Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.8.4-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, so much is clear. You spoke about a politically binding code, but this is not enforceable. We cannot jolt our governments’ consciences. That is a sad thing in connection with arms, because these are not everyday goods. Nevertheless, they are all too easily used in this way. As regards the report by Mr von Wogau, I think that he is right in noting, on the fourth opportunity we have had to give our reaction to the Council’s annual report, that progress can be noted once more, on paper, in reporting and transparency. As regards the effectiveness of the agreements, I have the impression that these are chiefly concerned with preventing unfair competition and with not tormenting each other. Brokering, too, is to be taken rather more seriously.
I must say that I am not so optimistic in practice. European arms exports are clearly rising instead of falling. Many believe that military expenditure should be increased; while we, on the contrary, are inclined to think that it should be reduced. The military-industrial complex is organising in order to lobby Brussels intensively. Large parts of the world continue to be inundated with arms that are used not only against the people living there, but also against our own peacekeeping forces. I saw a BBC report in which French peacekeeping forces in Eastern Congo were fired at with arms supplied with the express complicity of Rwanda or Uganda. When I look at the list of suppliers, I see that there are still European countries that either directly supply arms or let arms be purchased using budgetary support, which amounts to the same thing.
I should also like to point out that, in recent weeks, refugees from Uganda have been arriving in Chad. NGOs on site have reported to us that the proliferation of small arms in that area was the direct cause of the outbreak of armed conflict. I read here that inquiries have been made into how arms can be supplied for humanitarian purposes. I think that it is a bit much to state that this could be possible. I do not acknowledge that possibility.
In my country, the Arms Act was very strict, and, back then, it was said that no arms were to be supplied to regions of conflict. Nevertheless, people found an opportunity to export them to Nepal, and now we even have regionalisation of the arms trade. At European level, the Code of Conduct may have been adopted, but there is a problem of interpretation, and, as our fellow Members have already said, the grey area is extensive. Exporting arms to regions that are somewhat unstable of course means exporting to the best customers, because willing buyers do not discriminate. Irrespective of whether the country is rich or poor, arms are being bought and apparently paid for, if necessary with raw materials stolen from the country itself, as is the case in Eastern Congo."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples