Mr President, the loan which Tajikistan will receive equals this small and poor country’s share in an outstanding debt to the former Soviet Union. As such, this will not solve any problems within Tajikistan. The loan only prevents the outstanding debts from continuing to exist. Central Asia, the majority of whose population is Turkish-speaking and a small part of which is Iranian-speaking, was conquered in the previous century by the Russian tsarist empire. This empire did not look for colonies far from home or overseas, like most Western European States, but close by. Although they were decolonised in 1922, they have remained linked to Russia in the form of Federal States of the Soviet Union. The boundaries drawn by Stalin between the various linguistic and cultural regions in the ’20s and ’30s are now state borders. This prolonged European influence means that we in the European Union should feel especially responsible for the vicissitudes of the five States which appeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The economy and environment are in a sad state of affairs in all fifteen States. Authoritarian regimes have come to power and leave little or no scope for political opponents. By means of referendums and intimidation, some presidents have their periods of office extended by ten years, without there being rival candidates. In this respect, Tajikistan is no exception. Should European money be spent on a country like this? In general, my group is not in favour of funding undemocratic regimes. All too often, we have noticed that they receive funding in the expectation that they will regard this money as a reward for taking small steps towards greater democracy and human rights and as an encouragement to take further such steps. In practice, however, this method does not work, as we have since found out in Turkey and Russia. The funding is received, but the situation does not improve. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tajikistan has reverted to the situation in the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century. There are several, regionally powerful families and groups which are fighting each other in a situation where warlords seize upon political and religious differences as an excuse to justify armed action. The fate of Tajikistan largely depends upon what is happening in its immediate surroundings, such as the hopeless, violent conflict in Afghanistan. A large proportion of the Tajikistani population lives in north-east Afghanistan, the area which is not in the hands of the Taliban. The North of Tajikistan stretches out as far as the densely populated Fergana Valley which is partly located in Uzbekistan and is completely integrated into the economy and road network of this neighbouring country. As a frontline area flanked, on the one hand, by the Russian sphere of influence and, on the other hand, by Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, the present Tajikistani State has little chance of survival. The only reason to inject European funding into Tajikistan despite all this is that funding increases the chance of survival of the Tajikistani population and offers more chance of peace than there would be without such aid. This is the reason why my group can nevertheless agree with the proposals made in the Savary report.

Political group: GUE-NGL