Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-18-Speech-3-092"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-02-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Annual Report (2007) on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP - European Security Strategy and ESDP - The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090218.20.3-092"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-02-18-Speech-3-0932
lpv:speaker	lp:Geoffrey Van Orden2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, you will not be surprised if I express concern about the thrust of the reports relating to ESDP, in particular Mr von Wogau’s report, which is full of false assumptions concerning the nature of the European Union and the ambition to create a European army under EU control. It sees, and I quote this expression, ‘Synchronised Armed Forces Europe’ as a step on the way to ‘an integrated European Armed Force’. Surely, in other words, a European army. As we all know, ESDP produces no military added value. It is a political tool in the advancement of an integrated Europe. It should be seen for what it is. For a long time, I have argued that the European Union could play a useful role in providing civil instruments for crisis management and post-conflict reconstruction. This would actually be helpful. By the way, no military officers that I know imagine that conflicts such as Afghanistan can be tackled by military means alone. There is nothing new in what is now fashionably called ‘the comprehensive approach’. We used to call it ‘hearts and minds’. So it is quite wrong – a deceit in fact – for the EU to try and justify its involvement in military matters by claiming the comprehensive approach somehow rather for itself – some sort of EU-unique selling point. For the EU, the honest and sensible approach would be to drop the defence ambition from ESDP and to concentrate on its civil contribution. Then, perhaps, Europe and her allies would be able to focus on their military contributions to NATO, revitalising the transatlantic alliance for the difficult years ahead, without being distracted by the EU’s duplicative agenda. The immediate problem is that the EU’s ambitions are now beginning to contaminate NATO, and I am seriously concerned that this will affect the way the 60 anniversary goes. Meanwhile, back in the UK, we have government ministers in a state of denial that any of this is happening."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; AFET (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; SEDE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2005-03-09--2009-07-13)3 substitute; EMPL (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with India (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Afghanistan (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE )."1 "th"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph