Mr President, the South Caucasus, that is to say Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, is a region with which one quickly falls in love, with fantastic people and amazing countryside. At the same time, it is a region that easily causes even its best friends to despair. Only in the last few weeks, preliminary census figures have shown that Georgia and Armenia have each lost approximately a million people since independence. It could scarcely be any clearer that post-Soviet social and economic policy has been a total failure. The Soviet planned economy has only partly been replaced by a normal market economy. Instead, widespread corruption flourishes, based on clan loyalties and mafia domination. However, the catastrophic situation is not entirely self-inflicted. A study by the Centre for European Policy Studies describes developments during the 1990s as being ‘partly a result of liberalisation ... caused by transition to a free market system’. The wretched economic and social situation has exacerbated the political, cultural and national conflicts that characterise the area. Unfortunately, there are no clear signs of solutions to the conflicts concerning, for example, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Sometimes, there is positive news, such as President Shevardnadze’s appointment of a mediator from Abkhazia considered acceptable to all the parties, the regular discussions between Presidents Alijev and Kocharian concerning Nagorno-Karabakh or Turkey’s recent decision to make it easier for Armenians to obtain visas. Just as often, however, there are worrying reports concerning, for example, an escalation in Georgian protests on the border with Abkhazia, increased tension on the border between Georgia and Chechnya and the cessation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani discussions at presidential level following the Key West Summit in April of last year. Against that background, it is no exaggeration to state that the South Caucasus is a powder keg that could explode at any moment. The risks are not reduced by the fact that the area is a transport route for the Caspian Sea’s and Central Asia’s gas and oil field and is situated in the vicinity of Afghanistan, a factor which has led to reports to the effect that Al-Qaida members may be found in the border country between Georgia and Russia. That has now in turn caused the United States to send troops to a country which still accommodates Russian military bases. The South Caucasus can be designated a test case for the EU’s peace policy. At the Gothenburg Summit, a programme was adopted for the prevention of violent conflicts. A civil peace corps could constitute a tool for such an action plan, designed to prevent conflicts. I also propose that the EU draw up a clear strategy for the South Caucasus, benefiting from lessons learned from the Stability Pact for South-East Europe. If it is to be possible to implement this, the EU’s presence in the region must be strengthened by full representation in Jerevan and Baku too, and not only, as at present, in Tbilisi. The environmental situation in the South Caucasus is alarming. The nuclear power station in Medzamor must, as agreed, be shut down by no later than 2004. For this to be possible, alternative energy sources are obviously required, a need which the EU could help meet on the basis of its experience. The EU must also continue its attempts to get regional cooperation projects under way, especially when it comes to the railway line between Baku and Nakhichevan. The vast majority of politicians, intellectuals and representatives of independent grassroots movements in the region have expressed a strong desire to be bound more closely to Europe. This has partly happened because the three states are members of the Council of Europe. At the same time, many also have a strong desire to see their countries become members of the European Union. I think that the European Parliament should give the clear answer that the countries of the South Caucasus are, of course, entitled to become Member States of the European Union if they so wish. With regard to the amendments, I recommend approving all of these apart from Amendments Nos 2, 14 and 16. I would particularly advise against approving Amendment No 2 because such approval would mean a sudden U-turn, unsubstantiated by new arguments, in relation to the position held by the European Parliament since 1987. I am conscious of the fact that there are Armenian circles that try to exploit the events of 1915 to excuse today’s Armenian politics. It is, however, clear from the report that I have not been influenced by this factor. This report is very critical of the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territory. That does not, however, mean that history has to be re-written. After the First World War, Turkish courts sentenced those mainly responsible – Enver Pacha and many others – to the most severe penalty under the law, partly for their responsibility for the mass murders of Armenians. It is a mystery to me why, 80 years later in Turkey, the attempt should be made to brush all this under the carpet. All nations have skeletons in their historical cupboards. Those who recognise this and openly come to terms with their pasts command respect, while those which deny and conceal their pasts mostly evoke surprise and disappointment.

Political group: Verts-ALE