Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.1.3-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, at the end of this debate, I am left with a number of questions. The condemnation of the dictator Saddam Hussein appears unanimous. Are we not forgetting, though, that in the eyes of some Muslims and even of huge groups of them, he is considered a hero? This is a major problem.
Secondly, how far does this unanimity extend? Are we convinced that the resumption of weapons inspections will bring any closer the solutions we want? Do we think that these should be unconditional? Do we think we should set an ultimatum? Should this ultimatum be set by the UN? And what conclusions will we draw if nothing, or something, is found?
In my view, all these scenarios should be thought through beforehand. Is the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a necessary or satisfactory reason to start a war? Or will we then want to enter into negotiations concerning their dismantling? Who will provide proof of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction? Some of our fellow MEPs are already saying that this proof is there because he had them before. On the other hand, a number of weapons are reported to have been destroyed during the second Gulf War. Are people in the EU agreed on the interests that are really at stake in the Middle East, on this region's stability, on the risk that the Gulf States are running? Not that they are models of democracy, but what will happen to them? What happens if a prior solution is not reached for Israel and Palestine? Are we getting any nearer to a solution?
Is it the EU's intention to avoid a war against Iraq only in the short term? Is the aim to bring down Saddam Hussein? Or would we much rather broker peace in the Middle East, as the Palestinian issue lies at the heart of the problem? Should we not express our aspiration to defend human rights and democracy so that partnerships can be forged in future? In my view, the solution we need is long-term.
I would also like to know whether the EU will take an initiative to let the UN play a prominent role in the Middle East once again? Apparently, this question was not even raised in Elsinore. Are the two European countries on the Security Council, namely the United Kingdom and France, on the same wavelength? Probably not, for the signs are there for everyone to see.
I have a few more questions, but time is running out. However, I should like to finish with one final question. Is it right for Denmark to give itself one month to find a compromise which is also acceptable to the Americans if we establish that the European themselves are still struggling with so many problems? How many subscribe to Mr Schröder's opinion? Not only are we, along with Mr Schröder, saying 'no' to war now; we also want Europe to have the objective of establishing stable and lasting peace in the Middle East."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples