Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.1.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the last time we took a stance on Iraq was before the war, when Parliament expressed its full support for the United Nations inspectors. At that time, we stated that none of the reasons put forward at that time justified a war and that ‘any further steps must be taken by the Security Council after a full assessment of the situation’.
Have we nothing to say about the extremely serious events that have taken place since then, which have been in total conflict with this line? That is what seems to be indicated by the majority decision of this House not to conclude this debate with the adoption of a resolution. This petty decision would be rather trivial if it did not reflect a much deeper, serious defect of the European Union, namely its inability to define its identity and defend it with vigour. This failure to take political responsibility has been spectacular since George Bush first implemented his new strategic doctrine.
To those who, like my group, feel that it is essential to react, in particular by looking towards what the New York Times calls ‘the other superpower’, in other words the general public who are actively opposed to the idea of war, I propose three closely linked priorities. The first is to refuse to accept a
in Iraq. The Iraqi people have been both freed from a dictatorship and plunged into chaos. Having spoken to long-time opponents of Saddam Hussein, I can tell you that, on 9 April 2003, many hearts and minds experienced a mixture of joy and suffering, relief and humiliation. As the days passed, exasperation took over as a result of the blood spilt, the extent of the damage, vandalism and looting, the military occupation and the US civil proconsul. All this, while the supposed motive for the war – the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction, of which George Bush, Tony Blair and José Maria Aznar all have irrefutable proof, of course – is running out of credibility.
Our second priority must therefore be to make an active commitment to ensuring the effective implementation of the Middle East roadmap. The Union is co-initiator of this roadmap and therefore cannot rest on its laurels in the fact of the daily attempts by Sharon’s Government to destroy this slim chance of peace, in the belief that the current host in the White House will always understand its reasons. Finally, we must all help to determine where the mad venture of pre-emptive war will lead us if Europe does not manage to muster the political will to do all in its power to nip it in the bud. The fight against terrorism and against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is vital. This dangerous imperial shift, however, is a completely different matter.
I reiterate today, Mr President, for the third time, the request by my group for Parliament’s first major, in-depth debate on the new strategic doctrine published by George Bush on 20 September. This cynical homage to the law of the most powerful seeks solely to debase all of the principles of the United Nations Charter, as demonstrated once again even now by the US draft resolution to the Security Council. It is time for Europe to raise the alarm and to take up its responsibilities. That is what the majority of our citizens, from Strasbourg to Warsaw, expect of us. Our own roadmap could consist of seeking to meet this expectation. In any event, my group is ready."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples