Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-21-Speech-3-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080521.23.3-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I obviously comprehend and fully share the general sentiments expressed in the House – sentiments of criticism and frustration, of course.
Almost all the speakers mentioned resorting to the Security Council, the concept of the responsibility to protect, the right to interfere to a certain extent, the boundaries of national sovereignty, and sanctions in general. This is, in fact, what we are dealing with. However, I wish to speak on the means available to the international community to take all the courses of action you mention and to ensure respect for all these principles. This issue is slightly more difficult for it basically raises the serious matter of respect for international humanitarian law, a subject the European Commission and Parliament have already decided to discuss in relation to specific cases in September. Thus there is broad consensus as to the analysis: we all agree it is unacceptable, we all agree it is inhumane, and we all agree there must be better access and so on.
What I do wish to suggest – this is obviously a personal opinion – is that we make a bid in the short term to capitalise on or at least to extract maximum advantage from whatever emerges from the donor conference arranged on the initiative of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, with the donors being the European Union and ASEAN, and, within the framework of this initiative or proposal, to appoint a joint EU/ASEAN coordinator. This is in the very short term.
It will obviously be a difficult task. If the international community wishes to ensure a certain degree of coherence, if no results emerge from the two initiatives, it will be difficult to act as if there were nothing else to be done, and at that point the international community, whether this be the UN or other institutions, ought to focus on slightly different means.
I say this because – and I am finishing up now – what is evidently the most frustrating thing of all to some extent, which discredits or at any rate weakens the moral duty to intervene and the very concept or application of the concept of the responsibility to protect, is that, beyond the declarations of principle we are all led to make, because this is the way we feel, this is our culture, this is our view of democracy and human rights and so on, there are means available to us, or means we are politically capable of implementing.
This is the truth of the matter. This is the political courage that must be sought. For it is all too easy to say: ‘we must do something, we must send this, we must force them, we must do this and that’. Yes, fine, but where are the means? Are our countries able and willing politically to accept the ultimate consequences – of using force, if necessary – and do we have the ability to act in this way? That is the real question.
I agree with everything that has been said here, but conclusions must be drawn from our generous positions. I wish to explain why I feel that there are two parts to this debate. There is the general debate on which we all agree, and there is the immediate issue. I think the latter consists of providing full support and placing a Secretary-General at the best location for dialogue to make sense, and allowing him to extract the best possible advantage from his two initiatives. This is more or less what I would suggest.
I doubt that any statements, threats or tough talk, here and now – even if it is necessary – can change the situation. Unfortunately, I do not think so. I therefore feel that we ought to go along with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s two initiatives, and back them to the hilt."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples