the same economic relations with those countries. The second issue involves the global objective of our assistance. The Commission’s proposal is sensible insofar as it centres its attention on two fields: health and education. However, it should be more ambitious, so that it may coordinate and integrate all the different initiatives in those countries. This requires a substantial increase in our staff, a measure which this House supports. This action will allow for synergy between the different forms of aid and will guarantee that the effort made will not be limited merely to reconstruction – since, in that event, things would continue in the same way – but will offer an opportunity for regional integration, harmonious and sustainable development, creating wealth and general well-being, and for the consolidation of democracy in these countries which have just thankfully left behind years of violence and confrontation. In this respect, two facts worry us. The threat of hostility between Nicaragua and Honduras as a result of border disputes would cast doubt upon the good sense of our aid, and we therefore think that both of those countries should be subject to the decisions of the International Court of Justice. The other is the recent re-emergence in Guatemala of political kidnappings, such as that of the university professor Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez, political killings, such as that of the Community leader, José Amancio Mendoza, or threats against journalists (the case of Gerardi or the Nobel Prize winner, Rigoberta Menchú) which are of concern. Aid for reconstruction must be accompanied by firm and accountable commitments to safeguarding human rights on the part of the Guatemalan Government. The third question concerns the way in which we are going to carry out aid and regional coordination and integration. It is essential that we incorporate the most dynamic and responsible sections of society, the indigenous peoples, as well as the full and broad participation of women, the social organisations which display efficiency and solidarity and, lastly, that there is no partisan use of aid nor fraud in its management. That is why we need to carry out internal and external audits of the application of our aid. Increasing our effectiveness as the European Union also means that we must participate officially in the Stockholm monitoring group. The fourth and last point is currently the most important: the amount of aid. Although it is considerable, we believe that the amount indicated by the Commission, EUR 250 million, is insufficient given the magnitude of the disaster and the slow rate of the area’s recovery. The European Parliament therefore requests a significant increase. We are concerned by the items appearing today in the press indicating that the Commission intends to reduce all European Union aid, including that destined for Latin America, because of its commitments in Kosovo. We believe that we cannot behave in such an absurd way, since for Latin America this aid offers hope of escaping underdevelopment and freeing itself from the heavy yoke which originates from the North. The European Parliament has already stated that it would not commit itself to any action which would mean cuts in the aid to other parts of the world. We therefore insist that this is a crucial and key point. If we behave in this way, we will ensure that other actions, both with the European Investment Bank and with other financial bodies, are significant and would aid the immediate execution of the programmes approved. All of this should be accompanied by the presentation of periodic reports to the European Parliament on the evolution and assessment of the results obtained. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the warm and excellent cooperation of all the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and its staff, as well as the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Development and Cooperation.

Political group: GUE-NGL