The next item on the agenda is the belated and long-awaited report from Senator Lydon on the fourth interparliamentary conference on security and co-operation in the Mediterranean. I must apologise to the Senator about last week.
Business of Joint Committee.
I understand that.
I understand he produced a report and ask him to present it.
The essential element of the meeting was the transformation of the Conference of Security and Co-operation in the Mediterranean into the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. The presence of almost all of the main representatives to the CSCM process and many delegations attending as associate participants and observers was confirmation and justification of the purpose for which they gathered in Nafplion. The meeting took place in what can be described as a promising year for the Mediterranean and 2005 has been declared the year of the Mediterranean. In general, it was felt that the year so far has been marked by positive developments for the future of the region. It was also felt that there were signs of conciliation and sustained dialogue to serve long-term disputes.
The countries of the Mediterranean region share a rich cultural and religious heritage that has left its mark on the world throughout history. The peoples on its shores have interacted in every kind of human endeavour. Despite this, the region has been fraught with tensions of every kind. The inclusion of the Mediterranean as a region on the international agenda is recent. In the mid 1970s, the Helsinki Final Act highlighted the interests of the Mediterranean by bringing to the attention of participating states the concept that there could be no security in Europe without security in the Mediterranean.
The interparliamentary union, IPU, was founded on the belief that peace and prosperity can be achieved through co-operation and political dialogue in all fields, including that of security. The IPU has also recognised the importance of the Mediterranean and during its 83rd conference in Nicosia in 1990 adopted a resolution that recommended the convening of a conference of parliamentarians of all Mediterranean states under the auspices of the IPU. Therefore, the IPU successfully provided the first platform for an exclusively Mediterranean dialogue. That such an initiative came from the IPU makes considerable political sense because it is the parliamentarian, in his or her daily contact with the citizens and the legislative body of the state, that can best influence the promotion of the Mediterranean ideal.
Until the meeting in Nafplion on the Mediterranean, the region had no parliamentary forum of its own. The delegates stressed that they were present, not just to see a change in the name of the conference on security and co-operation in the Mediterranean, CSCM, process but were gathered to adopt the statutes and to formally launch the new parliamentary assembly. In other words, the meeting in Napflion was to lay foundations for a truly parliamentary assembly that was well organised and fully operational.
It is now almost 15 years since it was decided to set up a special parliamentary mechanism for promoting security and co-operation in the Mediterranean region. After a series of exploratory discussions between parliamentary representatives of the Mediterranean conference, the CSCM was born at a meeting held by the IPU in Malaga, Spain, in 1992. On that occasion, representatives of all the Mediterranean parliaments agreed to meet on a continual basis to foster dialogue, with a view to promoting co-operation and security in the regions. Over the years, the CSCM process, as the mechanism came to be known, nurtured political consultations and advanced constructive ideas to build a regional system of security and co-operation. Indeed, the IPU and participating parliaments can be proud of the impetus they have given to an idea that has generated numerous initiatives seeking to build effective systems for co-operation in the Mediterranean regions.
The CSCM was a unique process, in which the Mediterranean parliaments participated on an equal footing to find solutions to the problems of the regions. In Valetta, Malta, in 1995 and in Marseilles, France, in 2000, the CSCM process reiterated the need to respect the basic premise and to work steadily towards the institutionalisation and transformation of the CSCM into a parliamentary assembly of the Mediterranean. This transformation of the CSCM process into the assembly gives more stature to parliamentary democracy in the Mediterranean and provides the region with a unique parliamentary forum of its own, unattached to any ongoing process, where the members of the assembly are able to draw up and examine their own agenda. It enhances the participation of Mediterranean states while enabling them to proceed beyond conceptual analyses to the drawing up of recommendations, opinions and questions of direct concern to them and the Mediterranean space.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the main participants of the CSCM process established a parliamentary assembly of the Mediterranean and solemnly adopted the statutes, a copy of which is included with this report. They also declared that the inaugural session of this assembly would be held in Jordan during the second half of 2005. Finally, the importance of this meeting was evident not just by the list of participants of the countries touching the Mediterranean, but also by the number of associated participants and observers, which included Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Palestine, the Arab Interparliamentary Union, the Assembly of the Western European Union, the Maghreb Consultative Council, Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Co-operation, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Nigeria, Poland and the Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations.
If the committee wishes me to attend another meeting, I would be happy to go to Jordan in the second half of 2005.
Thank you very much, Senator.
I compliment Senator Lydon; we should send him to the meeting in Jordan.
Absolutely, if it is the committee's wish.
The third item on the agenda is the minutes. It is proposed to defer consideration of the minutes of the meeting of 2 March until the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item on the agenda is correspondence received by the Joint Committee on European Affairs and circulated since the last meeting. It includes an invitation to a meeting of the European Parliament's temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007 to 2013. The meeting will discuss the financial perspective for those years. I recommend that at least one member attend. This joint committee, as part of its work programme, intends to consider the financial implications of the enlarged EU and a report from this meeting would be very useful. The meeting is due to be held in Brussels on 5 April. Is it agreed that a maximum of two members attend? An estimate will be circulated to members at the next meeting for formal agreement. Is there any other business?
Is there a meeting in Cyprus?
We will discuss that later.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.45 p.m. and adjourned at 3.50 p.m. sine die.