Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050525.13.3-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Commissioner, on behalf of all the members of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I should like to welcome the outcome of the EU
Russia summit. Russia has been a source of fascination for all of Europe throughout modern history, or in other words since the Middle Ages. On the one hand, we saw it as the successor to Byzantium and a bulwark for Europe against invaders from the East. On the other hand, we regarded it as an Asian country, and thought of it primarily in barbarian terms. On the one hand we saw its lofty traditions, the golden cupolas of its churches and its culture, whilst on the other we saw the staggering riches of its rulers and the extreme poverty of millions of its citizens.
Opposing views of this kind are still to be found in today’s motion for a resolution. On the one hand, Russia is described as a major supplier of raw materials that are vital to the European Union, as well as an enormous market and a potential ally of European culture and traditions. On the other hand, misgivings are voiced regarding the great expanse of Eastern Europe and Russia’s powerful armed forces, which are equipped with modern weapons and which have already been involved in a number of peacekeeping missions with EU troops, for example in the Balkans. The authors of the resolution should have reserved attacks of the kind to be found in the part of the resolution demanding common standards of behaviour for the armed forces of another of our partners, if we are to believe the reports from Iraq. I am assuming, of course, that the necessary steps have not yet been taken in this respect.
The contradictions I mentioned previously can also be seen clearly in a number of amendments. I would call on the Members of this House to remember who it was that protected Europe from the Nazi terror 60 years ago, and, even as they criticise totalitarianism, to avoid succumbing to Russophobia. When voting on this resolution, we should ensure that a spirit of constructive cooperation prevails over mistrust and condescending advice. After all, we cannot ignore the fact that millions of Russians died in order to liberate Europe. We should never fail to make a clear distinction between the loyal ally which played a large part in liberating most of Europe, and which fulfilled its commitments towards its other allies in Asia 60 years ago, and the country that attacked us. This distinction should also be reflected in the relevant parts of our resolutions and debates.
When fervent advocates of democracy talk in this Chamber about the problems experienced by national minorities in Russia, even though they themselves come from countries where hundreds of thousands of citizens have not been granted citizenship, I find it hard to know whether they are making fun of all of us, or whether they are merely demonstrating barefaced cheek and a shaky grasp of what democracy means.
We need Russia as the European Union’s closest ally, and we need it as a friend, in order to resolve the ever
increasing problems with which the world today confronts us. Friends should be asked, not ordered to do things, and Members of this House should remember this when voting on the resolution tomorrow, whilst ensuring that their own personal views take a back seat."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples