Mr President, it is essential that we recognise that in recent months there has been considerable progress in the field of the common foreign and security policy, and that the credit for much of it must be given to the High Representative. Furthermore, as the French Minister for Defence pointed out, there has been progress in the field of defence policy. I believe that the establishment in record time of the interim committees in the Council, the Member States’ ability to commit their contributions to the creation of the rapid reaction force and the very presence of Mr Richard in the work of Parliament – in its Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and in Parliament itself – are all to be welcomed and deserve our consideration. I would like to highlight very clearly the progress made by the French Presidency in the field of common foreign and security policy and in the field of defence policy, and I wish to say this particularly because, in the previous debate on the European Council in Nice, certain reservations were expressed on the progress made in general during this presidency. Nevertheless, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that we should not be deceived, because the French Presidency will fundamentally be judged, not on the achievements with regard to common foreign and security policy, nor with regard to defence policy, but on the results of the European Council in Nice, which are truly essential to the promotion of our project. I, like Mr Patten this afternoon, am not going to comment on the whole of the European Union’s external action, but I would just like to concentrate on three points which I believe deserve to be highlighted. Firstly, the debate which has taken place as a result of the words of the German Foreign Minister at the Humboldt University, as a result of President Chirac’s speech in Berlin, the speech by the British Prime Minister in Prague, and the articles by the Italian Prime Minister and by the Swedish Foreign Minister that appeared recently in the press. All of these stressed the intergovernmental aspect, rather than the Community aspect, of the CFSP. Mr Giddens, the ideologue of what has come to be called the ‘third way’, said that the Commission is going through a political decline and that the centre of gravity should be shifted towards other bodies, that is, towards the Council. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to us, action undertaken by the Commission and the interinstitutional balance are fundamental. Secondly, despite what the previous speaker said, I do not know whether it would be possible or desirable for the European Union to do any more than it is currently doing in relation to the conflict and escalation of violence which has taken place in the Middle East, especially now, when the United States is going through a transitional period. I imagine that the 43rd President of the United States will soon be named, but I think that this would be a good time for the European Union to double its efforts and assert its presence in a conflict which is so close by. Lastly, I would like to comment on Latin America. I wonder – I will ask Mr Patten this question when the time comes – whether the directives for negotiation which the European Union and the Commission are currently debating with Chile and Mercosur, adopted in light of the Seattle Summit, should be revised, given the failings of that summit, and whether it would be discriminatory to conclude these agreements on the condition that a new round of the WTO should take place. I believe that this really is a discriminatory condition, which should now be adapted in light of the new circumstances. Mr President, I would like to end by saying that interinstitutional balance is very important to us, that the Commission should be given the role that it deserves, and that the internal dimension which is being consolidated in the European Union should correspond to its external activities.

Political group: PPE-DE