Mr President, I wish, first of all, to thank the Council and the Commission for the willingness they have shown today to address an issue of such importance, current relevance and seriousness as the situation in Columbia, which the Committee on Development and Cooperation is monitoring and will continue to monitor with the greatest attention and concern. It has become clear that the European Union cannot only not remain indifferent to the current situation in that country, in the same way that it cannot – or rather must not – adopt half-hearted positions on this issue. We are all aware of the situation in Columbia. Indeed, there is no shortage of documentation from the most varied sources attesting to the tragedy affecting Columbia and the real risks of the conflict worsening, with serious danger, moreover, of it spreading to the rest of the region. In this regard, I would emphasise the concerns expressed by representatives at the highest level of various Latin American countries at the meeting held on this issue in Rio de Janeiro, in the middle of last year. The crucial factor in the current situation is undoubtedly ‘Plan Columbia’, which was agreed in September 1999 between Presidents Clinton and Pastrana, and it is essential that the Council and the Commission stick to their positions and distance themselves even more vigorously from this agreement. They must do so first of all because of its blatantly military nature, but also because it is not the result of any consultation process. Instead, it has generated widespread opposition both inside and outside the country, because it completely fails to address the grave phenomenon of paramilitary activity and, consequently, because it threatens the very negotiation process that has already been started. Also, because this plan, which concentrates on the elimination of drug production and trafficking (by attacking producers, particularly through the use of chemical and biological fumigation), not only threatens Columbia’s rich biodiversity, but will also exacerbate the tragedy of displaced people, who might even have to become refugees in neighbouring countries. We are familiar with the statement by the General Affairs Council of 9 October last year. We obviously agree, in essence, with its proposals and we interpret it as moving away from ‘Plan Colombia’. In fact, we believe this to be the position of the vast majority of Member State governments. It is also true, however, that some are attempting to read a complementarity-based approach into this Council declaration with regard to ‘Plan Colombia’. We therefore consider a clarification of the Community position to be crucial, which will prevent an interpretation of it which we believe is abusive, even if this runs counter to the opinion of any of the Member State governments, particularly from the only one that has publicly given a financial and political commitment to the plan. As a matter of fact, I believe that the European Union, and the European Parliament itself, must not support an initiative that clearly stems from a bilateral agreement between the Colombian Government and the US administration. I feel all the more strongly about this because I do not think it should be the European Union’s task to heal the wounds resulting from the actions of third parties. Basically, as we stated in the motion for a resolution adopted by the Committee on Development and Cooperation, and as we have stated in a previous resolution by this Parliament, our understanding is that any action by the European Union must be accompanied by a strategy of its own which does not have a military dimension. This is the attitude that I hope will prevail on the approach of European governments towards the Colombian Government on 30 April in Brussels. Incidentally, it is our view that this European Union strategy should start from the premise that the armed conflict that is affecting Colombia is by no means confined to the drugs problem alone. It actually predates that problem by a long way and is fundamentally rooted in deep-seated, pernicious political, economic and social phenomena in the country. That is why I feel that a reform that guarantees another form of distribution of wealth and, specifically, a different form of land distribution by implementing a process of agricultural reform, is crucial and a matter of priority. In fact, we also feel that the problem of drug production and trafficking requires a global approach on the basis of shared responsibility and international cooperation between the producer countries and the consumer countries, which, in the first instance, involves combating the laundering of money generated by trafficking. The European Union’s strategy must also take account of the crucial importance of putting an end to the actions of the paramilitary groups and the impunity with which they operate, often in conjunction with Colombian military forces. These groups are mainly responsible for the wholesale massacres of communities and even of Europeans working with them. By the same token, the European Union cannot brush aside the sense of trauma that pervades Colombia as a result of the persecution and massacre of countless leaders and members of the Patriotic Union, committed immediately after their participation in an electoral process. In short, the European Union must fully commit itself to a genuine peace process, which ‘Plan Columbia’ cannot be taken to be and which it even thwarts. We also need to continue to cooperate with Colombia and consolidate this cooperation, which would require, as a matter of priority, an effective commitment by the Colombian Government to implementing structural reforms and the involvement of communities and their organisations in solving the enormous problems that are affecting and overwhelming the country. I hope that this is also the view of the Commission and the Council.

Political group: GUE-NGL