Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.19.2-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is, in fact, the most important pillar underlying the international consensus that the spread of nuclear arms must be stopped, with the ultimate goal, of course, as my group Chairman underlined a moment ago, of bringing about general nuclear disarmament. Since the spread of weapons of mass destruction forms an increasing threat to international peace and security, we must reassess the treaty, breathe new life into it and strengthen it.
Needless to say, the developments in Iran are causing us great concern. Despite repeated warnings from the international community, Iran continues its efforts in the area of uranium enrichment. At the same time, we know that there is a real risk that terrorist groups have access to nuclear weapons or similar.
In order to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, an effective multilateral stance is indispensable. What is more, the Non-Proliferation Treaty stands or falls by it. By acting independently and unilaterally, though, all common efforts in this area are set to be undermined. This is why the recognised nuclear powers must make a visible investment. They are, in fact, also responsible for the credibility of the Non-Proliferation Treaty as it currently stands. Precisely in this light, we are placing question marks by the recent attempt by the US to get Poland and the Czech Republic to agree to the stationing elements of an anti-rocket shield on their territories. According to the Americans, the rocket defence system offers protection against possible attacks from North Korea and Iran. This does, in fact, go against the intention to prevent these countries from developing a nuclear arms arsenal.
With their proposal, the Americans are also ignoring the concerns of Russia, which, rightly or wrongly, regards the rocket shield as a provocation, or even as a threat to its domestic security. A protective shield that subsequently leads to mistrust between the three key partners – the US, Russia and the EU – that wish to stop proliferation, is not exactly the multilateral action we had in mind.
Moreover, we wonder how such bilateral cooperation fits into the European security strategy and the NATO partnership. For this reason, we have major objections to this course of affairs, and we therefore call on the United States and the EU Member States involved to reconsider the plans and to seek multilateral alternatives compatible with the security arrangements mutually agreed by us in the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples