Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-046"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-12-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Removal of the EU embargo on arms sales to China2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031217.3.3-046"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-17-Speech-3-0472
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Cohn-bendit2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-09-02--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from time to time, and only for a moment, Heads of State simply delude themselves, and I believe that one of their delusions is that they can simply say that they want the arms embargo on China removed. The arms embargo is an instrument of political pressure, and what that means is that any response to the question as to what has changed in China must be political in nature. China still has Tibet under military occupation; it is still threatening Taiwan; it is still failing to respect human rights. There is no prospect of democracy there. You can do business with China – so go on doing it! Selling nuclear power stations to China makes no sense and is dangerous, but that is another issue, one that we will have to discuss with the German Federal Chancellor. What I am getting at is that it would not only be wrong to express a desire to lift the arms embargo, but that it is also wrong to say at all that there is at present any question of doing so. To do so would mean that we would simply be telling the Chinese, ‘You are making a wonderful job of things. Carry on arresting people for speaking their minds; it doesn’t bother us a bit. We are prepared to do any kind of business with you!’ There is, secondly, another point, namely President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder – two Heads of Government whom I do support in certain political situations, such as over the war in Iraq. The terrible thought occurs to me: has a similar strategy been used to buy partnership with China? It is inconceivable that we should think it possible to buy Putin by saying nothing about Chechnya, and the Chinese by supplying them with weapons, just in order to have a common position on the Security Council. That would be terrible. Let me say, in conclusion, that President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder have said that they want the constitution, that they want to be Europeans, that they want simply to strengthen the European Parliament. But of course! Only if Parliament agrees to it can the Council lift the arms embargo, and this is meant to be done by means of a jointly agreed code of conduct. What this means is that the removal of the arms embargo is neither possible nor permissible without Parliament’s consent, and I rejoice that, at present, none of the political groups want that done. Terrific!"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Muted applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph