Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-032"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Transatlantic Relationship2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020515.2.3-032"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-15-Speech-3-0332
lpv:speaker	lp:Joost Lagendijk2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-02-26--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the relationship between the United States and the EU is not one of equals. I am not referring to political, economic or military power; I mean that the EU and the United States are not equal. They do not have the same level of awareness, they do not have the same definition of security and of their role in the world. Do not get me wrong, I welcome this difference. The world does not need two United States, the original and a copy. The European Union differs, deviates and should continue to do so. Needless to say, there are common values, common roots and common goals, but there is also a difference in terms of insight into how these goals can best be achieved. In this area, a European model of some kind is certainly taking shape. Let me spell it out quite clearly: there is no room for a sense of moral superiority. The EU is not always right, and the United States does not always come up with the worst response. Despite this, the EU would do well to highlight this response, this difference, with confidence and force in a discussion, a debate with the United States. Also because the United States is no monolith. Debate is most definitely taking place in the United States, and Europe can influence this debate. What does this mean in concrete terms? In my view, this specifically means three things. One: the EU must consistently adhere to multilateral agreements in the area of security, the environment and international criminal law. This is different from multilateralism as is sometimes displayed by the United States, for example their behaviour in NATO. Two: the EU should further develop its strong points in areas where it has been successful in the past. As I have already said, these include talking, diplomacy, mediating, conflict prevention and, once conflicts have arisen, tackling reconstruction. This is not a poor apology, this is increasingly the real thing in international relations. Third point: the EU must – more so than in the past – be able to solve the problems in its own region, using military means if necessary. But this does not mean, and I am particularly addressing the rapporteur here, that the EU should spend more on defence, but that it should spend more efficiently. I often get impatient when I see the silly mistakes the United States is making, for example in Iraq or Iran. I also get impatient, however, when I notice that the EU is unable to come up with alternatives. It manages to do so occasionally, for example in the Balkans. Let us continue along this path, with growing confidence, criticising the United States if necessary. If this could be done, I am hopeful of a better future for the world."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"à la carte"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph