Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.2.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to echo Mr Goebbels' thanks to the Greek Presidency and to Mr Yiannitsis in particular for their cooperation during this presidency, which has been outstanding and inspires confidence.
I would like to mention a few issues regarding foreign policy in the Convention. The new document presented to us here defines the objectives of the European Union's foreign policy. It goes without saying that we wish to use our foreign policy to promote human rights, democracy and environmental protection. But there is one thing that is rather skimmed over here. For me, it is self-evident that the first and most important objective of the European Union must be the Common Foreign and Security Policy, in other words effectively representing the interests of the EU's citizens and the interests of the European Union itself on the world stage, and in particular our citizens' desire to live in peace and security.
There are some things in this field that should not be allowed to happen again. We as the European Union should not be left without a voice, as happened on Iraq. Hence our demand that we should introduce majority voting in this area, because only in that way can the European Union act effectively in the field of foreign policy.
What we also need is an EU security strategy as a counterpart to the security strategy published by the American administration in September last year. We as Europeans need to adopt a clear position on a number of issues here – first the United States' claim to leadership and second the statements made here about a preventive war. We know that Mr Solana has been charged with the task of presenting a proposal to the Heads of State and Government for Thessaloniki. However, that can only be a first step in this debate. The debate needs to be an open one and it needs to be held in the European Parliament, because we Europeans must, on the basis of a wide-ranging debate, reach a common position on these important issues.
We have to ask ourselves what the position on a division of labour with the United States is. Do we want a situation in which we leave military intervention to the United States, with Europe looking after the financial mopping up, as people sometimes call it? Or do we want to agree that Europe should play a regional role here, for example the task of guaranteeing peace and security in its own geographical region? These are important and vital decisions in which Parliament, too, should be involved. Above all, we Europeans should make it clear that the EUR 160 billion spent by the 15 EU Member States on defence need to be spent more efficiently in future, and if we want to be up there with the United States we will also need to spend more money, hard though that may be!
Now, what is Parliament's role in all this? For example, the Military Committee in Brussels is discussing intervention in the Congo. That should not happen without Parliament being consulted. We should be kept informed about that; we should have an opportunity to deliver an opinion on it. If war and peace are at stake, things like this cannot be decided without consulting a directly elected parliament, and in this case that is this House. As a consequence this House needs to adopt an opinion on this important subject at the very least next week and beyond that, because careful consideration is needed as to whether with its present organisation the European Union is in a position to take on such a role."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples