Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-29-Speech-3-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030129.2.3-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we run the risk today of repeating ourselves. Personally, I would like to make a suggestion.
Obviously nobody here today is defending a dictator. Those who were communist no longer are, and are not defending any communist dictatorships. I also think that none of those who visited Saddam Hussein to deliver nuclear power stations to him, or, for example, like that young American who was close to the Secretary of State at the time, going by the name of Mr Rumsfeld, to deliver chemical weapons to be dropped on Iran, would now do what they did at the time.
We should take note of this, but the problem lies elsewhere. The problem is the credibility of an international institution when it comes to imposing something defined intelligently by a German sociologist: ‘Make law, not war’. The problem today is knowing whether we are capable of imposing international law. In this situation – as Mr Patten and Mr Solana have said – the argument is this: if Iraq does not cooperate, we shall have to force it to disarm. You are therefore advocating military intervention in the short or medium term.
I believe that, within the context of international order, we must define those situations in which we should fight dictatorships and those in which we should use diplomatic means. I am indeed saying that I, who, often against my group or other groups, have defended and still defend military intervention in Kosovo and Afghanistan. I also believe it was right, once again against the majority of my group, to intervene when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, but I believe that today, Saddam Hussein has not been so weak for ten years or so. He is a bloodthirsty dictator who is weak and who is now incapable of attacking other countries. That is the distinction in the fight against dictatorships: those which act against other countries and those which do not.
In fact, with regard to butchery, ladies and gentlemen: four million dead in Uganda, with machetes, not with weapons of mass destruction, they killed each other with machetes. What did we do? Who intervened to stop this bloodletting? Nobody! Nobody intervened! So, let us stay calm. We have seen millions of deaths, blood, and nobody was interested: there was no oil. We took years to intervene in Bosnia: there was no oil. So let us moderate our great speeches on dictatorships, and murders, and dying children.
There is a problem, however. Iran now possesses missiles. Iran is currently equipping itself with a nuclear arsenal. Iran could now attack Israel, Europe, Greece and reach these regions. Is anyone suggesting a military foray into Iran? Obviously not! That would be too dangerous. Today, North Korea has said it wants to produce nuclear weapons. Is anyone suggesting military intervention? Of course not! That would be too dangerous. With the arguments developed with regard to Iraq, we are creating a programme of nuclear proliferation. We are telling dictators to possess weapons of mass destruction so that nobody attacks them! That is the truth.
That is why we must step back. Fine, the Americans and the English are surrounding Iraq, so Iraq cannot move. So we have time. We can wait a year. We can say that the soldiers should stay where they are. At the same time, however, let us show the world what we are capable of. Let us solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem while still threatening Saddam Hussein. Let us change the agenda and our priorities. That said, let us not fool ourselves, if the inspectors are there now, it is because the soldiers are present. Let us take advantage of this situation, however, to contain the problem and avoid making war. At the same time, let us try to obtain negotiations with the Middle East. I believe that Ariel Sharon will form a coalition forcing him to negotiate with the Palestinians. First of all he must be forced to let the Palestinians elect their own representatives so that they can negotiate with the Israelis. Let us change the agenda. Let us find a solution to the Middle East and you will see that the Arab masses will applaud us if we have to sort out Saddam Hussein.
If initially, however, we first sort out Saddam Hussein, perhaps for oil, without having taken and carried out any initiative in the Middle East, we will not be credible and we will not create greater justice in the world. So, ‘make law, not war’, change the agenda, give us time, stay there for a year or two. We will disarm Saddam Hussein, but first of all let us find a solution to the Middle East."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples