Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000614.4.3-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is useful to remind ourselves and to realise that we are in the first round of many of a debate on European security. This means that we have imposed a few restrictions on ourselves. We are very much focusing on the Summit, the European Council of Feira, which is fine, but that means that we will not be covering a number of other issues which are vital to European security.
One such issue which we are not discussing today is the criteria for the deployment of this rapid reaction force. I am sure that we will be discussing this issue following a further report by Mrs Lalumière in due course, but in the meantime, we are subject to a few restrictions. Despite these restrictions, we are able to pass a sound verdict now, in my opinion. Let me start by making a positive comment. A large part of the resolution is taken up by non-military crisis management, and this is very much how it should be, in my opinion. The Commissioner spent quite a long time talking about this and I think he had every reason to. According to my group, the EU has unique opportunities in this respect which, so far, have remained for the most part untapped. Fortunately, there are also examples of how things can be done, for example, the Stability Pact, which is a mixture of economic reconstruction, promotion of human rights and the development of a civil society. This is a good example of how, also in future, the Union will be able to use its nearly unlimited options in the field of non-military crisis management. But military resources also form part of this package and, this may surprise some delegates, this is also largely backed by my group, albeit subject to a number of conditions.
I would like to specify two. One is the EU’s say. In my opinion, it should be crystal clear, and this is not included in the present texts, that the EU has autonomous power of decision and that the EU countries must be able to decide for themselves on their level of commitment, without needing permission from NATO – or should that be the US?
I would like to make one final point. It cannot be the case that the new military resources which are required will be over and above the ones we have at the moment and that, as such, a new arms race would be created for military resources. What is important is that the analysis and security policy are new. This does not necessarily include more resources."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples