Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.2.3-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President of the Council, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Mr Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, first a word on the defence aspect.
Much has been said about air safety and security, many measures have been taken at European level. Curiously, though, there is not a word about our secret services; in fact, if there are a number of organisations that did not work, at any rate in the 15 Member States, they certainly include our secret services. Today we see them digging away and finding out all sorts of things. Perhaps it would have been better if they had discovered some of them beforehand. They cost us dear. Nobody is quite sure what they do; sometimes we wonder whether they do anything. No doubt that too could be a subject worth considering at European level and subjecting to parliamentary control, for they can present a risk: so long as we leave them total freedom of action, they will sometimes take inappropriate action.
Turning to the offensive aspect, yesterday the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Michel, provided the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy with a great deal of information. He strongly emphasised the value of dialogue. However, I think that unless this dialogue is accompanied by a political project, it may risk merely reinforcing certain positions. We are currently endeavouring to forge an anti-terrorist coalition. There are, in my view, two main risks. Mr Poettering highlighted one of them: the measures to combat terrorism risk – and it is more than a risk, since they have already produced some very adverse results – provoking and encouraging state terrorism. Mr Poettering specifically stated – and I thank him because authorised voices in his country, like that of Mr Schröder, seemed to agree with Mr Putin, who has still not provided us with a shred of evidence that the Chechens were responsible for the Moscow attacks, a point Mr Lannoye also emphasised – that it can be tempting to use this great anti-terrorist battle to settle a few scores at home, in Tibet for the Chinese, in Chechnya for the Russians, etc. That is an aspect we must bear in mind.
The other issue is the Arab world. There has been much criticism of certain statements that were made. I believe we all agree that this is not a clash of civilisation between Islam and Christianity but, obviously, a clash of civilisation between democracy and non-democracy and that we have to take the offensive in that conflict. We must help all those people in the Arab countries, in the Muslim countries, who are fighting, often at the price of their freedom, at the price of torture, and often at the price of death; and this Parliament, our European Union, is certainly not doing enough in that respect. Examples such as Morocco and Jordan show that the Arab countries can move towards democracy. Other countries that might have gone the same way have in fact done the opposite, such as Tunisia: in fact, it would not take much to change the course in that country, which has a ruling class, a cultured class, an education system, and which recognises the rights of women, the equal rights of men and women. In that respect our policy is aiding and abetting Mr Ben Ali in consolidating a regime that is moving further away from the rule of law every day and is becoming enclosed in a vicious circle of state gangsterism. An offensive policy means supporting the people of Tunisia who are working for the rule of law, for freedom."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples