Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-18-Speech-3-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030618.7.3-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr High Representative, Commissioner, the development of a European security strategy is a major step forward. After all, by establishing the principles and objectives of the policy, it becomes more coherent and provides a framework for what has been achieved over the past few years. It does not guarantee that the European Union will also speak with one voice, but it does make it more logical and easier to do so.
The confusion surrounding Iraq, but also the new US security strategy, lie behind today's debate. The need for such a debate, however, is born out of the European Union's increased ambition to play a greater security role. Fortunately, this ambition remains unabated even after this year's events. The details of the document to be presented in Thessaloniki are as yet unknown, but we assume, as Mr Solana has already indicated, that the strategy is based on a broad interpretation of security.
A lack of security has many causes and requires a large number of varied instruments to combat it. New threats, such as international terrorism, require more attention. We also back the implementation of an EU action plan against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Countries that violate agreements or form a great risk must be tackled, Iran being a case in point. The threat of violence should not, however, be the first line of attack, but the EU should also consider how the Treaty could be further reinforced to combat the spread of nuclear weapons.
Over the past few months, much has been said about the European Union's deficient military capacity. We are said to offer too little counterweight to US supremacy. In my view, this is the wrong approach. It is not about having to outdo the Americans militarily, but about being able to act just as effectively in a different way and with a different combination of resources whenever we deem this necessary. This should not be done unilaterally – that is not our style – but within multilateral frameworks and, in particular, with the involvement of the UN. We have never ruled out the use of military force, but it should be seen as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted. It should be deployed effectively and proportionately. This is why, even after the event, we remain doubtful as to the justification of the war against Iraq. We hope that the EU strategy will be clear about the role of the military instrument.
In the light of this philosophy, we nevertheless have to conclude that the development of the military dimension of the Common Foreign and Security Policy is trailing behind our ambitions. We therefore support the intentions to ratchet up the speed and develop more activities in this area, and we are prepared to hold an open discussion about the financial implications. Mr Solana made a passionate plea for an open debate of this kind a moment ago.
At the same time, we are confident about another priority, namely conflict management and crisis management, being fully integrated in the new strategy. This is still the current CFSP's strongest asset. Closer to home, also in Europe, we operate more effectively than outside it. We assume that the High Representative is taking these experiences into consideration, and we are also looking forward to seeing how the strategy will work out for the different regions where the European Union wants to be active.
When he and the Council work towards an approach characterised by what I indicated above, he can count on my group's unqualified support. A new and valuable discussion has commenced, and we want to take an active part in it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples