Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-04-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080604.15.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, allow me to take my turn by briefly congratulating those who have spoken on behalf of the parliamentary groups. I think that in general terms, while there has not been unanimity, there has been a broad consensus on many of the matters that we have covered in the first part of the debate.
For the sake of clarity, I think that what we have to do is not to write a new text but to maintain as much as possible of the core, i.e. the mandate we have, and try to add elements. For example many of you have mentioned the question of energy security – which is important – and the question of the consequences of climate change in all its dimensions, the question of how to tackle the responsibility that we have with disasters that are natural and not manmade, for which we have resources and capabilities that have been put in place to combat such dramatic events.
Concerning proliferation: I have spoken about that on almost every occasion I have been given the opportunity – the risks and the importance that issue has for all of us. I think if we were to pick two horizontal issues we have to tackle, one would be climate change and the other would be proliferation and disarmament. Those are the two main issues that may put at risk much of what we value in life. Therefore, I agree with that.
I would like to say a few words to my dear friend, Brian Crowley. I think the important thing is to deliver, and I agree with him. However, take the example of Chad. I do not know whether that was the best example you could have chosen. I was in Chad a couple of weeks ago. I went to the capital, to the second city and to Goz Beida, where the Irish Battalion is deployed with very high spirits and enormous professionalism. That is something that should make us proud. I feel proud of the work the Irish Battalion is doing in the middle of the savannah, trying to help the displaced people in the refugee camps, with tremendous generosity. I applaud the Irish soldiers who are there, who have a very generous attitude and are fully determined to make things better on the ground, which is the objective of the mission.
I would like to thank you, Mr President, and all the parliamentary groups and I hope very much that in the time we have ahead of us, as we approach the end of the year 2008, we will be able to work constructively towards making the dream of so many citizens of the European Union a reality – the implementation of the Treaty in order to have a Europe that has a presence in the international community, in the world, that is proportional to our ideas, our principles, our capabilities and our standard of living.
I should first of all like to thank Mr Daul from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. You expressed yourself clearly on the objectives of the ESS revision and on the aims of the Treaty of Lisbon in general. I fully share your position and believe that it is crucial to strengthen the voice and human dimension of the Union.
I honestly believe that Europe has a duty not only to its citizens, but to those outside Europe. The whole world is voicing its hope that Europe will adopt a clearer approach and take more effective action. I therefore fully share the comments of the PPE-DE Group and will make every effort to bring about effective cooperation with all of the institutions between now and the entry into force of the Treaty. This is the mandate that was given to me under Article 15 of the Treaty, and I will endeavour to fulfil this obligation.
I would also like to reply to Mr Swoboda – not to disagree with him but, on the contrary, to say that many of the things he has said are very much to my way of thinking and to the way I would like to see things moving. I think the cooperation you mentioned between civilians and the military is fundamental. We are in the business of crisis management and not in any other business. In crisis management all the instruments should be at the disposal of the European Union to make the utmost of its capabilities.
But, again, the most important thing is to have political will. We may have the capabilities, but if we do not have political will we have nothing. We may not have the capabilities in any case. Therefore, we have to work in both directions, with capabilities but also with political will. The construction of political will is something that everybody in this beautiful building has to work on, together with the other institutions of the European Union.
Let me say a word about the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski. There were paragraphs in the report with which I agree from A to Z. I would like to underline the paragraphs on Afghanistan for instance because Afghanistan is a very important issue on which we have responsibilities. I did not have the opportunity to mention in my introductory remarks that for me – and for us I hope – Afghanistan is one of the challenges that we have on the table and we have to be able to construct a resolution that has to be political. Therefore, what you said about the police mission in the report is very important. We need members of the police there. As you know, at the last European Foreign Affairs Council we agreed to double the number of people deployed.
But I would also like to underline what you said about quality. It is true that when we talk about the rule of law, police and judges they are not at our disposal – they are working in their national Member States on other issues and therefore we have to see how we can go from here to the time when we will have at our disposal a European group of policemen, group of judges and group of social actors that could be deployed rapidly. That may be possible with the military because, fortunately, if they are not in a crisis-management operation, they may be available for deployment. We have to think about that and not only think but also find answers to those questions.
I should like to say that, on the whole, the speeches have been very constructive. I should like to comment on the paragraph on human security. Mrs Beer, you know very well that I am very attached to that concept. Marie Colvin is one of my friends and I have written some of those pieces with her. I think that is a concept that illuminates much of our modern thinking as far as security is concerned. Therefore, it does not matter what we call it, the important thing is what we do. The name is important but what we do is more important than the name. I think that all the reports are illuminated by that belief: that security is something that goes beyond a classical concept.
But, with respect, I have to disagree with some of the remarks, starting with the remark by the representative of the Commission. I really do not think that the security strategy has to be revised because it had a very narrow concept of security. I do not think this is a good statement. I think, concerning the security strategy written in 2003, that most of the limits there are the same elements, the same challenges, the same problems that we have today. We may have to complement and we may have to act, but I do not characterise the strategy as a narrow vision of security. On the contrary, it is the most open-minded approach that the European Union has ever had on this problem."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples