Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-06-Speech-3-381-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110706.21.3-381-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Baroness Ashton, you have worked extremely hard, and you have our full support.
However, Parliament’s resolution today relates to countries that are somewhat forgotten: Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. By calling for this specific focus, we are addressing a dual objective: the first is to break the silence and avoid practising double standards in the region, while these countries undergo cruel repression. The second is, while remaining firm in our condemnation of the atrocities that are being committed in these countries, to make political room for possible negotiations, which is something that you are going to look into.
This resolution has very wide support among the political groups, and I will simply make two or three points. The first, which may seem a little trifling, is of a linguistic nature. I do not like the idea of the expression ‘Arab world’ in the title of the report. This has somewhat post-colonial connotations, as if there were actually a single Arab world. As the resolution illustrates, and as you say yourself, there are many different countries, each with its own separate identity. There are also different regions, such as the Maghreb or the Mashreq region; therefore, I think we need to forget about this concept of an Arab world.
My second point concerns Syria. The repression that is rife today in these countries is bitter, cruel and ruthless. Even children are not being spared. The resolution denounces these crimes, which cannot continue to go unpunished. It expresses concern over the waves of refugees now crossing the border from Syria into Turkey. It calls for humanitarian corridors and the intervention of the United Nations, and supports the emerging opposition both outside and inside the country. However, the resolution stops there.
Why? Why have we not gone further? Why did we not say, for example, that we want Bashar al-Assad to leave power, as he has disappointed all those who believed he would change the repressive system he inherited from his father? This president seems to have crossed a line from which there is no going back. It is because we wanted to leave room for political negotiations in the corridors of the EU.
Baroness Ashton, Syria is heading into a state of violence. Religious minorities, especially Christians, feel threatened today by extremists. Please visit Damascus as soon as you can. Unlike my fellow Member, I would ask you not to keep your distance. What we need is strong political action and a high-level European presence on the ground. There may still be an opportunity, and I call upon you to seize it.
My third point is more general. I am going to go over my time, but I wanted to say that we support the External Action Service, and our relationship with it is much improved. However, there are overlaps at the moment between the structures surrounding the High Representative, and other bodies such as the task force, which has yet to prove its worth. Our help for these countries is a test for us, today, and naturally, I hope that these structures and the External Action Service will succeed with flying colours in the task before them. Our credibility depends on it."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples