Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.5.3-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Brussels Summit dealt with economic growth in Europe quite separately from the implications of the current war in Iraq, as if the one were not inextricably linked to the other. That was almost surreal. The crucial issue of the war was relegated to the additional points which confirms, if confirmation were needed, that the European Union is not a player in international diplomacy in its own right. Further to the conclusions devoted to Iraq it seems rather to be cast as a humanitarian NGO. As for the glorification of the CFSP in conclusion 69, this is clearly what surrealist writers term automatic writing.
The question arises as to whether it really is in Europe’s interest to resort to language of this kind to play down the current split. Ever since the question of Iraq arose, our continent has become a virtual battlefield. The battle is between two visions of Europe’s rightful role in the world and also about the very organisation of the international system. Europe is currently at the heart of a fundamental debate with implications for the future of the whole international community. There is discussion on whether Europe should be independent or aligned, whether there should be unilateralism or agreement between nations. The European Union itself is not participating in the debate, but Europe is certainly involved. Along with the United States, Europe is one of the main interlocutors in the form of two troikas. On the one hand there is Paris-Berlin-Moscow, and on the other London-Madrid-Rome. Each of these troikas has its rationale and support. For one this is enshrined in the New York memorandum, and for the other in the Declaration of the Azores.
I query whether the only way of dealing with these two views is to deplore them. To do so is to confirm a monolithic vision of Europe, whereas diversity has always been our distinguishing feature. We would deserve the derogatory appellation of old Europe if we indicated we no longer wished to be the privileged area where different conceptions of world order wrestle with each other. We would certainly deserve it if we were only intent on evading the impact of confrontation, for the sole benefit of spineless and meaningless consensus. Robert Kagan might be proved right. No matter if what Europe says has no impact, so long as Europe says it with one voice. Is that really our aim? Should it be necessary to stifle all differences of opinion to be a true European? Could not the spirit of free competition be applied also to foreign policy? I would say to the Presidents that the European Union would be failing the people of Europe if, in the interests of uniformity, it made Europe distance itself from mayor debates on the future of the world instead of taking its place at the heart of those debates."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples