Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-18-Speech-3-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090218.20.3-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is the case that, in recent years, there has been rapid development of the European foreign and security policy. We must ensure, however, that there is equally rapid development and change in relation to threats and crises of whatever kind.
My group is opposed to glossing over our own work. For that reason, I am likewise not prepared to talk up the reports before us today. Mr Saryusz-Wolski has produced a sound report, and it is one that we will support. That said, the strategic dilemma is clear. Mr Solana, you are absolutely right. You have just told us that European cooperation must be strengthened at the strategic level. First and foremost, though, what we have to strive for, and what we need to come up with, is a common European strategy in foreign and security policy – something that we still do not have.
I say this because we are at a historic juncture. These reports – in particular that of Mr Vatanen – on NATO, limp along in the shadow of the new US Government. Mr Vatanen declined to deal with the question of nuclear disarmament – which we will be voting on once again tomorrow – in his report. So what is it that we are talking about, then?
I will turn now to Mr von Wogau’s report. This report discusses a new concept: SAFE. This is a nice play on words – Synchronised Armed Forces Europe – but this concept simply does not exist. We, furthermore, do not see why we should support this, when this concept is just not on the table. Mr von Wogau has neglected to discuss human security in his report. My group insists that we, as the European Union, must clearly set out this objective in international politics. He has neglected to ensure that we speak about the peacebuilding partnership or the development of a civilian peace corps. For these reasons, I feel entitled to say that this report is completely inadequate if we believe that Europe must act now, in the coming months, from today – and that is something that became clear at the security conference in Munich.
There is a window of opportunity after the election in the United States. I do not know how long that window will stay open. As Europeans, we must now formulate our strategic interests and incorporate them into the alliance – NATO – and we must also now stipulate our definitions of security, as Mrs Ferrero-Waldner pointed out, with regard to Russia. Otherwise, what will happen is that, in a few months time, the US administration will be more forward looking than us in the European Union and will decide, in bilateral talks with Russia, on crucial security strategy positions without European power – political power, conflict-prevention power – being able to have any influence on this re-stabilisation of transatlantic security policy.
For that reason, I call on us, and on others, to truly leave behind the old mindsets of the cold war and choosing one camp over the other and sticking with it and to move on. Europe has the obligation to its citizens to create a security partnership now that brings peace, rather than the opposite."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples