Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-24-Speech-4-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050224.13.4-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Many thanks, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is facing a dilemma. On the one hand we cannot afford to waste any time in taking a stance on this issue. That is exactly why we are aiming to adopt a position today. On the other hand, however, we have no detailed knowledge of the precise reasons behind the
staged by the King of Nepal, although that knowledge would be extremely useful for us. If we delay on this account, however, it is likely that our intervention will come too late, and rapid intervention is key.
The King has announced that he wishes to mount a more effective fight against the Maoist guerrilla movement, but at the same time he has closed the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office, as Mr Mann mentioned a short time ago. In addition to this closure, Nepal has stopped its aid to Tibet, which was intended to strengthen the country’s resistance against China's aggression. Against this background, the reasons given by the King appear somewhat unconvincing.
The European Parliament must adopt a stance on this issue rapidly, as if we leave it too late we will be unable to achieve our goal, which is to prevent further criminal acts. I believe we should be reassured that the more active diplomatic measures taken by other countries, such as the United States and India, are appropriate. India is a neighbour of Nepal, and so it may well have its own reasons for taking diplomatic action. These may be reasons we would not entirely subscribe to if we were familiar with them. The measures taken by other countries such as the United States, however, should convince us that that theirs is a course of action we should also be following.
All rights have been suspended by the King, and while we have not forgotten the tragedy that befell the royal family several years ago, since that time no questions have been asked by the international community or international organisations as to the legitimacy of the royal rule. There are therefore a number of considerations that must be weighed up. As I said earlier, the reasons behind these events are unclear, but they are a source of some concern. Furthermore, and reiterating Mr Mann’s comments, we cannot condone cutting off aid to Tibet, just as we cannot agree to the suspension of civil rights, to arrests, to the closure of press outlets or to far-reaching restrictions on freedom of speech. We are therefore fully justified in taking action, and we should adopt the resolution. Let us hope that a rapid reaction by this House, along with the measures taken by other countries, will go some way towards normalising the situation in Tibet. Many thanks, Mr President."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples