Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are some things that I just cannot understand. For example, we always defend the Treaties. Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union says one very simple thing, namely that all the governments represented within the Security Council must uphold the position defined by the European Union. Spain, the UK, France and Germany must therefore uphold a common position.
Finally, therefore, let us all stop being blind. Yes, it is necessary to change the regime in Baghdad, just as it is necessary to change the regime in Saudi Arabia, in Tunisia, and in this or that African country, but that cannot be done by means of a military invasion, of whatever kind. Let us therefore shoulder responsibility for some of the democracies in the world, and let us not say that peace will reign if there is no military intervention in Iraq. It is not peace, but then war is not the best way of ensuring that the Iraqi people are finally allowed to live in peace. They have the right to live in peace, without any US general, but also without Saddam Hussein.
The common position defined by the leaders of the European Union, whether we like it or not, does not talk about ultimatums or about the consequences of war. It says that the work of the inspectors should be continued. This is precisely the memorandum proposed by France and Germany. I do not, therefore, see how, in the name of the Treaty, Spain and the UK can fail to uphold that position. In the final analysis, we must have a decision, within Europe, on the real nature of our Treaties.
Mrs de Palacio del Valle-Lersundi, who has always plagued us with her explanations of the Treaties here in Parliament, should remember that she used to defend the Treaties which she herself is now flouting in her role as Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Frankly, I do not understand why it is necessary to make war when we have won the war already. Why take military action when we have won without it? We have to admit that, without the US, there would not be any inspectors now. There would be no inspection and no disarmament. However, since there is disarmament and since there are inspections, it is not necessary to go to war. Why, therefore, should we shoot and kill, when we can have everything without shooting and killing? I do not understand it. We are criticising ourselves by saying that the situation is as it is thanks to a certain amount of determination, whether we like that determination or not.
We are now being told, and I still do not understand it, that we shall be bringing democracy to Iraq. That is very good, that is excellent. What, then, are we doing with Turkey? The Turkish parliament is elected. Fine. It is a democracy. Whether or not we like the people who are elected, that is not our problem. Then, however, an agreement is concluded with the military, over the heads of the parliament, which consists of democratic representatives, in order to obtain what could not be obtained through democracy, and the Turkish people are told, ‘This is how the democracy that we are going to bring you works’. I simply do not understand it.
For example, we continue to explain that we are going to liberate the people of Iraq. We tell the Iraqi Kurds that this will be fantastic, that we are going to liberate them using the Turkish army. That is precisely the sort of liberation that the Kurds have been dreaming of for a hundred years: finally they will be under the domination of the Turkish army! Obviously, they will find it fantastic!
Yet there is one key to democracy in the region, and that key lies in Teheran. There is no question of making war on Iran, and yet the people in Iran are fighting for democracy. The Iranians are the only people who, at the present time, are rising up against their totalitarian regime. They are the only people who are staging massive demonstrations, who are voting in favour of democracy. Yet we are leaving them to fight alone. We are not helping them, but we then go on to claim that we have brought democracy to other regions.
I believe that we should be doing exactly the opposite. By helping the Iranian people to liberate themselves, we would be providing the region with two lessons. The first lesson is that emancipation and democracy are achieved not by the intervention of soldiers from who knows where, but by the will and the determination of the people themselves. Secondly, if these people manage to emancipate themselves with our help, they will be able to say to all the fundamentalists, to all the terrorists and to all those who are fascinated by totalitarian fundamentalism, ‘We know what fundamentalism is; we have suffered its consequences and we have fought it, and we have emancipated ourselves’. That would be an extraordinary lesson for the region, and far more meaningful than the occupation of Iraq by some US general."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples