Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-29-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030129.2.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, High Representative, Commissioner, we are on a knife-edge. On the one hand, the Security Council has given the inspectors the green light they wanted to continue their mission in the short term; on the other, the US-British armada in the Gulf is increasing in size by the day, much like the pressure to launch a military attack. In this context of great tension where the stakes are so high, any ambiguous political words or action on the war, but also, where applicable, any absence of initiative against the war, actually constitute an advantage for the most aggressive and unilateralist government the United States has ever known. A builder’s work can be recognised from its foundations, and, in the same way, Europe’s ambition on the global stage can be measured in a critical international situation.
Calm down! We are not interested in hearing what you think about it.
My group would like to be able to state these values, state these requirements in Iraq itself, without the slightest leniency towards the authorities, Mr Watson, quite the opposite – nobody, furthermore, will find in my entire political history the slightest leniency towards this dictator, nobody, which is not the case of certain right-wing governments – ...
... without the slightest leniency towards the authorities, therefore, and within a population that has already suffered the effects of a criminal embargo for twelve years. That is why my group is unanimous, as are my Green and socialist fellow Members, and even Members from other parliamentary groups, in suggesting that a delegation of Members should go to Baghdad from 2 to 6 February. There will be more than thirty of us. In the same vein, my group suggests sending – and will do so – a delegation to the United States. In Baghdad and in New York or Washington, we want to defend an idea of Europe, Mr President, in which many progressive men and women still place their hopes. We must not let them down!
Mr Solana, you seem to welcome the common position of the Fifteen, or in any case of the four countries that currently sit on the Security Council. This does not merit such rejoicing. The declaration had only just been published when London and Madrid, in particular, were already stripping it of its substance by stating, respectively, that there was a flagrant violation of resolution 1441, and that the extension of the deadline granted to the inspectors should be as short as possible. Still others are doing their utmost to find passages in Dr Blix’s report to take out of context in order to try to justify military intervention.
Everything seems to imply that, in the eyes of some, it would not be good news but bad news if Dr Blix were to state that the inspectors had been able, overall, to access all sites easily, to the point of having carried out 300 inspections in 60 days. Or if Mr ElBaradei thought it were possible, and I quote ‘within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme’.
Of course there are still grey areas that absolutely must be clarified. We will not, however, achieve this through bombs and blood. We must speak frankly and on the other hand be far more aggressive in demanding that the inspectors be allowed to take the time they need to complete their work. Beware of playing down war! Beware of gradually and insidiously accepting the unacceptable! Let us therefore review everything that Europe has accepted, with little or no reaction, from Ariel Sharon in Palestine over the past two years. He does not deserve congratulations, Mr Solana. We must resolutely fight his disastrous policy, including for the Israeli people themselves.
What did Europe have to say about George Bush’s new strategic doctrine, published on 20 September last, which magnifies, and I quote, ‘the unequalled strength’ of the United States and emphasises, and I quote once again, their determination ‘to act alone, if necessary […] pre-emptively’ in order to ‘further freedom’s triumph’. What does Europe have to say now in response to the irresponsible statements made by the Secretary-General of the White House last Sunday, implying that the United States would not rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons in case of conflict in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction must be destroyed and banned in Iraq, throughout the region, and all over the world. We must listen to public opinion.
Mr Blair and Mr Aznar are isolated in their own countries over the question of war. There is an overwhelming majority against war in Germany. Four out of five French citizens are asking Paris to use the right to veto if necessary to try to prevent the worst from happening. On the other side of the Atlantic, a movement unprecedented since Vietnam is gathering momentum, based on the slogan, and how clear it is: ‘No blood for oil’"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Mr Le Pen: It sounds like Europe in 1938!)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples