Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.1.3-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on the eve of the anniversary of 11 September, Europe must, more than ever, speak with a single voice and defend peace. Europe must firmly tell the world once again that the fight against terrorism, which it supports unreservedly, cannot involve war and that a so-called preventative war against Iraq would, on the contrary, sacrifice a nation, would cause unrest in the Middle East, and would have no guaranteed outcome. Europe is faced with an historic opportunity to speak with a single voice and to distance itself from the policy of the axis of evil that the United States is trying to impose whether we like it or not.
In its report of 16 May on Iraq, the European Parliament called, in particular, for the UN to play a crucial role in seeking a regional, political and peaceful settlement, and for Europe to adopt a common position on the issue at last. These words have been almost completely disregarded. Once again, Europe is divided on which strategy it should follow. Baghdad is wavering over whether to open its doors to UNMOVIC inspectors and the Iraqi people are continuing to mourn the victims of an inhuman embargo which has failed to destabilise the regime of Saddam Hussein, whilst President Bush is mounting his crusade of good, blatantly breaching international law in doing so.
What game are we playing? That is why I shall avoid beating around the bush and ask the Commission and the Council the questions that are on everyone’s lips today. What guarantees can Europe offer Iraq that the UNMOVIC inspections will be carried out fairly, that they will have a time limit and that they will ultimately lead to the lifting of economic sanctions? In other words, that these inspections will not, as before the 1998 crisis, be infiltrated by US intelligence officers taking notes on locations to bomb in the future.
Secondly, what guarantees can Europe give Baghdad that, once it has been proven that its arsenal has been dismantled or it has been verified that there are no weapons of mass destruction, America will not immediately attack, once they can see that the regime is not armed? Although Europe is seeking to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we all know that the United States want the regime overturned. Is this indeed Europe’s mission to seek to overturn regimes? There are certainly other regimes that we would like to see overturned!
Thirdly, what would Europe’s reaction be if an attack against Iraq were carried out without the backing of the UN? A war against Iraq would not be fair, appropriate, or effective. It would not be fair because, without the green light from the UN, it would be an affront to international law. It would not be clean because, as Mr Morillon has said, there is no such thing as a clean war, not to mention the fact that it would be an experimental war in new weapons, which would harm the Iraqi population. It would not be effective because, in terms of the fight against terrorism, and Afghanistan is proof of this, bombs are of no use. Osama bin Laden is still at large and Saddam Hussein will, in all probability, remain at large.
That is why, when I hear Mr Van Orden speak I am afraid, as I was when I heard Mr Blair speak yesterday, I have just one message, based on the words of the Count of Auteroche at the battle of Fontenoy: if the English wish to support our American friends, they can fire first, but they cannot count on us to support them!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples