Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-020"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Use of depleted uranium in Bosnia and Kosovo (Balkan syndrome)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010117.1.3-020"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-17-Speech-3-0212
lpv:speaker	lp:Dagmar Roth-behrendt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a quite remarkable as well as a cynical debate that we are holding here. I am almost inclined to resist any involvement in a discussion about which type of lethal ammunition is the better. And yet that is what we are doing today. I have never taken any part in debates about which wars are expedient and which are unavoidable either. That is not our subject today. We have a different subject to discuss. In the past, we have repeatedly said that, if it is necessary to use armed force – and we have always agreed on this – we must ensure that our intervention has no more impact than is absolutely essential and that it does the least possible damage to the environment and to the health of those who survive it. This, of course, is why we have constantly condemned and denounced chemical weapons, for example, and have always agreed that these weapons must never be used, because the havoc they wreak on the environment and on human health is out of all proportion to their military effectiveness. If we are discussing today whether munitions containing uranium do or do not cause leukaemia, then I have no desire to hear anyone tell us, not even Dr Solana, whom I greatly respect, whether or not there is definitive proof. We are not talking about definitive proof, and when we spoke in this House about our own health and about BSE, we certainly all agreed that the precautionary principle had to be applied, even though we were never able to prove that infected substances are the cause of new-variant Creutzfeld-Jacob disease. We recently discussed the precautionary principle and put it to the vote, and we said that we must ban particular substances or procedures if there are justifiable concerns about them, even if there is no definitive proof. We know today that there are numerous cases of leukaemia. And as long as the scientists are still arguing, as long as all of us do not know which of the scientists is correct, we must agree that this ammunition cannot be used until every last aspect of the issue has been resolved. Surely nothing less than a moratorium on this ammunition would be an acceptable decision for us to take today. But in addition to this we must also care for the people who live in the regions, for their health and the health of their children."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph