Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.4.4-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I supported the European Parliament resolution on combating terrorism in order to show my commitment to this cause, but, if the truth be known, I find the text extremely dissatisfactory in a number of respects.
In Paragraph 6, the European Parliament appears to be saying that the legitimate right of a State which has been attacked to defend itself can only be exercised with the authorisation of the UN Security Council, which would appear to be entirely incorrect. In the event of an attack, the Security Council can only pronounce on the collective use of force, not on the right of the State which is the object of the attack to defend itself.
In Paragraph 36, the European Parliament suggests that what is known as the ‘pillar’ structure of the European institutions could hamper the fight against terrorism, and this hardly makes any sense. The general ‘disarmament’ which the Union has undertaken, abolishing internal border controls and turning a blind eye to the flow of ‘unidentifiable’ immigrants in the name of human rights, has a much more damaging effect.
Lastly, as regards recital P, if, as we must, we want to avoid equating the Muslim world with terrorism, we also have to be conscious of the need to expose the ambiguities contained in the concept of
which are extremely unhealthy fuel for terrorism."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples