Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-240"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.11.3-240"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"President-in-Office, thank you for the answer. I am, of course, very happy that the new common position has been established by the Council and that it has strengthened the position as compared with the past.
I prefer to use the name Burma rather than Myanmar since the people of Burma and now Aung San Suu Kyi, the legitimate leader in Burma, do not refer to it as Myanmar. I should prefer it if Parliament avoided the term Myanmar also. I have to say to the President-in-Office that the net impact of the various measures the European Union has imposed since 1996 has been very limited: the Burmese have not entered into dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic forces in Burma remain as outside the whole process as ever.
Whilst I express my support, one thing still puzzles me. Whilst we take these measures, there is no progress on the pressure that some of us in Parliament have been trying to exert on the Council in relation to the need for sanctions – sanctions, of course, which Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently called for. Related to that, we continue to oppose the Massachusetts Federal laws which impose very effective sanctions on Burma. We are waiting for the US to decide against these Federal laws. Will that remain the case? If the US decides in favour of Massachusetts, will the European Union then reintroduce our opposition in the World Trade Organisation to these measures taken in Massachusetts?"@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples