Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-15-Speech-3-269"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061115.19.3-269"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, let me say something quite brief about the view our Socialist Group in this House takes of what has emerged from the committee.
There are three things that we regard as important. First of all, there is the need to reinforce the diplomatic and civil elements of the security strategy. Secondly, there is the need to avoid the traps that might leave us with an unfounded military doctrine; the text contains no terms such as ‘pre-emptive’ or anything of the sort. Thirdly, the instruments and the institutional requirements must be kept absolutely separate. We regard these as important advances, and it proved possible to make progress on these points by means of good cooperation with the rapporteur, for which I am grateful. From a social democrat point of view, however, there still remain a few controversial items outstanding.
We can see the risk of the procurement wish lists getting longer and longer as Christmas draws nearer; we ought to be concentrating on the priorities we have already set ourselves, such as air transport, information and communication. We do not actually need to aspire to amphibious motor vehicles, a Mediterranean fleet, and aircraft carriers, which hinders us from going after the things that really are important priorities in terms of the strategy. The question must also be asked as to whether the last-named examples belong in some quite different context rather than in the security strategy.
On the other hand – although we will be endorsing most of the amendments that add precision to the parts of the text that have to do with diplomacy, civil society and disarmament – we do not believe that crisis prevention must, under all conceivable circumstances, involve the use of exclusively non-military means.
The reality we face today has already changed, and the rapporteur made reference to that. We have sent troops to Macedonia in order to prevent the outbreak there of a civil war similar to those that have broken out in other states belonging to the former Yugoslavia. In the Congo, we used not only civilian means, but also sent a contingent of troops, in order to ensure that the elections there could be held in peace, and I am confident that this contingent will be able to return home at the end of this month.
As I conclude this intervention, I should like to return to the point that the rapporteur made at the very outset and was quite right to highlight, namely that the analysis of the threats and of the action taken under the security strategy need to be reviewed on a regular basis. Once the report has been adopted, the next thing we should do is to discuss how we, in this House, can organise this process."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples