Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-027"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-07-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Council meeting of 15-16 June 2001 in Göteborg – Swedish presidency2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010703.1.2-027"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-07-03-Speech-2-0282
lpv:speaker	lp:Bas Belder2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2000-10-05--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, allow me to turn my attention to the European Council conclusions in Göteborg and particularly the situation in the Middle East. I believe that that attention is justified. The headline of today’s which reads: “Gewalt statt Waffenruhe im Nahen Osten” [violence instead of a cease-fire in the Middle East], illustrates this. The end of the Palestinian (uprising) is not yet in sight. At the same time, the tension between Israel and Syria is again rising dangerously. There is therefore no chance of a return to the so-called peace process in the Middle East, despite all recent diplomatic efforts on the part of America and Europe. What are the options left to those mediating parties? The conclusions of the European Council in Göteborg do not really address this cardinal issue. They excel in wishful thinking. Upbeat terms such as “cooling-off period” and “additional trust-building measures” are supposed to ward off the deep-rooted violence. Should the United States and the European Union therefore leave Israel and the Palestinian Authority to their own devices? Not at all! What is important is that both mediating parties are aware of their diplomatic and military powers. The High Representative, Mr Solana, has broached the subject of essential distribution of roles. Without beating about the bush, he recognises, in his Middle East reports at the Göteborg Summit, the United States’s key position in the required resumption of the peace process. This sincere statement causes the High Representative to underline the importance of permanent, mutual consultation, thus making ‘our efforts complementary’. It is precisely this objective that requires balanced, European action in the region. That is why I would ask the Council and Commission to inform me of the specific conditions they attach to the considerable support they lend to the Palestinian Authority. Surely, at this moment in time, adequate control of violence must be the primary condition. For precisely that condition will help break the present deadlock in the Middle East."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"intifada"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph