Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.1.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, in my speech I shall concentrate on a subject which was dealt with at the European Council in Thessaloniki, a subject that has hardly been mentioned up to now, but which is one of considerable scope. I too would like to talk about the document presented by Mr Javier Solana entitled ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World’.
On several occasions I have called in vain for a response from the European Union to the publication, on 20 September last year, of the new strategic doctrine of the United States, which was first applied in practice in the ‘pre-emptive’ war against Iraq. Nine months after Washington, therefore, the Council has just given birth to its own strategic doctrine. No doubt it is purely by chance that this text first saw the light on the eve of the Transatlantic Summit.
What, then, does this document say? Let me give you a few quotations. ‘With the new threats the first line of defence will often be abroad. The new threats are dynamic. Left alone, they will become more dangerous’. This quotation explains the meaning of that other enigmatic phrase contained in the document, ‘Pre-emptive engagement can avoid more serious problems in the future. …. we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs’. Then, just in case things are still not clear, I quote again: ‘In failed states, military instruments may be needed to restore order …’ and, more generally, and still quoting, ‘We need to develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid, and where necessary, robust intervention’. Finally, there is the inevitable, ‘Acting together, the European Union and the United States can be a formidable force for good in the world’.
We cannot believe our ears when we hear such mimicry of the ideas and even the language of the current tenant of the White House. If we can believe the press agencies, even Mr Prodi, in the crowd, showed his enthusiasm for President Bush by declaring that when Europe and the United States were united, no enemy would be able to stand up to them. On what basis, however, are we to be united, and for what purpose? That is the question, Mr Prodi! It is not by complaisance that we shall earn the respect of an American administration which despises Europeans, including the most conciliatory among them. Of that, for my part, I am convinced. Europe will exist as an essential actor on the world stage when it has the political will to use its economic clout, its political influence and its capacity for forming strong partnerships, particularly with the South, in order to help to create rules that are different from those that prevail at present, so as to achieve a globalisation with greater solidarity and greater democracy, and so as to create a peaceful world.
The document presented in Thessaloniki turns its back on such a prospect and gives us an apocalyptic description of the threats, without ever examining their causes in any depth. The conflict in the Middle East is dealt with in four and a half lines out of a total of fifteen pages of text. The concept of fighting for security that is described therein gives precedence to the military dimension, even though this approach has proved ineffective from Kabul to Baghdad, and even in the United States itself, whose vulnerability was so tragically emphasised on 11 September 2001, despite the fact that that country alone accounts for 40% of the world’s military spending.
In this context, the references in the Council document to the multilateral system have a hollow ring to them. After all, the main issues here have to do with the WTO, the international financial institutions and NATO. The United Nations is mentioned only in order to ask that in future the European Union should be ready, and I quote, ‘… to act when their rules are broken’. We can recognise, in this allusion, a call to order addressed to those member countries of the Security Council who opposed the ‘material breach’ argument quoted by George Bush as grounds for going to war with the backing of the UN.
For all these reasons, my group believes that the taking of this first step towards a new strategic doctrine of the European Union would be a turning point, the implications of which we would have to explain, and the dangers of which we would have to emphasise, to our fellow citizens. Given the power of the recent mobilisation of European public opinion, in both East and West, against the argument in favour of war and American supremacy, you can be certain that you will have to explain yourselves.
I would ask those Members who are motivated by the knowledge that it is civilisation that is at stake here, to join, at 3 p.m. today, in hearing the views, on this subject, of two eminent experts, one, Mr Pascal Boniface, from Europe, and the other, Mr Philip Golub, from America. Let us debate the issues with frankness, for it is the whole significance of the Europe of the future that is at stake."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples