Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-140"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Combating terrorism2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021023.3.3-140"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-23-Speech-3-1412
lpv:speaker	lp:Joost Lagendijk2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-02-26--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Many people – almost everyone, I think – immediately associates terrorism and the fight against terrorism with images of extreme violence like those we recently witnessed in Bali. Regrettably, this association with violence is justified where terrorism is concerned, but it is not justified, and should not be, when it comes to the fight against terrorism. I am pleased that Parliament has managed to reach consensus about a predominantly non-violent fight against terrorism. Let me mention a few elements: terrorism is not a natural phenomenon but also has economic and social roots, and that is precisely where the EU's programmes could provide value-added. As Commissioner Patten mentioned a moment ago, the most effective strategy for fighting terrorism is conflict prevention. Military action can only be legitimised by and via the United Nations. These are all elements which my group very much applauds because they are the key elements of the non-violent fight against terrorism. Add to this the concern about the US's unilateralism and the rejection of so-called pre-emptive strikes, the strong emphasis on the protection of fundamental civil rights and the recognition of the need to lay down minimum standards in the field of criminal law, and I think it is right to say that what is being presented in this resolution is a balanced inventory of causes and possible actions. As far as I am concerned, this is a European view of terrorism, not necessarily compared to an American view of terrorism, but as a basis for an even-handed dialogue on terrorism between equals. What we do have to ensure, though, is that this balanced, paper vision is not imbued with a practice that remains governed by oppression and military means. I am convinced that only if the practice becomes as balanced as and is like this paper resolution, will we manage to fight terrorism successfully without creating new causes of terrorism. Finally, reference is made in the resolution to Galileo, an intelligence, information and navigation system which the European Union is setting up. I have also re-read the debate on Galileo. In it, it is stated repeatedly that Galileo is, in principle, a civil system that is not, or should not be, used to collect military information, and my impression is that certainly the first generation of Galileo is absolutely unsuitable for collecting information of any nature whatsoever that could prove useful in the fight against terrorism. It is therefore somewhat beyond me, in all honesty, why Parliament is so keen to include this reference to Galileo. In my view, this mention is either premature, because Galileo as it currently stands cannot serve any purpose whatsoever, or the European Parliament has been misinformed in the past. Surely, Galileo is a so-called dual-use system, and these are two arguments why, in my view, the reference to Galileo in this terrorism resolution should be deleted."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph