Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.19.2-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the undisputed triumphs of the European Union is the added security that this continent enjoys as a consequence of integration. The work of reconciliation that brought Europe into the world has also made us a zone in which peace prevails and in which military action between the partner states of the European Union has become virtually unthinkable. That is the foundation that must underpin the philosophy of a security policy for the European Union, which is that we must take this concept of peace, which we have made a reality at home, and export it to the world as well.
We in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament base this thinking on a concept of security that relies on dialogue, diplomacy, disarmament, prevention, and on sustainable and fair development. All these elements belong together, and are held together by sustainable conflict resolution, which itself is feasible only within the framework of an overall conception. While the European Union and NATO have their parts to play in this, so, too, do others – Russia, for example – and that is why we, when we talk about disarmament initiatives – about which I shall have more to say in a moment – have to ask ourselves whether Russia is our partner or our adversary. In view of what I have just said, I would recommend approaching it as a partner, engaging in dialogue with it rather than marginalising it.
Disarmament is one of the central issues when peoples seek to coexist, and the trustworthiness of parties to treaties is crucial. If, as we review the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty today, we take a really close look, we will have to see that the record is a downright shameful one, for, since it was signed, no fewer nuclear weapons have been dispersed around the world, but rather significantly more of them, and that cannot be attributable to the signatory states, or some of their number, taking this treaty seriously, for the very opposite is the case.
There were many who, having signed this treaty, promptly proceeded to disregard it and instead, contrary to what had been agreed, exported nuclear weapons, or the technology needed to produce them, around the world. This is where there is a need for a complete turnaround. Fundamental to any review of the Treaty is the intention to be faithful to it; that is why a primary condition for the renewal of the Treaty is that those who sign it abide by it, and the United States of America have not been alone in failing to do that.
A world free of nuclear weapons may well sound like something out of a daydream, for we do not live in one – the very opposite is the case. We are having a debate on the spread of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and on that I think congratulations are in order. We have just heard from your own lips about the efforts required to prevent the civil use of nuclear energy becoming military, and Iran is a case in point here. More nuclear power stations are being built all around the world, and then we are surprised to find ourselves lumbered with not just one Iran, but many.
One aspect of any review of military nuclear policy must be asking critical questions about civil use. The German Council Presidency has the opportunity to put this issue on the agenda of the Council and also of the G8, and critical questions also need to be asked about the anti-missile system that is now, at the American administration’s behest, to be installed in the Czech Republic and in Poland in line with the Bush administration’s philosophy, the inconsistency of which can hardly be surpassed, the delusory nature of which is demonstrated by many examples, and which is set to cost USD 58 billion.
I have a recommendation to make. It is that, rather than having us Europeans allow ourselves – yet again – to be divided – for we can say goodbye to any single foreign and security policy if we in the EU cannot agree on something like this, these 58 billion dollars would, rather than being spent on the installation of anti-missile systems, be better invested in sustainable development, which would make more of a contribution to peace than the setting up of a dodgy missile system.
Mr President, the reason why I venture to say that with reference to the non-proliferation treaty and the review thereof, is that these things are interconnected, and I hope that Mrs Merkel, having announced that this issue will be put on the agendas of both the G8 and the EU, will see to it that it is."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples