Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.5.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"That Saddam Hussein’s regime is a threat to world peace cannot be disputed, given the facts. Since its defeat in the first Gulf War, Iraq has been the object of many resolutions, with which it has generally not complied. This has never, however, resulted in their being enforced under the auspices of the UN. For a long time there were even attempts to have the sanctions against Iraq lifted. There was also barely any international reaction at all when the inspections were cut short on account of Iraq’s failure to cooperate. Yet Saddam Hussein’s obsession with the production of weapons of mass destruction was well-known. Since then, his people have been oppressed and refugees have been and still are coming to our EU Member States. Iraq remained a festering sore. There is no sign of peace there. Because of the secret service, however, there is apparently great stability, which cannot, unfortunately, be attacked from within – I see no sign of it being so. Our patience with this can run out too quickly, indeed, but patience can also degenerate into indifference. For many years this was apparent in our attitude towards the dramatic events in Yugoslavia. Who is not still embarrassed by that? We now know that anyone who wants to establish justice must in extreme cases accept the support of force, including military force.
Is there, however, sufficient formal basis under international law for the coalition’s military presence? I quote Max van der Stoel, a well-known Socialist ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, High Commissioner for minorities at the OECD, a well-known, important Socialist spokesman. Yesterday he said the following in the
‘Yes, this basis is not convincing, but I do not doubt the coalition’s moral justification of this action for a moment, I do not doubt it for a moment.’ I find that a good left-wing stance.
The debate at the time was about whether intervention should take place immediately, after one or two weeks or after six weeks. This debate is not sufficient to drum a clear message into the minds of those who risk their lives in the field. There is little point in their looking back. The question is whether we should now wish the coalition forces a swift victory so as to avoid long-drawn-out misery both for the public and for themselves.
My group would like to make it clear that when push comes to shove, they all really support the armies, in the same way as they support the people who need to be liberated as quickly as possible. I cannot imagine that any of us would not support the armies now. We are not very quick to demonstrate on this side of the Chamber, but I was surprised to see large pieces of paper with the word ‘Peace’ written on them hung up on the other side, while no one ever stopped to wonder what discontent there was in Iraq, and I do not remember seeing any demonstrations against that, not even in this Chamber.
I think that it is important that justice takes its course for Saddam Hussein. It is a matter of regret that the UN Security Council has forfeited authority. Vetoes are being used in a dishonest way, and votes are up for sale. The UN per se and its services will be more important than ever in post-war Iraq. We must realise that this matter is a serious warning to the EU, which is obviously still not capable of or willing to defend European principles and values wherever it is necessary to do so."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"NRC-Handelsblad:"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples