Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.3.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me start by saying that my criticisms, coming as they do from a member of the German opposition, cannot be more trenchant than those uttered in this House ten minutes ago by a Member belonging to the same party as the German foreign minister, who stated that, on this issue at least, the German Federal Chancellor was suffering from delusions.
We are dealing here, unfortunately, with another Franco-German initiative, but not one that is intended to restore these two countries to their position as the engine of Europe in a positive sense; instead, where this issue – like others in the recent past – is concerned, it leads other Member States to suspect something that is more and more a Franco-German conspiracy rather than a Franco-German partnership. The manner in which Germany and France collaborate on this issue or on the Stability Pact is not, in fact, one that I regard as desirable, and it is unfortunate that, in recent times, we increasingly see these two countries acting in what is a very egotistical fashion, even though they are actually meant to be taking seriously their responsibilities to Europe as a whole.
It has already been said – and this is where I agree with Mr Swoboda – that we have to take a very nuanced view of China. I was back there again only recently, and when, on the one hand, you see the economic developments, which are very dynamic, and, on the other, the willingness – behind the closed doors of conferences at any rate, but also more openly – to discuss every issue with great frankness, then it becomes apparent that people in China are thinking. The situation there is not set in stone; instead, particularly in the political sphere, the leadership is already endeavouring to give some thought to how, on the one hand, to maintain the country’s stability – and that is a legitimate objective – and also, on the other, to how the dynamism that is present in the economic sphere can also find a political expression, for it is in politics that little progress has as yet been made. Nor is the time yet ripe for anything to be removed, as what caused the arms embargo to be imposed has not yet gone away. We have not forgotten Tiananmen Square, nor has there been any change in the political framework conditions that led to it.
It has also been said, on the other hand, that Taiwan is under threat – a country that is actually, from the point of view of the One China policy, itself Chinese territory. How can one threaten one’s own territory with rockets like these? That is something to which China ought perhaps to give some thought. In any case, it is not Taiwan that represents a threat to China; rather, the reverse is the case. Both these considerations – human rights and the threat to Taiwan – should cause the Council to pause for a moment before even considering removing the arms embargo. To do so would send completely the wrong message."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples