Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-060"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation in Iraq2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021009.5.3-060"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-09-Speech-3-0612
lpv:speaker	lp:Maj Britt Theorin2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Socialdemokratiska arbetarepartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we are on the verge of war, a war which could have devastating consequences not just for the people of Iraq and for the Middle East as a whole but for the rest of the world as well. Under these circumstances, sense and reason have to prevail over the simplistic venting of one’s feelings. Following the devastation of the Second World War, the nations of the world created the United Nations as the instrument which was to guarantee world peace, and, as Mr Patten says, there is no alternative to the UN when it comes to maintaining global security. The nations came to an agreement under international law on the rules for military intervention in order to preserve world peace. It is clear from these that decisions on such action must be taken by the UN Security Council. To choose, like the USA and Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, to abide by UN resolutions only when it suits us would have devastating consequences for the whole international legal system. It would amount to rejecting and deliberately opposing the UN. Is this the legal system the conservatives stand for? The justice of the powerful and international lawlessness? Or should all countries have an equal right to take so-called preventive action? What would happen then? It stands to reason that Iraq must comply with UN resolutions and allow the inspectors to carry out their work without conditions. An agreement has also been reached between Hans Blix and Iraq whereby the inspectors are to be allowed to resume the work which was in actual fact suspended when the USA and the UK started their last bombing campaign. The inspectors should now be able to start their work immediately. There is no excuse for dictator Saddam Hussein’s breach of the UN resolutions. Iraq, like all other countries, has to abide by the decisions taken by the UN. Obviously, this also applies to Israel. If the principle is that Iraq has not complied with UN resolutions and must therefore be bombed, what are we then to do about Israel, which continually breaches UN resolutions? The EU has to make it clear to the world’s largest democracy, the USA, that all countries must abide by international law and that the law of the street is not acceptable, even against dictators."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph