Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.10.3-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Green Group very much opposes the idea that military research projects should be financed by the EU budget. We feel it is totally unacceptable to propose that European citizens should be asked to pay even more for military expenditure, when we should be going in the opposite direction and ensuring that European citizens' money is used for the good of society and mankind as a whole, not for destruction. We have tabled amendments to that effect.
We firmly believe that this report, and the Commission communication on which it is based, are being pushed forward by the vested interests of the European military industrial lobbies, who are clearly the real policy makers. They have the unquestioning ear of the EU institutions, which appear to jump to their commands and do what they want.
This report supports the European Arms Agency, established last Monday by the Council of Ministers. The military industrial lobby has even succeeded in having this agency included in the draft EU Constitution. The inclusion in any constitution of a military agency whose aim is to promote common military procurement and to improve the arms industry's efficiency just beggars belief. Regardless of whether one is in favour of or against an EU Constitution, there is absolutely no justification for the inclusion of an agency that promotes the tools of death and destruction. There is also the question as to why this particular agency was selected for inclusion in the draft Constitution rather than, for example, a conflict prevention agency, which my group would have supported.
At the EU summit in Thessaloniki, the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Ahern, gave his backing to the establishment of this EU arms agency. I was shocked that the leader of a so-called neutral country, in which there is strong public opposition to the immoral arms trade, could give the go-ahead for such an agency. The decision could not have been adopted without the agreement of all the Heads of State. Our government clearly failed to stop this very dangerous and unacceptable decision, even though it had it within its power to do so.
It was clear from the presidency's conclusions that one of the main objectives of this decision is to strengthen the EU arms industries and make them more competitive on the global stage. It beggars belief that, at a time when EU leaders are talking about reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction and making the world a safer place, they could agree to such a strategy.
The presidency conclusions stated that this agency, which will be subject to Council authority and open to participation by all Member States, will aim to develop defence capabilities in crisis management, promote and enhance European armaments cooperation, strengthen the European defence industrial technology base and create a competitive European defence equipment market, as well as promoting, in liaison with the Community, research activities, where appropriate, aimed at leadership in strategic technologies for future defence and security capabilities, and thereby strengthening Europe's potential in this area.
This is heading in totally the wrong direction. It is clear that these decisions are geared towards the vested interests of the European arms industries and that progress and research are going to be diverted away from useful aims towards products that kill and destroy people, rather than products that make the world a better place. The Irish Government's failure is a national scandal and one of the worst decisions that any Irish government leader has taken since 1990, when our Minister for Finance backed increased low-interest loans to the nuclear industry.
Another point I would like to raise during this debate is the issue of low-frequency active sonar. My Group tabled two amendments on this report to underline that, apart from being against the development of weapons in general, we are very much against the development of military technology, the use of which is damaging to the environment. We firmly believe that, as was proposed last year, a ban should be put on the use of high-frequency sonar to detect submarines, but this very advanced technology is currently being used by the navies of NATO countries and the US in European military exercises. There are major problems, even at the experimental phase. The noise of these sonars kills whales and other species of marine life because it disturbs their orientation systems. This is completely unacceptable. EU research money should be used for ecologically responsible peaceful projects, rather than for this.
I shall finish with a comment on the EADS, which is the European Aeronautics Defence and Space Company, the second largest aerospace and defence company in the world. Its CEO bemoans the fact that the US already invests six times as much as Europe in armaments and research. Whilst research budgets in the US continue to rise, those in Europe remain stagnant. Why people have to criticise this is beyond me. This is something we should be welcoming."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples