Kosovo/Statement of the Council and Commission/Speech by Emma Bonino on behalf of the Commission

Strasbourg, Tuesday 4 May 1999

Bonino, Commission. Honourable President, this is the second or third time, I believe, that we have debated this issue. I will begin from you, President Rocard. I do not know what the level of information of the member countries of the Union or of NATO has been. What I can tell you is that the Commission, at least the office for humanitarian aid, like all the humanitarian agencies, was not informed by the member states, who are part of NATO as well as of the Union. No-one was informed of any plans. In fact I believe that from a humanitarian point of view it is a problem of coordination. Honourable members of parliament, in dividual generosity, including that of the member states, is sacrosanct, but it makes coordination almost impossible. It is very difficult, also for the HCR, to manage to organise hundreds of NGOs, funded by private donations, as well as all the institutions of the fifteen member states, as well as all the donors on the other side of the Atlantic, not to mention the Canadians, the Norw

egians, the Japanese, etc. The role of coordination is easy to call for, but rather more difficult to perform, partly because everyone has a justifiable desire for political visibility, which we can all accept. Ultimately there are clearly interests that do not coincide.

How can we avoid the duplication of aid, given that hardly anyone knows what the member states are doing? How can we avoid errors due to the combination of generosity and lack of experience? It is difficult, for example, to inform, warn or prevent someone from setting up camps where they are not sustainable, because in all the rush there is no consultation. By this I mean that there has been no lack of funds and humanitarian projects. But there is a serious lack of coordination , discipline and determination of priorities. I believe that from this point of view the task of the HCR, that is our task, is by no means easy.

A second point I have been asked about, which we are working on, is the more important problem of sheltering. It is true that what we see most is the terrible conditions of some of the camps, but the honourable deputies should know that the majority of the deportees have been taken in by very poor Albanian and Macedonian families, as everyone knows, and that one of our main activities at the moment is to give help to these families in order to avoid social tension and to make sure that after one month of generous hospitality they are not thrown out, creating further social problems.

Another activity we are engaged in is the preparation for an even worse scenario, that is winter. For some of the refugees at least, we are working on the repair of brick houses and communal centres so that we can evacuate the majority of the refugees currently living in tents as soon as possible, and provide them with more acceptable health conditions, or at least better climatic conditions.

The second element is Montenegro. I believe that we should not forget that there are more than 70,000 deportees in Montenegro, and that this is a potentially explosive situation. These are not the refugees we are used to seeing: they are deportees, they are human bombs used if, when and where Milosevic decides. And if he decides to launch a human bomb formed of 100,000 people at Montenegro, this really will be a problem of political destabilisation.

Another aspect we should not forget regards Bosnia, already in an extremely difficult situation before this, which has taken in 50,000 refugees, in this case Serbians.

The third thing we are working on is the problem of Serbian evacuees within Serbia, for whom we have taken specific initiatives. In the next few days I will return to the region, but I would ask you to help us to convey this message: at the moment the fundamental aspect of humanitarian aid is the choice of priorities and the need for discipline and coordination, otherwise I fear that the great generosity shown by everyone will end up in chaos.

Two further considerations, perhaps of a more political nature. Honourable colleagues, I believe that when our parents opted in favour of the European Community they did so for two reasons: to ensure that never again would there be war

between us and never again would there be another Auschwitz. Now we are forced to choose one of these two possibilities, because it has not been possible to exclude both of them. Many people are asking for a political solution. What have we been doing over the last ten years if not seeking a political solution with Milosevic? We have actually done too much, in my humble opinion. From one conference to another, from one diplomatic meeting to another, from one meeting in Geneva to another. Better late than never, you will agree. It is probably too late - I agree that it is too late - but we only have to remember the long list from Osiek to Vukovar, from Srebrenica to Sarajevo, from Bihac to Tuzla and so many other tragedies, which brought no reaction. It is not possible to argue that because we do not intervene everywhere we should not intervene in our own backyard. I think that on this point it is clear to everyone that the responsibilities, at least of the European Union, are not so much to solve the proble

ms of Tasmania as to solve those on our own doorstep. If we do not have the courage to do even this, if we believe that being European means sharing the same currency, the same agricultural policy and - why not? - the same fishing policy, but not sharing these values, that is the rejection of ethnic cleansing at least in our own continent, then I believe that there is no longer any point calling ourselves European.

(Applause)