Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America is a great democracy. It has contributed much, and if we look at the last 50 years, no one can forget the crucial role that it has played in defending freedom. This is why I and my group refuse to place ourselves in the awkward position of saying that we are for the US or against the US. That would be a stupid position.
Having said that, and because we have great esteem and consideration for the United States, we also have the right to tell them that they are wrong, and that the action that they are now taking can only have very serious consequences in the future. We cannot have it both ways. Either international rules exist and each nation has to obey them, or we believe that we have taken a great step backwards and that, from now on, power takes precedence over law and, as soon as one has power, one is the strongest and has the right to intervene. In that case, I propose that the United Nations Charter should be amended to the effect that, from now on, the right to interfere should include, for the strongest powers, the right to intervene whenever it seems to them necessary in order to defend their general interests, their vital interests.
The United States has been the victim of a terrible attack. Thousands of its people have been killed. No one can forget that. It therefore has the right to defend itself; it has the right to respond. Who, though, was responsible for those attacks? It was the Al Qaeda organisation. Is there any proof of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? The answer is no, there is no proof. Consequently, the United States, before engaging in this military operation, should tell us what its real reasons are, the deep-seated reasons why it wants to intervene. If it is a question of changing the map of this part of the world, I can say immediately that this would have immeasurable consequences and would pave the way for the emergence of a new generation of terrorists and for a lasting gulf between the Muslim world and the rest of the world. That is extremely worrying.
That is why we in our group are agreed that every effort must be made to achieve a solution to this problem by means of disarmament. From then on, once this principle has been established, the decisions will not be taken in this House. There is something nice and surreal about our debates. Nevertheless, we have the right to say what we think and I would say that, as far as the French delegation is concerned including, in particular, myself, although in no way am I dependent on the French Government, it supports the position adopted by the President of the French Republic, namely to oppose, by all possible means, the launching of a military operation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples