Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.16.3-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 2004 was a very difficult year for global organisations, and so 2005 will be all the more decisive for the United Nations. Never before has there been such a great desire for fundamental renewal of the organisation; never before, too, has reform been so urgently needed. Like Mr Leinen and Mr Laschet, who have already spoken, I rejoice in the broad consensus that we have here: the clear affirmation of belief in the Millennium Development Goals is something we can all echo, just as we can all aim to improve the synergy between conflict prevention, peacemaking and peacekeeping. We are agreed on the need for better resources – and more of them – for this, and on the need for a more rapid response to events in crisis regions, with clear rules for deployments in them. To address acute dangers such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, there is a need not only for clearly defined and internationally recognised rules, but also the political will to act. It is in this respect that the international legal standard that is coming into being, and according to which we have a duty to defend others, constitutes a quite crucial step forward.
Reform of the UN’s institutions will be the most difficult hurdle to overcome. Its General Assembly must become more productive; rather than mounting, year in and year out, repetitively vacuous debates without concrete results, it must get back to debating things that really matter. ECOSOC, too, must make a markedly better job of performing its tasks.
The Security Council, too, is in need of reform. On 24 June, the Committee on Foreign Affairs put before the House a resolution it had adopted on this subject. While united in our desire for a permanent seat on it, we do know – particularly after the failure of the referenda – that the legal and institutional framework conditions for such a seat will not be in place before mid-September this year. Is this a reason to delay the reform? No, it is not; the world will not wait for the EU, and so all our Member States must, for the United Nations’ sake and for multilateralism’s sake, give the reform their backing, even though not all of them will be able to have a seat in September.
The mechanism to which Mr Laschet referred is one that we have devised together; it involves the European seats being allocated in close consultation with the EU. I might add that this debate – particularly after the failure of the French referendum – should be being held in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples