Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.3.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, I want now to put a protest on the record. These resolutions, to which the groups have now tabled amendments, were prepared by two committees. I do not think it right or proper that my colleague from the other committee is not also heading the list of speakers. I ask that the list of speakers be amended to enable my colleague to be given the floor after me, and to be followed by speakers from the groups. I do not believe that anyone from the other groups has any objection to this.
It is indeed symbolic that the issue of terrorism should be dealt with by these two committees. The fact that the group's amendments refer to work we did and presented together makes it clear that we are dealing here with something completely new, the need for the fight against the cancerous growth of terrorism to be the common cause in which internal and external security unite. No longer can traditional methods of policing and repressive measures within states bring us success, nor can this situation be got round by traditional military means any more. A new definition of security policy is now called for, one that leaves no doubt that we are dealing here with a problem that knows no frontiers. No longer does the antagonist stand behind a fixed border; now he is within our own frontiers. He is mainly within borders that protect him, because he is there to prepare himself to do something in another country, which means that borders no longer separate us from the enemy but protect him. It is for this reason that we have to develop new methods, and today we are endeavouring to put forward a number of proposals.
What is in any case quite clear in all this is that there is a need for cooperation in all military and internal security matters on the part of the armed forces, the security services and the secret services, by which information may be gained as to how to take action against terrorism. It is wholly unacceptable for citizens to be killed in our States through the nation states' unwillingness to exchange information.
I do think that, however important the steps taken in the aftermath of 11 September, only a part of what was discussed at the time has become reality. Commissioner Patten made particularly explicit reference to the terrible event in Bali, which has again demonstrated the way in which incidents of this kind will continue to proliferate. It must be made clear, though, that they can be successfully combated only if we respect the rule of law, including international law. We may not ourselves respond by breaking the law, but we must be in a position to be ready for action while at the same time guaranteeing the rule of law and international law. Hence the complicated situation we are in, which has to do with the United Nations and the role played by the Security Council. The primary and most important function of the Security Council is to be a way ahead in external policy matters, but it cannot be the only way.
I think it right that we should be speaking here in terms of a general convention against terrorism. I also believe that it has to be made clear that the killing of civilians in terrorist acts can be justified neither by religion nor by poverty nor by anything else. There can be no excuse for terrorism – no excuse whatsoever!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples