Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.10.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I think that first of all we must try to understand why North Korea decided to admit that it is producing nuclear weapons. What lies behind this declaration? Is it an act aiming at dialogue as some seem to think? Or is it a provocative act, an attempt to blackmail in order to get money in exchange for a behaviour – renouncing nuclear power – that it should adopt in any case? Moreover, yesterday, North Korea reinforced its blackmail through another threat: it will re-start missile testing if it feels the negotiations with Japan are unsatisfactory. This is to say that, if North Korea does not obtain millions of dollars in exchange, it will not respect its promises, as it has already demonstrated on many occasions.
How should we behave towards North Korea now? It seems to me that, above all, we should have sent a clear message – things have changed and nothing will be the same. This is why I was against the decision to send a letter to North Korea to reconfirm the invitation for the Parliamentary delegation to come to Brussels this week. Maybe we should not have sent it since the invitation was turned down.
The EU has little influence on North Korea. As we heard from Mrs de Palacio, our monetary contribution to KEDO is minimal in comparison with that of other partners. I think that the Commissioner was right to say that we must aim to develop cooperation between the actors in the area so as to oblige North Korea to respect international rules, although I doubt this will happen with the current regime still in power.
The resolution which we are presenting today is built on those premises and is a result of a compromise reached by the major political groups in Parliament. I would have preferred it to be tougher on North Korea, but it still represents an acceptable compromise between the need to maintain an open dialogue and the necessity to press Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear and missile programmes.
I hope that everyone will agree that it would be useful after yesterday's developments to move an oral amendment strongly condemning the new threat of renewed missile testing."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples