Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-29-Speech-3-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030129.2.3-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr High Representative, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would like to say first of all that we are against war: no to war and no to dictators, and that means we must work actively within a multilateral framework to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
We must all work as faithful allies and with regard to the statement of Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, who spoke of the old Europe, I must say that those people in our continent who have spoken of a new Europe are the ones who have caused endless disasters in our continent. We are not in favour of a new Europe, we are building a united Europe, and that is the aim of our political action.
And, Mr President, please allow me to refer to an important aspect of the issue on which I would like to hear more clarifications from the representative of the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission. It concerns the risks of humanitarian disaster, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, with hundreds of thousands of displaced persons at least: who will pay for that? Do we have measures to deal with it? Has the UN considered this? This is an important issue, as is the economic situation, and not just that of Europe.
The price of oil is going through the roof; it is worrying that the United States’ world map of priorities always coincides with the countries which have significant reserves of oil. This is not the way to build a future for humanity, and we must also declare ourselves clearly in favour of not having to face an economic disaster.
Finally, Mr President, we have the right to know whether weapons of mass destruction really exist. To this end, we need more proof and more evidence and they will be obtained through continued work.
The debate is not only on the timetable but on how to move forward in order to prevent war. And finally, Mr President, please allow me to use a quote in English from a great American, Mr Madison, who in 1792 said:
The debate we are holding at the moment with our most important ally, the United States, revolves, rather than around the fundamental issue, around counter-productive methods and – as ex-President Clinton quite rightly said − on erratic methods. Why? Because ten years ago, when we were in a coalition with the United States in the Kuwait war, President Bush Senior said that the Iraqi people would sooner or later topple the dictator.
Ten years later, we must recognise that sanctions have not weakened Saddam Hussein and that we are still dealing with the same issues in relation to weapons of mass destruction. We must therefore say that we are in favour of a clear policy of applying pressure on the basis of the Security Council’s resolutions.
War is not inevitable. We must work on the basis that peace must be given a chance, but we must not be hasty and of course we must not create situations which may be entirely counter-productive. Hence our opposition to a preventive attack and our support for negotiations within the framework of international law.
Mr President, a unilateral intervention, without the support of the UN, would have devastating effects throughout the Middle East, leading to more suffering, more radicalisation of Arab public opinion and would jeopardise the spirit of coalition in the fight against terrorism.
And since Mr Solana is going to congratulate Mr Sharon on having won the elections in Israel, I would ask him to add something else, and that is to tell Mr Sharon to stop spurning Europe and to take account of our will for peace and cooperation.
Secondly, Iraq must comply seriously with the inspection requirements and I would like to thank the President for quickly accepting my proposal to hold the videoconference. It was very interesting. Yesterday we spoke with a European citizen who was proud to be one, Dr Blix, who asked Europe to take a more active position and who also explained to us, although he did not ask for it, that if the inspections could continue for two more months, as proposed by Mohammed ElBaradei, the Egyptian expert, results could be achieved. I believe that that should be the basis for the European course of action.
Our approach should be the one the President-in-Office of the Council, Minister Papandreu, was able to outline at the General Affairs Council on Monday, in the face of the self-flagellation we always indulge in, by means of an agreement with the four member countries of the Security Council and with Bulgaria, so that there may be a European position which supports the work of the inspectors and so that those inspections may continue. I would also like to point out that Dr Blix also told us that between 1991 and 1998 the inspectors were at work. If they were working for eight years, why can they not work for two more months? Nobody understands this, and neither do they understand why President Bush is offering evidence now, two months later. Why did he not do so before?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples