Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.6.2-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that the response to recent events must be broken down into several different parts, and I will not focus on internal security or military solutions, seeing as I clearly do not have the necessary ‘intelligence’, nor will I concentrate on humanitarian responses, for I am sure that the European Union and the international community as a whole will be able to respond generously, effectively and competently, as they have always done in the past.
The problem is not one of humanitarian efficiency or effectiveness, which have been proven for a long time now, but rather of deciding what political response to make to the matter at hand. I am happy to be able to say this here in this Chamber because Parliament and the European Commission have been the only, rare exceptions among the institutions to pay constant attention to the issue of Afghanistan: in recent years, Parliament has been able to present to the Member States and the Council of Ministers a whole range of political and other suggestions. We can only lament the fact that we were never heeded and our suggestions never taken up or even considered.
We have been trying to draw attention to the indisputable problem of the tragic violation of human rights for years and, since 1997, the Commission and the European Parliament have also been reiterating that there is a problem of terrorism and drugs in Afghanistan, that is, a major geopolitical problem. All we can do is lament the indifference shown by the major international institutions.
At the present moment, however, I feel that we have to make a choice: there are moments in history when one has to stop hesitating and take sides, and if we are to do so we must not side with religious fanaticism, dictatorships or some other form of nationalism, but with the liberal democracies – with all their failings and imperfections, admittedly – but also with all their power and their capacity to operate systems which are better equipped to protect human rights in the world.
My concern is the political response. I fear that it would be a mistake to think that our only enemy is terrorism and, in particular, possibly just Osama Bin Laden. The issue is much more complex than that: our current enemy is that explosive mixture of authoritarian regimes and dictatorships based on religious fanaticism. We must make an effort and go deeper into the matter rather than simply believing that if we catch Osama Bin Laden – which would be right and proper and is a legitimate, necessary thing to do – then the problem will be resolved.
A ‘holy alliance’ to combat terrorism is being formed, made up of a collection of unlikely, not to say dubious allies: there are a number of regimes which are likely to join this alliance, each for its own reasons, each maybe drawing up a list of its own genuine or alleged terrorists with the aim of suppressing its own dissidents, who may well be non-terrorist, democratic individuals. We must be careful not to put everything under the same umbrella indiscriminately.
I wonder whether it would not make more sense and be more useful to create a world organisation of democracy, of liberal democracy as we know it – and, once again, I do not deny any of its shortcomings – for I feel that this is the institution which we should envisage in the medium term.
Today, when we talk about women or violation or female genital mutilation, we have no organisation to turn to for help. This is the great challenge before us: to create, export and promote democracy and freedom."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples