Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-264"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050413.20.3-264"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate Mr Kuhne on his report, which has turned out to be really outstanding. I also want to say how very grateful I am to him for his constant and frank cooperation, the result of which has been broad support from the relevant groups in this House.
The European Security Strategy is the timetable for European foreign policy for the coming years and decades, albeit one containing very many questions as well as good answers. A common foreign and security policy worthy of the name may well be a European goal, but it is not yet a European reality. What this report spells out is that Parliament supports the Council and the Commission in their efforts to overcome the self-seeking attitudes that the nation states still have in this area.
At the heart of the report is the statement that the traditional concepts of security no longer hold water. What do we mean by internal or external security? Which crises can we effectively prevent by civil means? At what stage in a conflict we have been unable to prevent are we obliged to deal with it by military means, as opposed to the civil means we had used previously? When, following the end of a conflict, can we again consider going back whence we came without jeopardising people’s safety, and what instruments do we need to that end?
Such are the questions that we Europeans must answer; this report does so, whenever it is able to, by reference to the great significance of civil and military cooperation. That is why we endorse this report and will be voting in favour of it.
In deliberating all these questions, it is clear to us in the Liberal Group that the principles of the UN Charter remain the central benchmark. That is why it is so absurd for the Communists to make assertions about the alleged militarisation of the EU. Having had so much experience of military build-up, though, they surely ought to know what they are talking about.
This report is an intermediate step; it spells out the fact that, at the beginning of the third millennium, we have to develop not only the instruments of our foreign policy, but also the thinking underlying it. It is precisely for that reason that I am glad that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs have been mandated to join together in thinking about how, at a time when terrorism is being fought, the protection of citizens’ rights can be ensured and, where necessary, improved. If we are to defend our values, we must also treat them with respect. I might add that I believe that we should be having this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples