Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-128"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020925.5.3-128"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-25-Speech-3-1292
lpv:speaker	lp:Geoffrey Van Orden2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, the aim of policy regarding Iraq is not to avoid war at any price and it is not merely to see the return of weapons inspectors. It is to bring about the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime so that he is no longer a threat to us or indeed to his regional neighbours. We should have acted earlier. 11 September has now given us a heightened sensitivity to potential threats. If we let Saddam carry on in the way that he is, then what message does this send to others of malign intent? My criticism of the British Government is that it has left it far too late to fight the battle for public opinion and that its effort to build a coalition of political support among the Europeans has clearly been poor. The example of Iraq exposes yet again the frailty of common security policy in the European Union and not surprisingly it confirms a widely differing outlook in interests of the Member States of the European Union. Unlike Mr Poos, I do not see Mr Schröder as my spokesman. Some Members of this House have a reflex anti-Americanism. Instead, I had hoped that they would all be motivated by the need to enhance western security in a dangerous world. This requires strong and unassailable partnership with the United States. The Brok report reveals a different set of motives. It is all about empowering the European Union and boosting the role of the European Commission in particular. I disagree with this. It has nothing to do with enhancing the security of our citizens. Yesterday in Warsaw NATO Foreign Ministers welcomed proposals for a NATO military response force. 20 000 troops will be used for short-term, high-intensity combat operations. This would complement other NATO reaction forces already in existence and be a real incentive for NATO allies other than just the Americans and British to provide a small number of highly-trained and well-equipped forces ready to take on urgent tasks on a global basis. The European countries should forget the distractions of the European rapid reaction force separate from NATO and concentrate instead on improving military capabilities for alliance operations."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-03-13--2004-04-30)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Van Orden (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph