Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-29-Speech-4-033"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-03-29"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Prospects for the EU's Common Foreign Policy in 2007, including the deployment of anti-missile defence systems in Europe by the United States (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070329.5.4-033"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-03-29-Speech-4-0342
lpv:speaker	lp:Karl von Wogau2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFET (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 chair; SEDE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the anti-missile system always gives me the impression of people poking around in fog, and if that is the way a debate is conducted, it is always a good excuse for polemics. For a start, what we are debating here is not ‘an’ anti-missile system, but two of them. One of them is the one belonging to the United States, a system on which USD 100 billion have already been spent, and of which the installations planned for Poland and the Czech Republic form part. The anti-missile system has cost nine billion this year so far; we have to ask ourselves what that means in terms of Europe’s security, something for which we, as elected representatives, are responsible, so the question that presents itself to my mind is whether this system is capable of protecting European countries, and, if so, whether it is actually capable of protecting all of them. What must not be allowed to happen is that Europe should be divided into two zones, with one less secure than the other; that is something we have to prevent. A second question arises in connection with the NATO anti-missile defence system, which has, so far, got no further than a feasibility study. What is NATO – what is Europe? – going to do on the basis of that feasibility study? Without a doubt, it is NATO, rather than the European Union, that bears responsibility for this, but, if we want to carry on down this road, we have to give some thought to just how the European countries are supposed to operate within the NATO framework, for if, for example, we are to take, on that basis, decisions relating to development or industry, we have the choice of dealing with the USA as 27 countries within the NATO framework or together as the European Union. In the first instance, we will certainly not be partners to the United States; in the second, we will be, but only with junior status, albeit with a chance of being their partner."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph