Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-20-Speech-4-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030320.2.4-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as dawn broke over Baghdad this morning, the people were awoken by the awful, deafening sound of the first bombs falling on the city. These people were the very men, women and children who some of us saw going about their daily lives, met and questioned just a few weeks ago. We are haunted by their faces at this terrible time. They know that 3 000 missiles will be dropped on Iraq from the first phase of the war. They are expecting to see, or perhaps to see once again, the fierce and unrelenting attacks on their country by terrifying fleets of F15s, F16s, B1s, B2s, B52s, Awacs and Apaches.
I would like to remind you of the terms of the resolution we adopted on 30 January this year. Parliament reaffirmed its commitment to peace and the rule of international law. We voiced our full support for the work of Dr Hans Blix and Mr ElBaradei. We expressed the opinion that the violations of resolution 1441 thus far identified by the inspectors did not justify military action. We voiced our opposition to any unilateral military action. We expressed our view that any pre-emptive attack would contravene both international law and the Charter of the United Nations. We stated that such action would result in an even greater crisis involving other countries in the region.
This, at least, will provide our President with the basis of a clear, explicit and strong intervention to make at the European Council today. But even then, we shall not have heard the last of this. In light of the extremely serious situation developing before our very eyes, which may seriously deteriorate, we must assume our responsibilities and turn the tide of war. Old Europe must prove itself capable of setting out a vision of a new world. We must listen to the urgent pleas of our fellow citizens. This is what they expect of us.
President Bush brazenly refers to notions of honour and moral principles and appeals to God, when he has taken the most inhumane and inexcusable of decisions. He has decided to interrupt the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in order to launch an attack on a country worn down by previous wars and by a criminal embargo, where, we have been informed, 50% of the population is under fifteen years of age. President Bush plans to launch an attack against this country involving 600 fighter planes, 70 warships, 6 aircraft carriers, columns of tanks and 300 000 soldiers. It is possible that some of the 600 journalists embedded in the armed forces will bring us pictures of popular rejoicing. Perhaps we will see Iraqi people welcoming their liberators with sweets and flowers. This is what we have been promised by George W. Bush and Kanan Makiya, a prominent figure amongst pro-American Iraqi exiles. According to the
this advisor to the President, who has lived in Cambridge since 1968, apparently spent much of his meeting at the White House in January explaining to his distinguished host that there are two types of Muslims in Iraq: Shiites and Sunnis. This just shows the depth of knowledge of this country and consideration of its future at the very highest level of political power in the United States!
Can it really be true that these are the people who intend to decide on peace or war, instead of the international community? What are they offering the Iraqi people? The eviction of Saddam Hussein? The Iraqi people will doubtless not mourn the loss of their dictator. But then what? Will there be a long-term American military occupation of one of the largest and most emblematic of Arab countries? Who can truly believe that this would be accepted? Furthermore, what are they offering the rest of the world? Will they pursue battles with other rogue states? This is what General Wesley Clark, the former head of NATO forces in Yugoslavia, has led us to believe. To paraphrase his words, he said that if our ultimate aim is to put an end to the threat of terrorism, Iraq will be just one battle in a wider campaign.
Do we really know the extent of the destabilising chain reaction we are initiating in the region? This will pose a threat to the whole world. A superpower with the greatest supremacy the world has ever known is openly affirming its imperialism, even if this means exacerbating divisions, increasing worldwide unrest and nurturing terrorism. History will note that public opposition to this irresponsible policy was mobilised and expressed strongly throughout the world. History will note that courageous people, including the leaders of the Churches, made their voices heard. History will note that some governments dared to raise their voices in opposition and stand their ground in the face of pressure, slander and even threats.
What will we remember about the role of Europe in this historic situation? I must say that I have not heard any comments this morning on the fundamental issue. Will the European Union dare to demand the immediate end of this unjust, illegal and dangerous war? What will it have to say about the fate of the Iraqi people,…
... including Kurdish and Iranian refugees who may be threatened by this war? Whether or not there is unanimity between all the Member States, there are stakes that Europe can and must win, whatever the circumstances. What is at stake is the fundamental basis of the international system, in place since 1945, and the law it embodies in the eyes of all democracies.
Europe must therefore express its view on the new strategic doctrine of the Bush administration, which exalts military force, justifies a unilateralist approach and legitimises pre-emptive war. The European Union must strongly oppose the very grave precedent set by the American Secretary for Defence in failing to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons or nerve gas against Iraq. The European Union must also unequivocally condemn the irresponsible decision, taken unilaterally by a group of countries, including two Member States, to start a war without the approval of the UN Security Council, and against the will of the overwhelming majority of its members. The European Union must commit itself in a much more proactive way to restarting the Middle East peace process, to find a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian problem. Now, in allowing the war against Iraq to go ahead, we are allowing the situation in the Middle East to deteriorate to the lowest possible level. The President of the Arab League has warned that we are opening the gates of hell. Parliament is the only European institution to have made its stance on this war clear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"New York Times Magazine"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples