Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-13-Speech-4-144"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cluster bombs2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011213.11.4-144"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-12-13-Speech-4-1452
lpv:speaker	lp:Bernd Posselt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, my group has given the go-ahead for the vote on this resolution, and I am one of those who support the resolution and am vehemently in favour of a moratorium. We must tread very carefully in this particular war. We are fighting a terrorist regime but we run the risk of not preparing for peace and of becoming embroiled in this conflict with no clear peace programme or prospects. We oppose the death penalty which the Taliban have applied and yet we import it club class in huge American transporters. We abhor Taliban misogyny but say nothing about the rapes carried out by the so-called Northern Alliance – a highly dubious alliance – on a massive scale. The same applies here: obviously we have to use weapons systems in order to bring this war in Afghanistan to a successful close. But, on the other hand, we need to ensure that as many civilians as possible are spared in order to prevent this war from escalating around the world and in order to prevent further escalation in weapons systems, especially now that more and more politicians and former pacifists are suddenly beginning to think in terms of the admissibility of war and to accept war as a policy instrument. Sometimes it has to be the last resort, but what worries me is how comfortable we have become with the idea of war. It is precisely at such times that we need to ban this sort of weapons system and, more importantly, to strengthen international law. We have an international coalition against terrorism, but unless we can cash in on it by strengthening the international law of the United Nations, we shall be prey to other constellations which we absolutely do not want. Hence, as I said, we need to fight terrorism but the ultimate aim must be to strengthen international law and ban – and this too is a topical issue – atomic as well as biological and chemical weapons. Which is where the USA comes in and of course, most importantly, a ban on these cluster bombs which, in our view, are a means of war which endanger civilians to an unreasonable extent. Those who know what damage was caused in the Balkans or Kosovo, mainly because of the mines laid by the Yugoslav army – that too needs to be said – they will understand why, at all events, we need to take a moderate line here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph