Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.3.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, needless to say, the fact that we are debating transatlantic relations today has everything to do with 11 September. But let there be no mistake: 11 September has accelerated a process that was started long before, namely the forging of a new alliance between the EU and the United States. Many structural causes play a role in this: the EU’s stronger, enhanced role as an economic superpower, the end of the Cold War and, related to this, a shift in the role for the United States in Europe. The EU is no longer America’s kid brother who is proud to walk in its shadow. But neither has the EU become, I hope, the adolescent who wishes to follow in the footsteps of its great example. The EU must carve its own role in a self-assured manner. The EU must not shy away from conflict, and should not be frightened to show that it disagrees with the United States if that is the case. Above all, the EU should not try to emulate the United States. Allow me to illustrate this with two examples.
The first is the sharp increase in defence budgets by an amount which far outstrips the budgets of France and Great Britain put together. Does this mean that the European Union should increase its defence budgets accordingly? Not in my view, because it is completely futile to try to bridge the difference in the belief that we will be a more credible partner if we do. It is up to the European Union to consider a credible mix of military means, but, above all, to consider matters which the European Union is good at: conflict prevention, crisis management and nation building. Macedonia and Afghanistan are good examples of this.
May I venture to quote American President Roosevelt who said: ‘Let us speak softly, let them carry a big stick? But the bearing of arms is also subject to restrictions, and these restrictions are exceeded in the US plans, which have now been leaked, concerning the use of nuclear weapons.
It is unacceptable for the United States not to cut back the role of nuclear weapons, which is what we want, but instead they cast them in a new role in a new strategy, lower the threshold for their use and allow the line between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons to become blurred. This is a development against which the European Union should not be afraid to protest. The blurring of the line between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons is a dangerous development, and we all know that the threat of nuclear weapons would only hamper the search for solutions in Iraq or Iran, for example. It makes no sense whatsoever to use this threat, and we must not be frightened to say so. What is more, the French and British governments should be urged to clarify once and for all their stance on nuclear weapons. As far as my group is concerned, the answer is quite simple: nuclear weapons have no role to play in future European security policy.
I should like to quote the Middle East as a final example. Needless to say, it is preferable to keep a diplomatic offensive together with the Americans. We should do this, but we should not wait for the United States. The European Union can play its own role not only diplomatically, but mainly economically. This will give us a unique opportunity to step up the pressure on both sides, and we are also committed to ensuring that our own human rights policy remains credible.
Mr President, the European Union is an economic superpower which is trying to carve a role for itself in the world. We will succeed in this if we speak with one voice, if we do not shy away from open criticism of other superpowers and, above all, if we do not try to emulate the United States. The European Union is not a military superpower which can impose its wishes all over the world all by itself, and neither should we want this. Neither is the EU a naïve Maecenas, who pays up once the United States has done the dirty work. The United States should obviously be able to keep the peace in its own backyard, also militarily. Apart from this, we should mainly focus on what we are good at: to talk and talk again, to strike compromises and to pay up eventually. The EU needs the United States if things get out of hand, but the United States needs the EU to ensure that things do not get too out of hand."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples