Mr President, since the start of the Yugoslav wars, the Republic of Macedonia – I prefer to use this abbreviation – has behaved as a constructive peace-keeper. We would remind you of the proposals made by the governments of Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, which had non-violent liberalisation and a non-violent separation from the Yugoslav federal structure in view. As you can see, our Macedonian friends have always played a very positive role and it is for this reason that it should be pointed out at this stage that Macedonia is not just a pawn in our so-called strive towards stability, but actually took the initiative. The former President, Mr Gligorov, can take special credit for this, and the current President too has already adopted the profile of President of all Macedonian citizens, so much so that the European Union should only be grateful to have him as interlocutor in the Balkans. Despite the obvious reasons for any internal tension, both population groups have struck a reasonable modus vivendi and the outlook for reaching a sound solution to the remaining problems is good. It was, in fact, in Macedonia that I heard at the time about the Roma population actually not having too bad a time there. I was unaccustomed to hearing this type of comment about the Roma in Europe. With regard to the problems afflicting Macedonia, higher education for the Albanian-speaking citizens deserves our special attention. Accessible higher education, with which you have a certain affinity, is an important instrument in the emancipation of population groups. I am speaking from personal experience as someone who attended the Protestant university in Amsterdam. I might never have studied otherwise. Such an affinity and this type of higher education is also important in the development of the constitutional state and for the aptly termed mainstream society which needs to be strengthened in countries like this. The agreement with Macedonia should partly compensate for the damage which this country incurred following the boycott we instituted against Serbia, which is at no cost to us but costs Serbia’s neighbouring states all the more. It would be beneficial if we could reorganise this, especially vis-à-vis the neighbouring states. It is only fair that we should regulate aid to Macedonia properly now. We are therefore quite prepared to support the liberals’ amendment to keep aid independent from the donor states’ interests, for we need to give industry in Macedonia and the region the best possible opportunities with the aid money available for reconstruction. I am more than happy to include Bulgaria and Romania in this, as it seems to me a tactical and psychological error only to talk about the five countries of former Yugoslavia, plus Albania. It is important to us that the economies in the region can stand on their own two feet again, which can quite easily be done with the aid money. The agreement with Macedonia should be seen as a door opening to the European Union, allowing this country to join, even though this will not be the case in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, we constantly need to start from the premise in our policy that it is desirable for Macedonian legislation to resemble that of the Member States, and our policy should reflect this, even in the naming of aid programmes for Macedonia. I would quote the PHARE programme as an example. Mr President, the name of the republic is still a problem on account of the Greek sensitivities surrounding it. I assume that the Member States will feel increasingly freer to use the name in their own language which fits the republic. If certain countries wish to use the words “former Yugoslavia”, then that is their business; others need not feel obliged to copy them. It will not do to keep us under constant pressure. Hence my support for the sound report by Mr Swoboda; we have come to expect nothing less of him, and hence also my words of appreciation for the respected Republic of Macedonia.

Political group: PPE-DE