Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am sure no one disagrees with the comments made by the President-in-Office of the Council and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, Mr Papandreou, and by Commissioner Patten. I just wanted to add that, in this particular instance, the rallying of public opinion and the demonstrations by citizens in Europe and elsewhere are additional political elements which need to be taken into account.
On 11 September 2001, every nation and government in Europe without exception rallied round the United States of America when it came under terrorist attack. Today every nation in Europe, although not every government, is against this fruitless, futile war. To borrow from the ancient description of the crisis in Mesopotamia, a Babel-type policy is being created and it would be a good thing if this Babel-type policy were to end. The lack of unity between the Fifteen is having a knock-on effect when it comes to dealing with the crisis. At the same time, as regards the candidate countries, which are somewhat differentiated when it comes to the possibility of a unified stance, Europe needs to take care as it builds its future within the Convention, which is laying down new ground rules in the form of a constitution, that it does not cause internal rifts which do not then close. We want to unite the Twenty-Five, the Twenty-Eight or however many we are, in a new strategy for a Europe of peace and cooperation, a Europe working for democratic progress throughout the world, the so-called crisis prevention and management policy; we do not, once the crisis is over, want to have to decide how to deal with the problem of refugees, casualties and so on.
I should like to remind you, and all the pundits agree here, that there are two conflicting strategies in America: there is one strategy for how America lives with the rest of the world and there is another strategy with a theocratic slant, with America trying to determine the course of history on the basis of a subjective evaluation of international interests.
May I remind everyone – and they are many – whose theory is that the UN has pretty much run its course, that the UN reflected the state of play at the end of the Second World War and that new configurations are needed which reflect the new state of play. We have to realise that international conventions need to reflect the new state of play in a considered manner, using procedures which do not cause rifts.
It is also worth reiterating a few matters of concern to us, the European Union. We spoke with one voice on the Palestinian problem. And yet, our united voice went unheeded. We spoke with one voice on Iraq, on the embargo against the Iraqi people. And again, our united voice went unheeded. We therefore have to realise that persistence is needed at times when our policies may be able to bring about practical results which do not in turn foster new crises.
Ladies and gentlemen, we really are at a crucial stage, but I think that every crisis contains in it the germ of a new standard. We need to tell our American friends that their perception leads to trouble, trouble which is not even in America’s interest. The sort of approach taken by Donald Rumsfeld, who from what I heard this morning, started to tear the British Prime Minister off a strip for asking for a few more days for the inspectors, is a dangerous approach.
Ladies and gentlemen, Parliament’s message should be that it wants to take a peaceful approach to international problems, that it wants to resolve problems peacefully using procedures that pave the way for democracy throughout the world."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples