Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-29-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040129.1.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this report by Mr Laschet aims to propel humanity in the direction of world government of some kind. Only in this way does it appear possible to create peace, welfare and justice with the UN as central, vital and decisive pivot.
Multilateralism is being embraced as the new political gospel. Is this pipe dream not based on a huge overestimation of the human race? After all, people like you and I are prone to evil of all kinds. True peace and justice do not ensue from people. They can only be obtained by a true belief in God, by an unconditional surrender to His will, and, by His grace, obeying His healing Commandments enshrined in the Bible, God's Word. Jesus Christ underwent the punishment that brings us true peace. It is because that point is all too readily forgotten that I should like to start by bringing it to your attention.
In keeping with his eminent introduction, the rapporteur considers cooperation between the European Union and the UN a cornerstone of EU foreign policy. In the institutionally reformed UN of the future, he more or less already assumes that the EU would be a future legal entity. The EU's future Foreign Affairs Minister will, on the basis of the future European Constitution, need to fulfil the future mandate on behalf of the EU. In addition, the Security Council will need to be extended to include permanent members, one for each continent, except for Australia, which is odd. Why is this enormous continent being excluded? For fear of double vetoes, no doubt? Instead of Great Britain and France, it is the EU that is to represent Europe.
To describe the situation in this manner is extremely premature, to say the least. The EU has no constitution, is not a legal entity in the UN and there is no mandated European Foreign Affairs Minister. Moreover, the recent past has acutely demonstrated that both in the IGC and in the Security Council, European unity seems to be further away than ever. That is why it will not work, and so I would urge Members to support Amendments Nos 1 and 10 and, in doing so, to come back down to earth.
I would like to finish off by making two remarks. First of all, only once – in paragraph 17, second indent
in brackets – is there any reference to NATO, which has been proven to be the most effective transatlantic organisation for security. You know as well as I do that when the chips are down, we prefer to see our guarantee of security in the hands of a reliable and determined NATO and will never hand it over to an ever-doubting, often indecisive and divided, UN Security Council. NATO is a better cornerstone for the EU's foreign and security policy than the UN.
Finally, multilateralism is good but never unconditional. Too often have we seen it used as a cloak under which national states look only after their own interests."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples