Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-12-Speech-3-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050112.10.3-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, if you are to build a genuine partnership, there must at least be two parties to it, so can we expect from George Bush’s second term something different to the unilateral policy of his first? The way the South-East Asian post-tsunami crisis has been handled would tend to lead one to answer in the negative. The Bush administration’s initial response was to propose the setting up of a coalition of donor countries around the United States, rather, of course, than place its intervention under the authority of the United Nations. The European view of this initiative is that it is a sign of ‘no change’ from the previous term.
Europe must say to America, as one does to a dear friend, ‘you are cutting yourself off; your policies are isolating you.’ Not all the coalitions in the world will be able to do anything about it; they will not be able to paper over public opinion’s profound crisis of confidence in the United States. One French essayist summed up this widespread sentiment in these words: ‘The United States is in the process of becoming a problem for the world. We were more used to seeing them as a solution.’
Let the Americans defend their interests, let them resolutely defend their security; nobody will hold that against them. What causes doubts to arise, though, is the Messianic and ideological motivation that the US administration attaches to its intervention in Iraq. These doubts take root when human rights violations involve all the belligerent parties in Iraq, and doubts become grave concern when whole populations are infected with hatred of the West, as a reaction to an ill-thought-out military intervention which obviously underestimated how resistant the people of Iraq would be to the transition to democracy thought up by the Pentagon.
The Americans did not always espouse this doctrine, though; in the past, they chose to focus their foreign policy on the search for consensus and a sort of general interest. They preferred agreement to coercion and acted within a multilateral framework. In so doing, the USA performed its duties as the world’s major power and strengthened its authority.
The American intervention in Iraq put an end to that, but it is not too late to change, provided that the Americans themselves take the initiative in so doing. What must come first is the normalisation of their relationship with the United Nations. The UN is the sole authority competent to decide in favour of international military intervention, and we must invite the United States to join Europe in committing itself, on the one hand, to multilateralism and respect for international law and, on the other, to reform of the United Nations, particularly as regards the Security Council and the way it is made up."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples