Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.3.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should have been surprised if it did not. However, I should also like to ask the House to reflect on what is more important: having time for a proper debate, or Members of this House complaining when a vote is taken. I should have liked to hear Mr Gahler out, as what he was saying was most fascinating. Indeed, the question he raised is one of the ones that preoccupies us most at the present time.
How do we deal with a regime that is quite blatantly pushing all its boundaries? How do we respond to that as an international community? In my speech I shall try to add some further questions from the point of view of my group. It is not necessary to comment in this House on the remarks made by the Iranian President. A Head of State who denies the Holocaust, and who calls into question Israel’s right to exist, is not a fitting dialogue partner for us.
All the values that President Ahmadinejad stands for are the opposite of those we stand for, and I should welcome a debate on values with these people. We have already had a debate on values this morning; and that was good – it was a serious, considered debate. We should hold a calm, self-confident debate, and see whether there are others in the region besides President Ahmadinejad with whom we can hold dialogue. We should reflect on options open to us before we philosophise about options closing.
Are there not sufficient moderate countries in the region who are open to dialogue and with whom we can cooperate, who may not share our values one-to-one, but to whose interests it is also entirely detrimental to have Iran become a leading nuclear power in the region? Yes, there are, and, in my view, they are suitable dialogue partners for the EU. In this connection, of course, the conflict over the caricatures not only comes at the worst possible time, but is even counterproductive in the extreme, for these are the very countries with whom we need a relationship of mutual respect. Solving this caricature conflict is also central to solving the problems of the region as a whole, therefore.
For this reason, I would advise against equating ‘Iran’ and ‘Islam’. The actions of one aggressive Head of State of one country do not in any way reflect the views of the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims around the world, with whom we have to cooperate.
I think it is right that all enrichment activities – that is, those by all countries – should be under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as proposed by the IAEA itself. We should support this proposal. I also think, incidentally, that it is perfectly justifiable to refresh memories and say that the debate on nuclear disarmament should not be limited to this region: it needs to be universal. In this connection, allow me to point out that treating countries who already have nuclear weapons differently from those who are on the way to having them, and carrying out pre-emptive strikes against countries who did not have any weapons of mass destruction, only encourages regimes to procure nuclear weapons as quickly and illegally as possible, because those who own them will not be attacked. This is a logic that also needs to be discussed, one that was triggered by a pre-emptive strike carried out in the same region in the past, which was utterly wrong and which we vehemently opposed.
I believe that the logic behind this was extremely dangerous, and that is why we have to abandon this strategy of goal-based thinking, as it leads to the militarisation of thought. We must reinforce our diplomatic options step by step. It was an enormous accomplishment on the part of the EU-3 to bring China and Russia together and thus give Iran a clear signal that the international community will not allow itself to be divided. Let us talk about diplomatic successes instead of philosophising about military options. The international community should do everything in its power to make it clear to Iran that failure to return to the negotiating table by 6 March will automatically trigger a referral to the Security Council. Subsequent action should then be decided there, however, rather than by just any central government."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples