Order of business: see Minutes
Mr President, on a point of order, can I ask for an urgent action by the President of Parliament to call for the protection of a delegation from Colombia which visited our Parliament on 27 and 28 June, and whose members this week received a public death threat because they had spoken out here in favour of the proposal for a humanitarian exchange of prisoners in the Colombian conflict?
The accusation that the delegation's members, including Yolanda Pulecio de Betancourt, mother of the French former Colombian presidential candidate, Monsignor Luis Augusto Castro, the head of the Catholic Church in Colombia, and Dr Jose Noe Rios, the general secretary of the Colombian Liberal Party, are all supporters of the country's guerrilla movement, is both preposterous and puts the group in grave danger.
On humanitarian grounds alone, I ask the President to do everything possible to make representations for their safety.
(Applause)


Written statements (Rule 116): see Minutes


2. Public passenger transport services by rail and road (vote)
- Report: Meijer
- Before the vote on Amendment 66:
(DE) Mr President, the oral amendment is in the name of Mr Piecyk and on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. Referring to the English text, which reads, 'operator shall be required to perform a major part', the term 'major part' is to be replaced by 'a substantial part'. This is a minor alteration, but one that can help us achieve a compromise between the Council, the Commission and this House following the unofficial trilogue.
(IT) Mr President, we cannot accept this oral amendment because it radically alters the sense of the compromise reached within the informal trialogue. I therefore ask my colleagues to rise.
(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)
(DE) Mr President, since this oral amendment was not adopted, I would like to ask that, when voting on Amendment 66, we should vote on the English text, since the German and French versions do not adequately express certain nuances. I therefore move that we vote on the English wording and that the translations be reviewed later on.
If there is no objection, the authentic text will be the English version.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, had I been given the speaking time I had requested before Amendment 67 was put to the vote, this could have cleared up a misunderstanding.
During the negotiations between 12 and 24 April, agreement was reached with the German Presidency of the Council about the prospective use, in Amendments 66 and 67, of the word 'significant' as a condition for subcontracting. The presidency offered the term 'substantial' by way of an alternative, but the two largest groups eventually had no need for it. They later decided, without consulting the rapporteur, to insert the word 'major' in the amendments jointly tabled by six groups.
Although I agree with the substance of it, I have always warned that this does not form part of a closed compromise and that, in theory, it could make a third reading necessary. Since the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats appeared certain that they could win the Council, and particularly Germany, the latter being its principal opponent, over to this amendment, I was happy to go along with them. I now gather that they have been criticised for enforcing this, given the fact that so many people have disagreed with a vote on an oral amendment in which they would like to take all of this back.
- Before the vote on Amendments 49 and 67:
(DE) Mr President, here, too, I should like, on behalf of Mr Piecyk, to move that the English wording 'shall be required to perform the major part' be replaced by 'a substantial part'.
(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)
(DE) Mr President, since this oral amendment was not adopted, I would like to take this opportunity to ask that, when voting on Amendment 67, too, we should vote on the English text in view of the problems already referred to with the German and French translations.


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(HU) Mr President, while we were gathered here on Monday for our last plenary session, events were taking place in Budapest that merit the attention of all Europe. That is, the 50th anniversary of the 1956 uprising was being celebrated in Hungary. That celebration, however, took quite an odd turn because the people were not allowed to participate. One of the high-ranking guests present, an Italian deputy prime minister, said that these celebrations left the people out.
Meanwhile the people on the street who wanted to celebrate peacefully were brutally attacked and beaten up. The police caused serious injuries by shooting rubber bullets at head level, and they pushed people off the streets. Peaceable passers-by, who wanted to celebrate 1956 peacefully, were not allowed to do so. What a shame, what a shame this was in the middle of Europe. I call upon everyone who strives for human and civic liberties not to support this policy.
(FR) Mr President, I would take the liberty of speaking once again on the subject of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor. They are still in Tripoli, in the prisons of the Libyan State.
You know, as I do, that they are imprisoned under false accusations. The review of their trial was supposed to conclude at the end of October. However, in October, the court again postponed its decision, this time until 19 December. The court says that it is beginning to take into consideration the opinion of international experts, who tirelessly bring evidence of the innocence of the accused.
Mr President, could we not demonstrate again the great interest that we take in the fate of these prisoners who have been tortured and have been absent from their homes for eight years for having treated young Libyans? This situation cannot be tolerated, as, month after month, they are promised a trial. This new trial, the third, is inequitable and unjust and leaves them in the throes of a death sentence.
(HU) Mr President, it is sad enough that the countries of Europe are witnessing ever more frequent acts of violence and destruction, events that signal turmoil and inner tensions. Stones being hurled, cars set on fire elicit a forceful response from the police forces, and these events show up on the newspaper headlines and television screens. All this causes damage to Europe, to the protesters, to the forces of law and order, in a word: to democracy.
It is even more detrimental, however, when certain politicians, certain political parties feel justified in pronouncing judgment prior to the inquiry undertaken by the appointed independent judicial body. The Hungarian socialist delegation read with profound shock the statement by the President of the European People's Party about the events surrounding the 50th anniversary. What József Szájer said does not surprise us. The grave allegations by the European People's Party made prior to the conclusion of the inquiry are to be qualified as prejudicial, and as such, on behalf of the Hungarian socialist delegation, we reject them most emphatically.
- (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has already been sixteen years since Lithuania regained its independence from the Soviet Union. The same time has passed since Lithuania failed to get back its embassy building in Rome, known as Villa Lituania, which was owned by Lithuania until 1937. Today, the Russian flag continues to fly on this building.
After Russia occupied and annexed Lithuania in 1940, the then Lithuanian ambassador Stasys Lozoraitis presented a note to the Italian Government emphasising the illegitimate nature of the incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union and the fact that Lithuanian diplomatic missions in foreign countries should not change their status. Despite this, Soviet officials occupied Villa Lituania in the presence of the representatives of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the police.
After the restoration of Lithuania's independence, Italy avoided any responsibility and suggested negotiating with Russia concerning the building. Even though the Italian Government appears to have changed its position now, this matter remains unresolved. Why would the Italian Government make no attempt to reconsider its past history?
(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, despite the reassuring messages and replies from the Central European Bank and the Commission on the cases of forgery of the euro, this phenomenon continues to preoccupy the administrative authorities and Europol.
Just last week we had two particularly worrying cases. The first concerns the gang of Colombian counterfeiters brought down. A total of EUR 6 million was seized in forged 50 and 100 euro notes destined for Spain and other countries of the European Union.
The same week in Germany, hundreds of thousands of 5 and 20 euro notes were dissolved in water, with the result that the German authorities were questioned as to the causes, while the citizens of this country hanker after the strong and independent Deutschmark.
What is going on with the euro? How secure are citizens when they themselves are at risk - even though victims - of being referred for investigation, as we have seen in several countries, on suspicion of counterfeiting or moving forged notes?
How long will the Central European Bank turn a blind eye? Or is it only interested in when interest rates will rise again and start throttling consumers?
Mr President, I rise to ask you and others in this House to use their best offices to intervene in the case of ten Iranian Ahwazi Arab rights activists who, according to the Iranian media, face the death penalty this week.
The men stand accused of bombing oil installations, but the evidence is unconvincing. All ten men made confessions under torture. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch none of them had a fair trial. Their lawyers were not allowed to see them before their trial and were only briefed on the prosecution case a few hours before the start of court proceedings, which were held in secret. The lawyers for the condemned men have themselves been arrested for complaining about the illegal and unjust nature of these trials, and have been charged with threatening national security.
I therefore hope that many Members will make contact with the Iranian authorities to make clear their views on these tragic cases.
(PL) Mr President, one week has passed since the introduction of new baggage restrictions on airline passengers. However, I am still constantly asked what the matter is, if just days after Great Britain has eased these restrictions they have been implemented Europe-wide? I still have not received an explanation for this situation even though I am a representative of the Committee for Transport and Tourism.
Another issue is the lack of clarity over the new regulations, which are totally confusing to passengers. It appears that they have a different interpretation in just about every airport. At Wrocław Airport, for example, which is the one I use, I was told to throw away a stick deodorant, even though it was not in liquid form, as a penalty for not having declared it.
In such a simple matter, would it not be possible to harmonise these rules so that they are interpreted in a uniform way, and that it is not up to the goodwill or otherwise of individual officials? I hope to receive a reply to these questions.
(HU) Mr President, in 1989-90 Hungary created the foundations for democracy and the rule of law without any violence. Now, 16 years later, the spirit of coercion has nevertheless been unleashed, because the current government unfortunately saw fit to use intimidation in order to attain its goals, thereby suppressing democratic opposition. The use of force is to be condemned, let there be no mistake. Rioting by violent groups is unacceptable, but even in problematic situations respect for the tools of the rule of law is indispensable.
Defenders of Hungarian democracy must seize every legal means to ensure that the violent events of 23 October will never be repeated, when the police violently broke up the crowds and failed to observe the most basic demands of human rights, precisely when people were commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution. We Hungarians believe in democratic freedom, which we have struggled so hard to achieve, and wish to make use of our human rights.
Mr President, I would like to raise the issue of incitement to racial and religious hatred in Europe.
Over the past two weeks in the United Kingdom we have had two trials. One concerned a young Muslim who, during a demonstration regarding, I believe, the infamous Danish cartoons, called for the beheading of those who insult Islam. He was rightly convicted and imprisoned. Yet, in contrast, Nick Griffin, the leader of Britain's neo-fascist British National Party, who was caught by the BBC declaring Islam a vile and wicked religion, was found not guilty of the same. I would ask that the relevant Commissioner considers whether or not at European level we need new and stronger legislation in this area. This is not an issue of freedom of speech, but freedom from fear. Comments like those of the BNP leader put the Muslim and minority communities at risk. The evidence is that, when BNP councillors are elected, racist violence in the relevant area doubles or triples, leading to problems for the whole area.
Mr President, I rise to ask for your support for efforts at EU level to counter discrimination in the workplace, and in particular for the EU-funded 'Work It Out' Programme, which is a project that produces tools to help people with intellectual disabilities, those who support them and European legal experts in this area. This programme provides information on the framework Employment Directive, which seeks to combat discrimination and unequal treatment at work. That directive has recently been transposed by Member States and provides vital protection to people with intellectual disabilities who face discrimination at work.
Mr President, I would ask you to ensure that the definition of 'worker' in this directive includes people in sheltered employment. We must be watchful and ensure that the directive is being implemented correctly in each Member State. Intellectual disability covers a large range of people with very different capabilities: some people with intellectual disabilities work and live independently in the community, while others have complex or profound needs and require constant support. However, it is important not to make assumptions about what intellectual disability means, since with appropriate support and preparation many people with intellectual disabilities can be a valuable part of the workforce.
Mr President, I would ask that you devote personal attention to this matter.
(ES) Mr President, to begin with, I should like to thank you in your own language for what you said to President Putin, that we will not trade human rights for energy.
(PL) I would also like to see the ban imposed by Russia on the import of meat from Poland discussed at this meeting. Russia's accusations are groundless, and the matter has become too long and drawn-out. I believe that it is not just a matter between Poland and Russia, but between Russia and the entire European Union. I would like this house to put some pressure on the European Commission to take steps to resolve this abnormal situation.
(FR) Mr President, an unprecedented power cut hit Western Europe on the night of 4/5 November. It revealed the fragility of the European energy system and the inadequate capacity for producing and transporting electricity, the result of a poor investment policy.
Despite the risk of blackouts, for the last six years European operators have been reducing the level of their investments, which has fallen from 16% to 10% of their turnover. At the same time, electricity consumption has continued to rise by 1.8% per year. This fall in investments is the direct consequence of liberalising the energy market. Rather than investing in the development of new production capacity, operators are concentrating their efforts on profits and on buying out their competitors.
On the one hand, the public has seen electricity prices soar while, on the other hand, security has decreased. Only a European energy policy could guarantee successful cooperation between Member States and the implementation of necessary investments to the tune of EUR 700 billion between now and 2030.
Electricity is a public good: this should be reflected in the European Union's political initiatives.
(PL) Mr President, despite numerous interventions, discussions and measures by Poland to comply with Russia's conditions, Russia continues to maintain its embargo on Polish foodstuffs, including meat. Poland has not, and will not be able to resolve this situation until the European Union applies equal market protection rules for all Member States.
It is intolerable that Poland should be facing problems selling its products both on the external market and on the internal European market due to the impact of goods from third countries being dumped on its market. Poland, like the other Member States, cannot deal with Russia on her own. The partner that Russia should be dealing with is the European Union as a whole.
For this reason I am raising the fundamental question of whether at the European Union-Russia summit planned for 24 November this year, Poland's problems will be treated as problems which affect the European Union as a whole.
This is certainly an important issue. I cannot give you an answer because, as you know, we have not been invited to take part in this summit, but I am sure that both the Commission and the Council will bear Poland's problems in mind when dealing with EU-Russian relations.
(PL) Mr President, I would also like to raise the matter of the European Commission's hand luggage regulations. I do not know whether the President and the Commission are aware of the fact that the food and cosmetics industry is unable to keep up with these regulations, and the majority of cosmetics do not come in 100 ml packaging. This means that shampoos, lotions and other cosmetics in liquid form have to be poured down the sink and the remainder poured into 100 ml containers because 200 ml containers are not allowed on board the aircraft.
Of course, you can have your baggage checked in, although 5 million pieces of baggage go missing each year worldwide. Often total chaos and confusion prevails at airports, and the officials responsible are unable to cope.
So it appears that the terrorists are one step ahead of us again, and have got us in a corner. The way things are going, it will not be long before they have us all flying in strait-jackets and disposable hospital slippers.
(PL) Mr President, 'JEREMY', a joint and extremely valuable initiative of DG REGI and the European Investment Bank for 2007- 2013, is currently being negotiated with individual Member States. The aim of the initiative is to facilitate access to European Regional Development Fund cash for small and medium-sized enterprises.
The aim of JEREMY is to help regional business start-ups and development through all kinds of non-grant based instruments such as microcredits or guarantees. Unfortunately there is resistance on the part of some Member States - for the decision depends on them - to re-allocating part of their structural funds towards this new initiative. Some refuse outright to include them in their programmes, even though it is clear that they will be unable to utilise all of their funds and will have problems with uptake.
This means running the risk that JEREMY, a superb instrument capable of supporting business initiative in the regions, will remain unused. We as the European Parliament have the obligation to encourage Member States to make use of the opportunities offered by JEREMY, because in addition to major investments from the structural funds, it is the development of small business and the generation of business activity that are the powerhouse of regional development, and therefore they deserve particular support.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this year, and for the tenth time, the Europa Centre in Graz organised a European youth meeting with participants drawn from all over Europe, devoted to the theme of 'European future objectives' and with the participants giving their attention to the future development of the European Union. Following an information session on the European Union and its institutions, the participants - over sixty of them - moved to a role-play exercise in which they imagined themselves as representatives of these institutions and worked through a large number of items, producing a twenty-point resolution to the effect that, inter alia, the powers of the Union should be extended, that the budget should be topped up and that there should be no further enlargement before the treaty on a constitution for Europe has entered into force. Young people are Europe's future, and we should be very strong advocates for their education and further education, for that, too, is where our future lies.
(EL) Mr President, one of the achievements of democracy is university asylum which, of course, does not develop in the same way in every country. In Greece, suddenly, university asylum means the anarchists, the pockets of terrorism which we pursue hotly in this Chamber, are creating cells and using universities as sites to manufacture Molotov cocktails and attack shops and neighbours.
It is a terrible problem faced by my country, which is unable to find a solution. It is unable to take them on and that is where the main problem lies. Can we legislate uniformly in all the countries of Europe for equal respect for asylum, because this situation is spiralling out of control, and not just in Greece? In other capitals of countries of Europe we have the same problem: the anarchists in asylum are a state within a state. There should be respect for asylum, but this should not become cells, pockets of anarchy, of all those going around in hoods violating, extorting and plundering the life of the citizens. Let us at long last legislate for the good of universities, for the good of students, and not for the good of the extremists or certain extremists fighting against the state.
(HU) Mr President, it might become one of the signs of discrimination against the new Member States if administrative costs for 2007 were to be reduced at their expense. Paring down bureaucracy is a worthy aim, but it puts at risk the filling of eight hundred positions for the new Member States. These civil servants ought already to have been hired in the first half of 2006. I call upon the Commission to fulfil its obligations and to continue hiring new civil servants at the agreed pace.
I hope that the European Commission will not listen to the Fidesz party. I would not wish to see the new Member States suffer from the smear campaign that party has launched, claiming that the new Member States do not deserve to be treated as equals because they are run by post-communists who trample human rights underfoot. Whatever Kinga Gál and József Szájer may say in this Chamber, to my mind, it is the interview given today by Elmar Brok, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which holds true: Hungarian democracy and the rule of law are not in danger.
(HU) Mr President, a few days ago, as a result of an energy network breakdown, millions of Europeans were left without power, if only for an hour. This blackout, unprecedented since the 1970's, has once again shed light on the fact that it is increasingly difficult to bring energy regulation, which is largely within national jurisdictions, into line with the demands of energy security in the 21st century.
At the same time, the dangers with regard to gas supply are becoming increasingly evident. The conflict over gas prices that has been developing in recent weeks between Russia and Georgia makes it clear that Russia is prepared, in a completely overt fashion, to use its energy resources for political purposes. This is the reason - one that is all the more frightening for the EU - why Russia, which plays a key role in our gas supply, does not wish to sign the European Energy Charter.
Having thus experienced our dependency on two occasions in recent days, our response can only be a common EU energy policy based on solidarity that speaks with one voice at the international level. The Energy Green Paper currently being debated in Parliament should serve as a suitable starting point for formulating such a policy.
Mr President, a study carried out by the highly renowned Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical School in the USA in collaboration with the Baghdad Medical School, published last month in the internationally prestigious medical journal The Lancet, showed that approximately 655 000 civilians have died as a result of the violent hostilities in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006. Of these, many thousands have been children whose deaths were deemed by vicious criminal terrorists in Iraq and seemingly heartless politicians in Washington and London to be acceptable collateral damage.
Mr Bush's and Mr Blair's invasion and occupation of Iraq has turned into a bloodbath of innocent people, worse than during satanic Saddam's rule of terror. We can no longer look on passively. I call upon you to recommend to the Conference of Presidents an urgent debate on the carnage involving civilians in Iraq, in the hope that we might help convert the madness of war into the logic of peace.
Kyoto was and is a blueprint for sane and sensible environmental policies, by way of the reduction of damaging greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the reasonable targets set and agreed by Member States have been, and continue to be, ignored in many cases.
In the case of Ireland, for example, we have a tradition of signing up to international agreements and protocols and then walking away from them. The big offender, however, is the United States of America. I welcome the results of the United States congressional elections. The fact that the American people have turned their backs on George Bush because of Iraq may also be an indication that his stubborn refusal to embrace Kyoto is not shared by the vast majority of the American population. Could it be that the tornadoes and the hurricanes and the natural disasters in the United States caused by global warming are a result of the reckless dependence on and usage of fossil fuels? As a former British chief economist with the World Bank, Dr Nicholas Stern, put it very succinctly: good environmental practice does not simply make environmental sense, it also makes good economic sense.
Mr President, last week a group of Irish MEPs met in Brussels with a group of mercy sisters who are working very closely with poor and marginalised members of the asylum and refugee communities. The stories we heard from those religious sisters were very alarming, especially as they came from a country that says it is civilised and treats people properly, though I dare say Ireland is not the only country not to treat refugee and asylum seekers correctly and humanely.
We intend, as a group, to pursue this issue within Ireland. It would appear that the Dublin II Regulation - evaluation of which we currently await - is not working. Very often we hear from people working in this area that the theory and the practice do not match. We need to do something about that. Of particular concern, however, is the phenomenon of children lost to the system. Such children are in Ireland but nobody knows where exactly or who can account for them. That is an appalling prospect in a Member State of the European Union.
We need to look very carefully at how we treat the poor and marginalised in our Community. We need an independent evaluation of the process and a long-term solution to the issue of why those people should need our support.
(EL) Mr President, I think that developments in universities in connection with the basic issue of education are a cause for concern for millions of workers and students in the Member States. We therefore need to be extremely careful when we refer to university asylum, which is a fundamental achievement of the student movement in our country.
The student uprising at the Polytechnic is - thirty-three years on - a shining example of the right of the peoples for democracy within universities and of the need for radical changes to be made at this level. These opinions being voiced in the European Parliament on restricting these basic democratic freedoms are dangerous.
(PL) Mr President, I am shocked by the latest session of the diplomatic heads of the Member States, where the majority of foreign ministers asked for a European Union mandate to negotiate a new agreement between the EU and Russia before Russia lifts the trade restrictions it is imposing on Poland in the form of an embargo on Polish meat and agricultural produce. In other words, instead of European solidarity, what we have is an agreement with Moscow made over Poland's head, leaving my country to fend for itself. However,Warsaw is rightly demanding that the negotiating mandate include a ban on trade barriers in relations between Russia and individual EU Member states. Instead of a few words of support from Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, relations between the European Union and Russia should be based on the slogan of the Three Musketeers, 'one for all and all for one'. Failure to do this would make European solidarity nothing more than a meaningless phrase, and I say this forcefully in the country of the Three Musketeers.
(ES) Mr President, last week Volkswagen unfortunately announced job cuts at its European factories, which may affect the plants at Pamplona in Spain, Brussels in Belgium and Palmela in Portugal.
In Germany too, 20 000 of the 100 000 workers at the plant may be laid off. That will mean the loss of one in five workers, and 2 400 jobs may go at the other plants.
If we add to that the problems that we have had with Opel and General Motors in Portugal, it is quite clear that we are facing a very serious problem, an industrial crisis that demands a response. In my view, we can no longer put off establishing a framework agreement with the entire European car industry and a code of conduct with the multinational companies, basically so as to guarantee jobs.
I think the time has come for the Commission and Europe's institutions to take a very strong stand on this.
(EL) Mr President, the former leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has been sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity, because he was found guilty of the death of 148 Shiites following an assassination attempt against him in 1982.
I believe that, as repulsive as the crime is, the death penalty is not a solution and is not in keeping with the European acquis. However, I noted with regret that the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Becket, expressed her satisfaction with this verdict and stated that those accused of crimes against the Iraqis should be brought to justice. I therefore ask you, as the death penalty has been abolished in all the countries of the European Union - because it is an insult to human dignity and simply encourages violence, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent crime - how can a Member State of the Union welcome such a verdict? How can the death penalty uphold the justice cited by Mrs Becket?
(PL) Mr President, the 16th October saw yet another German violation of Poland's territorial sovereignty. On that day a German vessel was bound for the Polish port of Świnoujście. On entering Polish territorial waters she was boarded by Polish customs officials who discovered contraband alcohol. When the vessel was a few metres from shore, she suddenly turned about and headed for the German side. Despite orders from the harbourmaster for the vessel to remain in port, and despite being pursued and ordered to stop by two pursuit vessels of the Polish Border Guard, the Germen vessel left Polish waters with the Polish customs officials aboard. They were then arrested in Germany on charges of unlawful activity. The whole affair is an outrage!
I would also like to point out that in August the German Navy conducted manoeuvres in Polish waters without informing the Polish authorities, and causing problems to passenger ferries trying to get to Polish ports.
This is the latest German provocation which ignores the Polish-German border. It is in breach of international law and jeopardises internal relations within the European Union. I call upon German politicians to come to their senses and finally acknowledge their country's borders with their neighbours.
(PL) Mr President, we as MEPs have been receiving correspondence from individuals and organisations about the problem of the savage treatment of stray dogs in Romania.
The reason I draw attention to this is that in the European Union we have adopted certain standards: recently, when debating an action plan for animal protection, we accepted the principle that the protection and humane treatment of animals is a challenge for European culture and civilisation in the 21st century.
Romania is about to join the European Union in a few weeks' time and we cannot accept standards that are at odds with European standards. It is an issue I would like to draw your attention to, and I ask the European Commission also to address this issue and to intervene appropriately.
(EL) Mr President, I should like to draw the Members' attention to the abuse of and negative references made to periods of history, especially the Middle Ages. We often hear talk of 'mediaeval employment' which is, apparently, being imposed in the resolution on the directive on services or with the promotion of the revised directive on working times.
The Middle Ages were a long period in history during which the foundations were laid in Europe of its present form and work was carried out to combine the Greco-Roman civilisation with Christianity. Of course, during the Middle Ages, employment relations were typified by an uninterrupted connection with the 'master', the employer, and the place of work, and were organised in the form of professional guilds, which were impenetrable regimes which safeguarded monopolies. Today, liberal united Europe, on the contrary, has safeguarded free movement and mobility and is proceeding to liberalise services and abolish the practices which plagued the inhabitants of Europe during various periods in history, such as the Middle Ages.
That concludes this item.


3. 2008 draft general budget: Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX (vote)
- Itälä report


5. EU guarantee to the EIB against losses under loans and guarantees for projects outside the EU (


28. Situation in Georgia (vote)
- Joint motion for a resolution
- Before the vote on paragraph 9
(FR) Mr President, in paragraph 9 I would like to replace:
'welcomes the readiness of the Georgian authorities to allow international observers to monitor the elections' by 'welcomes the call of the Georgian authorities for international observers to monitor the elections'.
This makes the text a closer reflection of what is actually happening.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on Amendment 4
Mr President, at the end of the text proposed for insertion after paragraph 10, which is in the voting list under Amendment 4, the words 'on Russia's own approach' are unspecific. Is that approach good or bad? I therefore propose that this be defined by inserting the single word 'deplorable', which would give 'Russia's own deplorable approach...'. I would ask Members to support that clarification.
Mr Landsbergis, can you just clarify whether you are talking about paragraph 10 or Amendment 4?
Mr President, according to the voting list it should come after paragraph 14. It is paragraph 14a, which is Amendment 4 by Mr Gahler and others.
That is clear now, thank you.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on recital D
(FR) Mr President, again to make things clearer, I would like to add the word police before security forces, so the text would read:
'whereas six days of opposition rallies erupted in violence when police security forces' etc.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on recital G
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, again for the sake of clarity, and because an inquiry is currently being conducted, I would like to delete the reference to 90 %, so we would delete
'up to 90%' and replace it with 'part', so it will read 'with part of the station's ...', etc.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on recital H
(FR) Mr President, the Georgian Constitution contains the terms 'referendum' and 'plebiscite', which are not the same thing. I therefore propose that we replace the term 'referendum' with 'plebiscite', to bring this into line with the Georgian Constitution.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- After the vote on recital J
Mr President, since there were also social reasons for the recent events, we should at least have a neutral reference to these. My oral amendment would therefore read: 'whereas Georgia's economic and social reforms should raise the standard of living of the wider population'.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


Future agreement on Kosovo (debate)
The next item is the statement by the Council and the Commission on the future agreement on Kosovo.
President-in-Office of the Council. (PT) Mr President, honourable Members, a brief statement about Kosovo. Significant progress has undoubtedly been made over the last years with regard to stabilisation in the Western Balkan area. However, a key challenge still remains for this progress to be consolidated: the conclusion of the process to determine Kosovo's future status and the implementation of the result with a strategic objective.
What is needed is a timely and sustainable resolution that lays the foundation for a democratic and multiethnic Kosovo, committed to establishing the rule of law and promoting regional stability and the region's European perspective. The determination of Kosovo's status is a crucial prerequisite to consolidating stability in the region. The EU has invested a great deal in the Balkans in both economic and political terms, so we have no wish to see the region destabilised once more.
As it is a European region, the European Union should be at the forefront of attempts to resolve matters relating to Kosovo. Consequently, a solution must rapidly be found via the United Nations Security Council. The status quo is not sustainable.
In accordance with the declaration of EU Foreign Ministers in Luxemburg on 18 June, the Council confirmed its support for special envoy Martti Ahtisaari and reiterated its position that his Comprehensive Proposal constitutes the basis for settling the status issue by means of a new resolution by the United Nations Security Council.
The European Union remains entirely committed to ensuring the timely adoption of such a resolution by the United Nations Security Council, which will also serve as a basis for the international and EU presence. A continued united stance by the Member States, in addition to a firm and coherent approach to Kosovo, will be decisive in achieving this objective. The Council also reasserted its conviction that the resolution of this question is entirely unique and does not establish a precedent.
The EU continues to be available to play an important role in implementing the resolution of Kosovo's future status. Our planning on the ground is well underway and has been undertaken based on the global approach adopted by the Council in December 2006, and on the assumption that a new resolution conferring a clear mandate on the EU will be adopted by the United Nations Security Council.
We are determined to guarantee a successful transition and to this end have been working in close collaboration with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, which has given assurances that it will fully maintain its operational force until its mandate expires.
Member of the Commission. Kosovo's future status is the last remaining status issue that resulted from the break-up of Yugoslavia. It is vital to get movement in the UN Security Council at this stage. The Security Council members need to carry their responsibility for resolving Kosovo's status and set up a multilateral framework giving the whole region a sustainable outcome.
I call on Serbia to play a constructive role in the next phase of the process. I call on all those involved not to pursue unilateral actions, whether declarations or veto threats, which would only harm the interests of us all in a stable region that can fully become part of the European Union.
In March you adopted a resolution on Kosovo here in Parliament. In my view our institutions share much common ground. You took the view that the only sustainable settlement is one that respects all communities, helps Kosovo's economic recovery and provides an international presence to safeguard the interests of all ethnic communities.
In June, the Council confirmed the EU support for UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his comprehensive proposal as the basis for the settlement of Kosovo's status and a new UN Security Council resolution.
We support the proposal as the best possible available compromise that can ensure that all communities have a future in Kosovo where democracy and the rule of law can take a firm hold.
The key elements of this proposal are the building blocks of any modern society. They include the protection of the rights of communities, protection of cultural and religious heritage and basic constitutional and security provisions. All these are vital for a democratic and multiethnic Kosovo.
In a nutshell, we must do three things now. Firstly, we must settle Kosovo's status without unnecessary delay. Secondly, we must preserve the essence of the current settlement proposal and thirdly we must further support Kosovo's European aspirations and progress towards the European Union.
As Commissioner, I have already opened up several instruments under the stabilisation and association process. The Commission engages in a regular dialogue on reforms. We provide generous assistance. We monitor progress on the basis of European partnership, and we have opened up regional cooperation activities with Kosovo.
Delaying the process for delay's sake is a potentially dangerous exercise. It can hardly merge the diametrically opposed positions on status, but it could increase the risk of instability on the ground.
Hence, we must show the Kosovars that there is movement and that there will be a solution. We must not allow the hardliners to gain the upper hand. The Balkans and Europe would suffer the consequences of such a development.
Kosovo is indeed a profoundly European matter. We have much at stake to achieve a sustainable settlement. As you said in your March resolution, finding a solution on the basis of Mr Ahtisaari's proposal is of the greatest importance for the stability and further development of the entire region. Both Serbia and Kosovo are due to become part of the EU, like their neighbours, since the future of the Western Balkans lies in the EU.
Indeed, neither Russia nor the United States is as directly affected by what happens in the Balkans as Europeans are. It is Europe that would pay the price if the status process failed, and therefore Kosovo's status should not be settled by unilateral declarations or unilateral veto threats, but by effective and responsible multilateralism. A sustainable settlement is indeed best achieved by a managed and multilateral process.
Let me close by reiterating that delaying the status process for delay's sake will get us nowhere. It would only risk instability in Kosovo, prolong the agony in Serbia and delay the region's movement towards the European Union.
This is the time, therefore, when Europe, the EU and its Member States, must show leadership and help bring a sustainable solution to Kosovo. We owe it to Kosovo. We owe it to the Balkans and we owe it to Europe.
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being so clear. Yesterday, the new UN General Secretary also stressed that the continued failure to resolve the status issue constitutes a serious threat to peace. If Kosovo, where 90% of the population is Albanian, does not finally get what it deserves, namely independence under international supervision, then economic instability and political unrest could ensue. It is high time that we took a pragmatic line.
Seventy-five per cent of this House voted in favour of the Ahtisaari plan. We made it clear that we favour independence under international supervision. The Commission, most Member States, and also the USA, have taken the same line. So it is high time that we put an end to the deadlock in the Security Council. Russian and Serbian nationalism can no longer be allowed to delay a peaceful solution that will give the Serbs in Kosovo extensive, internationally-guaranteed rights that are far better than those accorded to other ethnic minorities in other European states.
Now is the time to push forward with a solution, not least because our vital EU mission needs both a stable international legal basis and broad acceptance among the Kosovans if we are to avoid being seen as an occupying power. It is therefore essential that we push ahead, with a view to achieving a long-overdue political solution.
Mr President, I would like to make it clear that we are not willing to allow the West to fall into the trap of allowing the Serbian constitution to make territorial claims on Kosovo and the Russians to say they will veto resolutions until Serbia agrees - which it will be unable to do because of the constitution approved by a dubious referendum. An artificial barrier is being created that represents a serious threat to peace.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not being concluded as speedily as some might wish. I can see the risk referred to by the Commissioner, but I also see this as an opportunity. We should use this opportunity, rather than always looking at the negative side. What do we want? We want to send a message to Serbia through a Stabilisation and Association Agreement and by reducing visa restrictions - provided Serbia cooperates with the ICTY - to say that the country is welcome in the European Union, and we want to see an end to this constant self-flagellation and inferiority complex.
Secondly, we want a new status for Kosovo on the basis of Mr Ahtisaari's proposal for a resolution. I am not saying that we would not be willing to accept some changes, but that requires talks, and the Serbian and Kosovan representatives must be willing to talk to one another. I do not think that they will agree, but they should at least clear up those points that can be cleared up. Both sides need to act responsibly, because they are still going to have to live alongside one another in the region in future, particularly if they want to be part of Europe. There is no room for a threat to stability.
So I fully agree with the Commissioner that we cannot defer matters just for the sake of it; instead we need to make good use of our time. I am delighted that the Prime Minister of Kosovo has said that he does not want to take any unilateral measures in the coming months. That is more than some speakers in this House. I am also very pleased to hear, if it is true, that the USA will not support any such steps, since the European Union would be the primary victim. We call on Russia to abandon its veto and its blocking of the resolution. Russia cannot gain anything for Abkhazia and Transnistria that it has not already obtained through military force.
What we are trying to do now is ensure a peaceful transition. It is also in Kosovo and Albania's interest to tie Serbia into the new status as tightly as possible and to send Serbia a clear signal from Europe. Albania and the Albanians in Kosovo could not ask for more.
Mr President, I was unable to hear the Commissioner's speech because I was engaged in other parliamentary business. From what I have heard, however, I very much share the view that, on the one hand, time is running out, but that, at the same time, we do not feel under pressure whereby if we do not take a decision today there will be violent conflict on Europe's doorstep, which is what some would have us believe. In this regard, the statements made by the Prime Minister of Kosovo are most welcome and should be received positively.
Firstly, I feel that efforts must be made to understand Serbia's position and to send out a message of respect to Serbia, one of respect for its history, its present and its future. It is obvious that Serbia must be required to cooperate closely with the Court, but it is also clear that some messages from the EU run the risk of being taken in Serbia as disrespectful.
Secondly, there is one thing that I should like to see addressed, at least on the EU's part and that of all actors with a stake in Kosovo's legal and political future, and that is Kosovo's economic situation.
Listening to some of the rhetoric, one may be forgiven for thinking that only a declaration of independence, only a UN resolution establishing Kosovo's legal future, will create wealth in Pristina, provide jobs for thousands of people in an area with over 50% unemployment and create the kind of economic stability that will bring investment.
This is not true. What is lacking is an economic plan for Kosovo. A Kosovo without economic viability, ruined and with 70% unemployment will remain a tragedy for us all. Now is the time to think about this, now is the time when we can exert some influence, which should not in my view be conditional on such independence; rather, we can help Kosovo's economic structures, whether or not we see an independent Kosovo in the future. This is the EU's responsibility, which I do not feel it is exercising.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - I should like to thank the Commissioner and the President-in-Office for their comments.
Martin Luther King said: 'Peace requires not only the absence of violence but also the presence of justice'. If you think about the tragic history of the whole Balkans region, one of the aspects that had been missing for so long was this idea of justice. There can be no peace without justice.
In Martti Ahtisaari's proposals we have an opportunity to take that big step, to take that jump, to find not just the peace but also the justice within it. In an ideal world it should have been left to the people themselves to solve the problem, but they could not find the capacity at the time to come together and find the solution, so one had to be proposed to them. This is our best opportunity to try to find a long-lasting and just peace settlement between the different traditions and the different peoples there.
It is essential that, not only in presenting a new opportunity to Kosovo, we also take into consideration the unique and special concerns that Serbia has. It is important that we have a dialogue not only with Kosovo but also with Serbia, to give them the encouragement to move forward and to find a new path in the nation-building process.
As well as that, from my own experience in Ireland, over the last 10 years the one key element with regard to the solution of conflict and of discrimination and of hatred, is dialogue. Get the sides talking, keep them talking. As slow and difficult as that is, it is the only way to find the just solution to this problem.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone who has closely followed recent statements by the EU representatives on Kosovo, and particularly on the role of the EU in future, is bound to be left confused.
Of course, everyone is trying to put together the various pieces of the jigsaw in New York: how can we secure a resolution by the Security Council. In other words, how do we prevent a Russian veto? Of course everyone is doing what they can to guard unity in the European Union, and of course we urge the Kosovans to remain calm. So far, everything is clear.
What, however, will be the precise role of the EU in the near future, and when will the EU be fulfilling it? A random selection from newspapers over the past few days tells me that, according to Cristina Gallach, spokesperson for Mr Solana, the EU will face up to its responsibility and take a decision about Kosovo if Russia continues to say 'no'. In other words, even if we do not get a resolution, the European Union will take action. On 10 July, Mr Solana stated that it is impossible for us to send a mission without a mandate, and this is why we expect a resolution. According to an anonymous EU diplomat on that same day, the EU is hopeful that the new UN resolution will allow for an extensive mission to be sent, even if the future of the province remains unclear. In other words, a mandate will be granted, but there is no need to say anything yet about independence.
Commissioner, Council, I would urge you to tell us finally what a resolution should contain as a minimum in order to spur the EU to send a mission to Kosovo in the short term. In fact, when will we be discussing the sending of a mission? Originally, it was the intention to do this four months after a resolution. Is the EU now prepared to send a mission even though there is not yet any news about independence? I would appreciate some clarity on this, which you owe us and the voters alike.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, to be brutally frank, it is pretty clear that we have now reached a stalemate. Serbia and Russia have both declared that they will not accept an enforced independence, and Mr Bush has since said that he wants Kosovo to declare its independence unilaterally. So the European Union has a key role to play in the current situation.
There is however a whole range of unhelpful input, such as Mr Barroso's comments comparing the European Union to an 'empire'. That may be borne out by some elements, but is not very helpful in the current situation. The EU is an interested party itself and wants to make Kosovo a virtual UNMIK protectorate. It is quite clear that the original Ahtisaari plan will not happen, and everyone needs to take a deep breath and accept that. An internationally valid solution is needed, where Serbia also agrees to the whole package.
We in the European Parliament urgently need details of the planned CFSP mission in Kosovo. We have not yet received the information, and we urgently need it.
(PL) Mr President, today we are debating the territorial integrity of Serbia and the future of the Kosovo region where every day fundamental human rights are being broken. The Serbian population faces a humanitarian crisis, while the common Christian heritage of Europe is being subjected to systematic destruction by Islamic terrorists. I am surprised how often the events and the current situation in Kosovo are presented to international opinion in a biased way which is damaging to the Serbs. The unprecedented plan to grant Kosovo independence means destroying the territorial integrity of Serbia and further escalating the conflict. The decision to separate Kosovo from Serbia threatens stability throughout the European continent, which may have a domino effect in many other ethnically disputed parts of the continent.
What concerns me is that the authorities in the European Union wish to take sides in this Balkan conflict without having either the right or the mandate to do so. It is clear that the future of Europe and the world should be decided by sovereign states and peoples at international forums such as the UN. For this reason, I also thank Russia and those countries on the forum of the UN Security council who oppose the displacement of borders in Europe. I thank you.
(SK) The international community is facing an extremely important task. A decision must be taken on the future of Kosovo and the coexistence of different communities in the region, based on the principles of equality. The eight years of stabilisation and the search for the most appropriate solution have culminated in the comprehensive proposal from Mr Ahtisaari, which offers an opportunity for a peaceful future for Kosovo.
This, however, requires a unified approach from the entire Union. Hindering the solution could generate dangerous tensions, even warfare, in the region, which is something nobody wants. We are fully aware of the fact that the controlled sovereignty of Kosovo with a permanent international presence may only be instituted subject to a final decision of the UN Security Council. The dismissive attitude of Serbia, stubbornly supported by the Russian Federation, must not erode our resolve. In the given situation, we must always act on the basis of a rational assessment of the causes of this complex problem, which go back eight years, to the time when international forces assumed administration of this territory following the bloody events there.
This specific situation and ensuing developments have demonstrated that the integration of Kosovo into Serbia is unrealistic. Serbia has de facto lost any entitlement to this territory. Despite the concerns of some European politicians and Member States of the Union, e.g. the Slovak Republic, where a schizophrenic state of mind has evolved in connection with the Kosovo problem, I am convinced that this solution will not establish a precedent for other countries. The initial situation in Kosovo was atypical and non-standard. A very important component of stability in this region is the creation of a community of equal citizens, granting minority communities a legal system which would enable them to preserve and develop their identity. In the case of the Serbian community, this means extensive autonomy.
It is essential to expedite the decision-making process in the UN. Only stability and peace in this region may secure the prospect of the Balkans, and specifically Serbia and Kosovo becoming part of the European Community..
(NL) Mr President, I will endorse what Mr Swoboda said before me. I think that the delay that has been agreed upon with the Security Council offers scope for yet another all-out effort to reach agreement within the Security Council. In fact, an agreement such as this is the basis for everything: for unity within the European Union, for the EU's future operation in Kosovo, but also for keeping together the region of former Yugoslavia.
In that sense, it is also important to show the Serbs - even though we support the proposals by Ahtisaari, because they form the backbone of what we want Kosovo to achieve - that we are willing to make another serious attempt to sit down and talk with them about what may still change, about the kind of concessions that are still possible. We should not leave the new Serb Government out in the cold, because it is important, as before, to maintain good relations with that country.
Whilst I am pleased that, over the past few weeks, Commissioner Rehn has made good progress in the contacts, relations and negotiations with the new government, it is important not to confuse progress in relations with Serbia with the Kosovo issue. In short, an all-out effort is called for to still reach consensus, and perhaps at the end we may reach a sound agreement to disagree with our Serb partners in the region.
(NL) Mr President, even in the autumn of 2006, it became evident that the Ahtisaari report would favour independence, with special measures to protect Serb and other minorities. It also became clear that Serbia would refuse to agree to this, and was counting on a Russian veto in the UN Security Council.
Since then, the question has been raised whether such a veto will lead to a unilateral recognition of Kosovo as a state by other states, including the United States and the EU Member States. This is the controversial model by means of which, in 1992, independence of Slovenia and Croatia was recognised by Germany prior to any European or international decisions.
Do you assume that, if necessary, this model will be used once more? Could the application of the controversial model be prevented if the region north of Kosovo's Mitrovica, where the Serbian inhabitants of Kosovo are concentrated, were to be handed back to Serbia? Is, in that case, Serbia's and the Russian Federation's blessing still to be had?
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we had really hoped that by now Kosovo would no longer be an international issue, and that the politicians would have been able to take over responsibility themselves.
Unfortunately President Milošević's legacy lives on after his death and is putting a great strain on the democratic government in Serbia. In 1996, I demonstrated against Milošević in Belgrade together with the members of the current government, and I could wish for nothing better than for this government to be the one to bring Serbia into the European Union. I also experienced the apartheid imposed in Kosovo by Milošević from 1989 until the NATO intervention. It saddens me that far too much nationalism still creeps into discussions in Serbia. If Belgrade were truly concerned about the quality of life for Serbs living in Kosovo and not about the loss of territory, then Belgrade would approve Mr Ahtisaari's plan. It gives the Serbs in Kosovo a degree of self-determination that other minorities in Serbia and the Balkans can only dream of.
If UNMIK leaves now and we cannot fill the vacuum created by the absence of a Security Council resolution, we will be faced with a hopeless situation. Commissioner, you have not provided any answers on this head. As so often in the past, it seems that Europe is not actually willing to take the necessary action in the Balkans.
This indecisiveness is a major problem and will create huge difficulties. It is not in our interest to keep on putting off the Kosovo issue to another day. The collateral damage of our failure to act will be immense.
Like many other states, Russia was part of the Contact Group. So Russia is fully aware that there have been no talks between Belgrade and Priština. It is unrealistic to call for negotiations now, after rejecting Mr Ahtisaari's proposal and refusing to adopt a Security Council resolution. So I urge this House to follow the Commissioner's lead and do everything possible to accommodate Russia's interests, which have nothing to do with Kosovo or Serbia, so that this issue can be resolved.
(HU) A settlement that rewards the Albanians and reserves only punishment for the Serbs will not be durable. The EU is caught in a trap, hostage to the poor Russian-American relations, hostage to Russia's growing power politics. We cannot give in to Russian blackmail, but without Russia there is no good or enduring solution. We cannot give in to Albanian blackmail either, because without EU help, Kosovo is not viable as an independent country.
Serbia lost trustworthiness over past decades, it lost Kosovo through its action against the Albanians of Kosovo, and as a result, Kosovo's independence is inevitable. This matter has to be discussed further, however; unilateral steps must be avoided at all costs. The Ahtisaari plan is good in part, but not sufficient. Its part about minorities is good, and so is territorial autonomy, yet at the same time, the whole of Europe is beholden for having failed for decades to clarify questions of national self-determination and territorial autonomy. These must be spelled out.
President-in-Office of the Council. (PT) Mr President, allow me firstly to greet Mr Rehn, as I did not have the opportunity during my first speech and would like to do so now.
I should like to made four or five brief observations. The first is to reaffirm what I said in my first speech: that simply maintaining the status quo in Kosovo is not sustainable; we must make progress. We are convinced that to maintain the status quo would be a huge mistake for which we would have a high price to pay.
Secondly, as a number of honourable Members have already said here, it is fundamental that the European Union maintains a united stance; in other words, the Member States must remain united with regard to the Kosovo question. We made this appeal on a number of occasions as a Member State and now, during our Presidency, we naturally reinforce it. We have no desire to see the EU divided once again, especially over a fundamental issue that, into the bargain, is happening on European territory. For this reason we have always appealed to the EU and its Member States to remain united in the search for a solution to the impasse in Kosovo.
Thirdly, we believe that we should continue to make every effort on the diplomatic front with the United Nations Security Council towards obtaining a new Security Council resolution on Kosovo. This resolution, as I have said, serves as a basis for the international and European Union presence in Kosovo. We must step up our efforts, and, within the sphere of its competence, the Presidency will continue actively to seek agreement in the Security Council on this new resolution.
Finally, we see very clearly that we must offer the Western Balkan countries, and Serbia in particular, a genuinely European perspective, since Serbia meets all the required criteria and conditions for this European perspective. We were pleased at the decision to re-open negotiations with Serbia with a view to a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. We believe that this is a crucial step. Ensuring the European perspective for Serbia is of vital importance because it is a vital factor in the stability of the whole of the Balkan region.
Member of the Commission. I shall start with Serbia. Serbia has a tangible European perspective, with the ultimate goal of EU membership once it meets all the conditions of EU accession. That is our point of departure in our relations with Serbia.
After the new democratic government - which is Europe- and reform-oriented - was formed, and after this new government made a clear commitment to cooperation with the ICTY and carried out such effective and practical action to match that commitment, we were able to resume the SAA talks with Serbia about a month ago. It is worth recalling that the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, apart from being a significant agreement, especially in economic and trade relations, is also the gateway, the waystation towards candidate status in the European Union. I have repeated this numerous times in the Serbian public debate, I shall continue to do so and I will show that Serbia has a European future, as long as that country is willing to meet the conditions that this future requires.
We cannot expect that there will be any trading over concessions on Kosovo because of the European track for Serbia, but we can expect that the political debate in Serbia could finally move from the nationalist past towards a European future. What we can expect is that, if there are further talks for a limited period of time, then Serbia should take a constructive attitude and a realistic approach in these talks, instead of repeating the same set phrases that we have been hearing over the past couple of years.
My second point is that international supervision covering both political and security issues will be necessary for some time in Kosovo. Its purpose must be clear: to supervise the implementation of a status settlement that ensures the rights of all communities and the sustainable development of Kosovo. For that we need a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. It is difficult, frankly, to operate under conditions of political uncertainty while the process in the United Nations Security Council is still going on.
We have every right to expect that all Permanent Members of the UN Security Council realise their responsibility in the future security and stability of Europe. We have every right to expect that all the Members in the Security Council realise the great responsibility they have.
In the Commission we are working hard to ensure that the EU will be ready to deploy civilian missions to supervise the implementation of the status settlement. It will be a different mission from that of UNMIK, and we need a sound legal basis in the form of a UN Security Council resolution to ensure the success of this mission.
Finally, all in all, Kosovo and the status process of Kosovo show how much we need the better steering and coordination mechanisms that the reform Treaty should finally provide. It is indeed high time to create more effective and efficient instruments for establishing the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.
The debate is closed.
Written statement (Rule 142)
in writing. - The question of the future of Kosovo is part of the aftermath of the horrible wars in the Balkans. We are talking about an area in the heart of Europe. Delaying the question is not an option.
Quoting President Ahtisaari, who conducted 14 months of negotiations between the Serbs and Kosovars, 'a solution will not only be in the interest of the people in Kosovo, but also of vital importance for the regional peace and stability'.
It is hard to disagree. Last March he concluded that there was no ground for agreement between the parties. Later he proposed independence for Kosovo.
The plan has wide international backing. It is time to look ahead not, of course, forgetting the rights of the Serb minority in Kosovo.
Slovenia was the first of the former Yugoslav states to join the EU. Macedonia is a candidate. The rest are queuing.
Hopefully all will end up as members and the past borderlines will loose their significance. Sometimes borders have to be first drawn in order to erase them. This seems to be the case in Kosovo.
According to Commissioner Rehn the Commission supports President Ahtisaari's plan. I think that we should too.