Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-30-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080130.18.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that the issue of installing American anti-missile defence tools in the Czech Republic and Poland, i.e. on European Union territory, is being dealt with by the European Parliament, which is the most democratic institution given that it is directly elected by the citizens of the Union, whom this issue affects.
In this context I would like to stress that I am supported by my colleagues in the GUE/NGL Group and I also draw on my own experience as a military expert; but most importantly I am supported by the majority of citizens in my country, where 70% of the population are against the installation of the American radar system.
The American anti-missile defence is presented to us as a defence shield, so why was the Czech Republic, for example, not allowed to sell the Tamara passive radar detection system without active military components to China? The reason given was that China would gain an inadequate advantage in its relations with other countries. Is this not a manipulation of words? Is not the real issue of stationing the radar in the Czech Republic also about gaining advantage? Even a layman can understand what warriors had known long before Hannibal: a shield in a soldier’s hand is a means for a better and more efficient use of his sword.
The talk is about increased security but is the issue not really about increasing security risks? It is only logical that we will immediately become target number one for potential adversaries. We are told that we should oblige the US in order to prove that we are good allies. Canada has not obliged either: does that make it a bad US ally? Is it not the case that Canada has perhaps learned a lesson from the purpose-built justification for military action in Iraq?
We are surprised at Russia’s reaction. However, given that the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and acts in its own interest, this reaction is not illogical. Was the United States happy years ago about the close proximity of Soviet missiles in Cuba?
There is no doubt that the US is a superpower, and its views, proposals and requests cannot be swept off the table just like that. However, if we are really concerned about greater security, especially in Europe, then the road to it follows a more complicated path via negotiations and agreements, not unilateral steps. This is the responsibility not only of the major players – the US and Russia – but of the European Union too."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples