Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.5.3-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what happens next week will surely not be about playing Europe off against America, but about countering the Bush Doctrine with an unambiguous European position. The Bush Doctrine is founded on the assumption of the unilateral use of military might, underpinned by a commitment to preventive warfare. We in Europe must affirm our commitment to a multilateral approach, in other words, to the United Nations. We in Europe must start by using every means other than military force. We in Europe reject the theory of preventive strikes against potential dangers. We affirm our commitment to containing them, above all when this approach has a chance of success.
What does that mean in terms of Iraq? I believe it to mean that we all, out of profound conviction, abhor this regime in Iraq and its inhumanity. Everyone living in Iraq has the right to democratic government. Anyone who campaigns – as I do – for the rights of the Kurds in Turkey cannot fail to campaign for the rights of Kurds in Iraq. Yet no one country and no alliance – be it an alliance of the willing or of the unwilling and dependent – may claim for itself the right to simply get rid of disagreeable governments, and, moreover, to use massive force in doing so – not, above all, when a policy of containment has a chance of succeeding.
Everyone living in the region and beyond it has a justified interest in weapons of mass destruction not ending up in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Is it not possible, though, to use inspections, surveillance flights, and other non-violent means to prevent him from getting his hands on dangerous weapons?
Europe must surely not allow itself to be characterised by the pursuit of a policy of non-resistance and appeasement in the face of the present dangers. Is that, though, a reason for denying Europe the right to refuse to let fly with a war waged in the way that President Bush and Mr Rumsfeld want? We Europeans contend particularly for democracy and the rule of law in the Arab world, but we do not do it with weapons in our hands. Even ‘old Europe’ seeks a secure source of oil and gas, but do we therefore have the right to wage war for the sake of oil? We do not! If, moreover, doubt is cast on our clear and unequivocal commitment to the UN and to its resolutions, are we in this House not aware of how many UN resolutions have not been complied with? Are we not aware that there is a UN resolution, relating to this region, that dates back to 1947 and has still not yet been complied with? Even so, we are not willing to go to war, and rightly!
So I do believe that, yes, we are to help the United Nations get what it is entitled to. Yes, we are to strive for all the resolutions to be complied with, but that must mean all the resolutions – those on Palestine as much as those on Iraq. Then our position would be a truly European one."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples