Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-21-Speech-4-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000921.1.4-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I was probably the first to hear about the terrorist attack this morning at 7.40, so I have known about it for a while now. The attack happened in Catalonia about three or four kilometres from my house and it appears that the situation is worsening since, even though ETA have already killed more than 800 people, they have committed yet another atrocity, even as we speak.
No political objective justifies the use of violence. We can but express our wholehearted condemnation of terrorism and particularly at a time when the terrorists seem so intent on destroying us. We must therefore, once again, strongly reiterate our firm and cooperative position as the Commissioner said, in support of a strong democracy, given that terrorism constitutes a direct threat to our core values. We should like to express our solidarity with those who have been affected and also, in particular, our hope for peace.
In the wake of the latest atrocity, the debate is especially difficult for this Member, and this is something I commented on to four of the five people that signed the declaration against terrorism in Spain. I pointed out to two of them that the signing of the declaration may prove difficult for some due to the content of one of the paragraphs, the second paragraph in fact. This paragraph rejects dialogue with any group that tolerates terrorism or that is involved in it. The reason I spoke to the authors of the text is that I think they need to find a formula on which everyone agrees. One might wonder why the second paragraph of the text as it stands is proving so difficult to sign. The reason is because it calls into question the culture of peace and the culture of dialogue. What is more, if we renounce dialogue the Northern Ireland peace process would not be possible, the Middle East peace process would not be possible and, the Member of the European Parliament, Mr John Hume, would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and I think it is important his work receives recognition.
If ETA does not give up its weapons, we shall not give up ours. If ETA refuses to renounce violence, we shall refuse to renounce the law and dialogue, which are our weapons. We have no others. This is why I strongly urge those that presented the declaration – as I have done so in private and do so now publicly – to do all they can to enable us to sign it, because any position that is adopted on terrorism requires universal backing. On the other hand, if this declaration is supposed to stem from the 1997 declaration adopted by Parliament, which spoke of dialogue in positive terms, it would seem strange not to have recourse to it, and in particular, to the eighth paragraph in which Parliament considers dialogue in positive terms.
Mr President, we should all be in a position to sign the declaration. Nothing justifies the use of terrorism and nothing justifies the failure of democratic forces to adopt a united front in the face of it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples