Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.18.3-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I welcome this motion for a resolution on the subject of small arms, although I must say that when you consider the damage these things cause, the term ‘small arms’ makes them seem much too harmless. However, I should like to point out a few problems with this motion. It says, for example, that transfer of weapons should not occur if there is a risk that they might lead to violations of human rights or that they might promote national or regional instability and armed conflicts. To be quite honest: when is this not the case with weapons exports? I think that the real problem is to differentiate between legal and illegal exports, because this is actually a grey area. One should, therefore, not only take action against illegal exports, but also against legal ones. Contrary to what Mr Van Orden says, one should certainly look at Member States of the European Union as well, since countries like France, the United Kingdom and Germany are among the main exporters of small arms.
I will just mention the example of Nepal. Weapons were exported from EU Member States to Nepal. Now these weapons have been used, and we now have this problem, to which the Council responded by saying that no one could have known that events would unfold in this way. It is precisely because we cannot know that we must ban legal weapons as well as illegal weapons. Every weapons export is a threat to peace."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples