Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in recent weeks we have witnessed dangerous rifts in the United Nations and in the international institutions of the democracies. The future European Union is already split between 18 countries which have declared one view and three or four which have declared the opposite. NATO effectiveness may have been fatally undermined. Instead of joining America, Britain, Spain, Bulgaria and so many other countries in a display of solidarity and determination, the government of one particular EU Member State has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to protect Saddam Hussein's regime from the consequences of its activities and to derail the efforts of the international coalition against Saddam.
What possible motive could there be for this? Much nonsense is talked about who armed Saddam. We should be clear that it is Russia and France that armed him. I am not talking about the Osirak nuclear reactors supplied 30 years ago, which provided the basis for Saddam's original nuclear weapons programme I am merely making the observation that there are no American F-16s or British Tornadoes in the Iraqi air force, but there is a solid inventory of MiGs, Sukhois and Mirage F1s, as well as the Roland Air Defence System, Pannard armoured personnel carriers, Milan Anti-Tank Guided Weapons Systems and Exocet missiles.
Much nonsense has also been talked about control of Iraqi oil. We should be aware that Iraq's policy is to award gas and oil concessions to countries supporting the easing or lifting of UN sanctions. For example, last October the Deutsche Bank estimated that contracts concerning new oil fields in Iraq, worth USD 38 billion, were signed with oil companies mainly from China, France and Russia. It is right also not to allow the idea to persist that two or three countries speak for Europe, define its policies and drive them forward, while the views of the rest, many of which attach great importance to the transatlantic alliance, are portrayed as some sort of aberration."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples