Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-06-Speech-4-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060406.25.4-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It is a strange fact that until oil was found in southern Sudan, Darfur was not talked about very much. Crop farmers tended to their fields, livestock farmers herded their animals. It is obvious that the Darfur region has a special attraction for some people. Secession attempts by potentially wealthy regions in Africa are nothing new. Let us not forget Biafra, Katanga and other problematic parts of a continent that is rich in natural resources. Where there is no such wealth, there are no such massive problems. After all, we will certainly find not only Russian and Chinese weapons in the region but also in the foreign military bases in Chad we will find weapons from other countries.
The interesting aspect is that we are concerned that the UN General Secretary has not been allowed into Darfur. When there were similar events in Eritrea, Parliament approved humanitarian aid for the government. Why should our resolution, under paragraph 7, not call on the EU, the USA and others to help bring the situation in Eritrea to an end as well? Although the Sudanese regime is certainly not a paragon of democracy, it would be wrong to resort to force to resolve the conflict. I agree with the resolution, albeit with these reservations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples