Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group would like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council to convey a message to the Spring Summit on the basis of the resolution that we adopted in January in Parliament and which remains fully in force.
I wonder, as we all do, what the consequences of a rapid military victory would be. What plan is proposed for addressing the extremely complex problems faced by the region? Are we attempting to achieve the fast-track democratisation of a nation – mapped out on the drawing board after the First World War, composed of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Turkmen – or are we attempting to establish a neo-colonial proconsulship, which can only be sustained by the force of these weapons?
I recommend that the White House reads the observations of the British General Maude, who entered Baghdad in 1918, and read to the Iraqis a letter in the style of the Three Kings, who also apparently – according to the Gospels – came from Babylon. This letter promised peace, happiness and democracy in six months. Six months later, there was war in Baghdad. We must bear this in mind and learn the lessons of history.
Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come, especially for Europe, to transcend our divisions. This is our message, which I repeat on behalf of my group. We must be guided by solidarity and by our commitments to one another, as laid down in the Treaties. These are obligations that are binding on all our States and on all our citizens. We therefore require the Spring Summit, to be held next week, to make all necessary efforts to create a united European voice, as the Treaties stipulate.
Once they have signed a joint communiqué, each country cannot then pursue its own approach and there can be no repetition of the farce witnessed in the Security Council. All we need to do is take a blackboard to the summit, of the type used in schools, and explain that, if we had four votes plus one, the Europeans would have a decision. Why? Because we cannot, as a result of our division – and I am referring now to countries on both sides – be putting terrible pressure on Latin-Americans or Africans to get us out of the mess, because they too have their dignity and it is unacceptable to wring votes out of people under duress, with an attitude that is interpreted in those countries as totally neo-colonialist. We therefore need, and this is a very basic equation that all Heads of Government could understand …
… we need our votes, plus that of Bulgaria. This would change matters, and, furthermore, Mr President – and with this I shall conclude – would make the Security Council even more relevant, and not irrelevant as the US Secretary of State for Defence, or for War, Mr Rumsfeld, claims. What makes the UN irrelevant is saying that we will be going to war whatever happens.
We must state, and this is one of the European Union’s major responsibilities, that in the face of preventive and unilateral action, international law must be made to prevail.
We said ‘no’ three times: ‘no’ to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ‘no’ to tyrants and dictators like Saddam Hussein and ‘no’ to unilateralism. We also said ‘yes’ three times: ‘yes’ to the UN and multilateralism, ‘yes’ to disarmament and ‘yes’ to democracy. On the basis of these observations, we feel that politics and diplomacy must continue to be given precedence over the use of preventive violence, which will only lead to more fanaticism and polarisation.
Last Friday, in the Security Council, Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei presented an account of the progress made on the inspections and on the efforts to disarm Iraq. Their report confirmed that progress has been made, including, where ballistic weapons are concerned, the gradual destruction of
missiles and others. Although he has done so reluctantly – ‘
’, as the French say – Saddam Hussein must allow the inspection work to go ahead. We also say that we must pursue a clear policy of inspection backed up by pressure, as stated in Security Council Resolution 1441. We must continue working on this basis, because war can be avoided and a peaceful solution is still possible.
Jimmy Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace prize, has written that, where Iraq is concerned, alternatives to war clearly exist and that a war would be unwarranted. The authoritative voice of the former US President joins the multitude of voices that, in a way that is unprecedented in history, continue to call throughout the world for a massive unilateral attack on Iraq to be totally rejected.
We are entitled to ask ourselves what we would gain from waging a preventive war, especially given the US war plan to drop, as they have said they would, around 3 000 bombs, including ‘the mother of all bombs’. At the outset of a potential invasion, however precise the operation is, massive collateral damage will ensue. This means that the Iraqi people will be punished twice; first there is the punishment of living in a dictatorship and then there would be the punishment of the massive destruction of the civilian population, unleashing a torrent of death and destruction on a population half of which is under fifteen years old and which has a per capita income similar to that of the Palestinians.
Incidentally, Mr President, it is extremely important that the European Union does not allow the roadmap for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to be put on hold: we must hope that this process is reopened.
Our group feels that the approach we should adopt is to continue applying Resolution 1441, within the framework of the law and of international law. In our view, a preventive war neither guarantees world security nor complies with international law. In fact, it will put us into the hands of those who truly advocate the clash of civilisations and an attack on this basis would give an excellent boost to international terrorism. Preventive war as an instrument of defence policy does not fit in with our community of shared values, which is founded on mutual respect between nations and peoples, and such a war unequivocally breaches the principle of multilateralism and current international law, as upheld by the United Nations, which was created in San Francisco in 1945 – fundamentally due to the efforts of the United States, it should be remembered.
Like Kofi Annan, we reiterate that any unilateral action would breach the United Nations Charter. The international community’s ambition to ensure world security must be based on preventive policies, not on preventive attacks. We must be more ambitious and more decisive if we are to resolve the causes of inequality, violence and poverty."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Al-Samoud"1
"à contre-coeur"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples