|
Ernest Claassen: Very briefly summarised, the declaration you were talking about, what was it about?
Jean Asselborn: Yes. There was a Declaration in Geneva at the Human Rights Council. And, as usual, the 27 member states of the European Union tried to have a consensus on the Middle East in the area of human rights. We had an agreed text. This text was broken and I think that it was a little bit difficult in the public opinion to explain that, on the Middle East, the pillar of our common Middle East policy, i.e. the two-state-solution, we no longer had a consensus.
Ernest Claassen: Minister Rosenthal, as you said, called from the Netherlands and wanted to scrap certain passages from this consensus text?
Jean Asselborn: Yes. Again, I think we are touching on a very sensitive matter here, the issue of the Middle East peace process. In my opinion, we really have to try to reach the consensus, not to break the consensus. Initially, this was a very well-balanced text. But by introducing some amendments – and, above all, the amendment of not having a reference to the two-state-solution in the text – made it no longer possible to have a general consensus. The consequence was that Spain didn't speak in the name of 27 member states, but only in the name of 6 or 7 states. That's catastrophic for the European Union.
Ernest Claassen: What do you accuse your colleague, Minister Rosenthal, of?
Jean Asselborn: No, not at all. I have a lot of respect. I think the Dutch policy in the Middle East has historical roots. This morning, Minister Uri Rosenthal called me and he tried to explain to me that, in this text in Geneva about human rights in the Middle East, the reference to the two-state-solution had nothing to do in this text in his opinion.
Ok, you can accept this, but this is not my position. Nevertheless, the most important point in this issue is that Minister Rosenthal reconfirmed to me that the Dutch government remains committed to the two-state-solution. That's the most important for me. But in the future, I think we really have to avoid in this very sensitive area to allow such, let's say, such mechanisms through which we show a division of the European Union on a central pillar of our foreign policy. Because the two-state-solution is an agreed language in the quartet, it is an agreed language also in the European Union and we can not play with this.
Ernest Claassen: Do you think that interior Dutch policies in Holland play a role in the decision, in the comments by Minister Rosenthal?
Jean Asselborn: I am not a specialist of the domestic policy of the Netherlands. But I know that you have a man called Mr. Wilders, who has his own policy, his mentality. I have read a lot of times already that, for Mr. Wilders, we don't need a two-state-solution, because in his eyes, there already exists a Palestinian state and this Palestinian state is Jordan! I think that this can not be the position of the common European foreign policy and therefore I am very glad that Minister Rosenthal reiterated to me that the two-state-solution would remain the line of the Dutch government.
Ernest Claassen: I thank you very much, Mister Asselborn, for your time.
Jean Asselborn: Thank you.
|
