Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.2.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, may I start by paying Mr Solana a huge compliment? Since he has taken office, the second pillar has been a hive of activity. The agenda is enormous. In actual fact, all EU political issues are dominated by foreign affairs and the Finnish Presidency is certainly taking great strides forwards. This is, in fact, worth two compliments if one considers the country’s historical neutrality. I would like to discuss European security policy and put a number of issues before Mr Solana, a number of questions which he may not be able to deal with today but which should be given priority in future, to my mind.
First of all, I back the EU’s ambitions in this field. The European security and defence identity should and shall emerge. I will not enlarge upon the military aspect, the structure and the capacity required, but I would like to be informed of the extent of the so-called Petersberg Tasks because the answer to this question will determine a great deal. Does the Union focus on minor or major crises? And if it focuses on minor crisis situations, what happens if a minor crisis escalates into a major one – because we all know that this is not unusual. According to the Washington Declaration, the European security and defence identity is open to all NATO countries. How does this relate to the EU’s ambition to be able to take unilateral decisions? What is to be done about the NATO countries which are not within the EU, namely Norway, Turkey and the three countries in Central and Eastern Europe? Many would like to know what will happen after your appointment as Secretary-General of the Western European Union. How can the WEU be fully integrated into the EU and what will then happen with the infamous article 5? Although some people in the Netherlands would like to take over the British role when it comes to desperately hanging on to the Atlantic relationship, and I mean the former British role, this is surely not comparable with the issues at large in neutral, non-aligned EU Member States regarding the European security and defence identity. I can respect this opinion. But how can such respect be compatible with a progressive agenda when it comes to the European security and defence identity? I know from my own experience that a broader approach to security and making conflict prevention a priority can be helpful here. The Union could make headway on this score by improving coordination between the first and second pillars.
I would like to finish off with a pertinent question. I think that we all, but also you, the Council and the Commission, should be concerned about how Parliament can monitor the system which we are developing. I would like to discuss within Parliament, but also with you, the way in which we could, from within this Parliament, but also from within national parliaments, better monitor the coming into being of the European security and defence identity and the further elaboration thereof."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples