Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-246"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.5.3-246"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, important international events have occurred between the drafting of the Morillon report and now. As a consequence, the issues surrounding the defence of Europe can no longer be tackled in a global and uniform manner. We cannot pretend that it is still a question of defining a common defence policy to implement a common foreign and security policy in all Member States. There have been confrontations within the United Nations Security Council on fundamental issues. Following the war in Kosovo, yet another war is being waged, this time against Iraq, in violation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. These developments have brought the deep divisions on foreign policy issues between the present and future Members of the European Union into sharp relief. We can see quite clearly that there are two concepts of Europe and the role of Europe, two kinds of foreign policy and two visions of international order. We must act on this. It would be wrong to insist on maintaining that this is nothing but a crisis of circumstances. It would be wrong to think that, once the crisis had passed, we could go back to our old concepts and reengage in the familiar, essentially semantic games concerning the CFSP and the EPSD.
In future, a flexible approach will have to be adopted for everything relating to foreign affairs and defence at European Union level. Previously it was optional, now it is essential. There is no other way forward. Furthermore, it will lead to greater efficiency and fewer empty words. The European Convention should now put all its efforts into pursuing this path. We need to separate the proposals contained in the Morillon report rendered obsolete by recent developments, from those which are still relevant. I would categorise as obsolete paragraph 54, which proposes allocating the European Union one permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. This proposal clearly runs counter to our current needs. The European Union must continue to have two permanent seats. The countries of Europe support two different concepts and two different directions. Having two seats allows both to be expressed. I would categorise as relevant the proposals on the need for cooperation on the fight against terrorism and on arms production and procurement. The consequences of the war in Iraq have made the fight against terrorism even more important. Present events also clearly indicate the damage caused in Europe by the ideology of the dividends of peace. I therefore welcome the opportune re-emergence of the principle of ‘Community preferences’ in the Morillon report. I only regret that this coincides with the disappearance of the principle from another area of strategic importance, namely the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP stands for autonomy of food supply, or, to use the American terminology, the food weapon. ‘Security of supply’, as mentioned in the Morillon report, must apply to food as well as to armaments. We must ensure that Commissioner Lamy remembers this within the framework of the Doha round of negotiations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples