Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-182"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-27"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Nuclear testing2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991027.6.3-182"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-1832
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Marinus Wiersma2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PETI (1999-09-16--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this Parliament was always squarely behind any endeavours to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world – the French President will have some vivid memories of this- both when it came to the START Treaties and the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, which I am glad to say was extended not so long ago. Very many states renounce nuclear weapons voluntarily. The major nuclear powers have scaled down their arsenals by a considerable amount, but that does not mean that we can rest content though. The START process is faltering and too many countries reserve the right to develop a nuclear capability. This is increasing tension in some parts of the world. Some time ago a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed. An important step forwards. The treaty was and is the expression of an ambition to eradicate nuclear weapons in the long term. The US was one of the countries that promoted the ban and it is extremely sad that it is precisely the US, or rather the majority in the Senate, that have now declined to ratify the treaty. The Non-Proliferation Treaty more or less signifies the acceptance of five nuclear powers. The non-nuclear states went along with it on condition that the nuclear powers would do everything to reduce their nuclear capability. A ban on nuclear testing was and continues to be an essential part of this. This commitment is an important feature of the non-proliferation process and constitutes its moral basis to some extent. That is another reason why the step taken by the American Senate is so serious. The credibility of the non-proliferation process is thereby impaired. The Senate points to the fact that countries such as Iraq could pose a nuclear threat in the future. The US therefore claims that it must continue to be in a position to have an up to date nuclear arsenal at its disposal and that nuclear tests may be necessary to this end. Quite apart from the significance of this line of argument in political and military terms, it is important to recognise that it is an expression of American provincialism which leaves no room for a reciprocal international approach, in which countries such as Iraq are countered with international embargoes coupled with sanctions. We believe that the EU will have to be quite forceful in fostering this approach."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph