Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-10-24-Speech-1-060-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20161024.15.1-060-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the Iran Nuclear Agreement was a big achievement for European and international diplomacy. It is an important signal that nuclear non-proliferation is possible in our world. The EU strategy which followed, fully supported by my report, is about Europe fully upholding our obligations under that agreement.
To do so, I support the opening of an EU delegation in Tehran and cooperation on maritime security in the Persian Gulf as a concrete step towards a new regional security structure for the whole region; setting the aim for a partnership and cooperation agreement for a bilateral investment treaty and of Iran joining the World Trade Organisation. Supporting the major deal for Airbus and efforts for banks themselves to support the lifting of sanctions; to restore our own interparliamentary dialogue with the Majlis.
Colleagues, this is a balanced and inclusive report incorporating 22 compromise paragraphs from no less than 139 amendments from different Members of this Parliament. I thank the shadows, and Mr Brok in particular, for their cooperation.
On human rights: the human rights NGO Reprieve called the language of my report ‘excellent’. Human Rights Watch said: it is ‘good language’. The words ‘human rights’ actually appears 34 times in my report. By focusing on ending the death penalty for children and for all drug offenses I am supporting efforts which are already under way in Iranian society itself and that I dearly hope will actually be agreed.
Those who say that my report ‘is not human rights enough’ simply impugn my own integrity and contradict the human rights organisations themselves. They knowingly imperil the leverage that we do have with Iran and make the improvements in human rights, which they say you want, less, not more, likely. They should examine your own conscience before you repeat that claim.
My report clearly called for non-interference in other countries and an end to support for armed groups. It specifically supports respect for peace and security for Israel and for Palestinians. It suggests that Europe can play a greater role in de-escalating tension between Tehran and Riyadh, and that this is the essential part of bringing to an end the terrible conflicts which afflict Iran’s neighbours. There are those in this Chamber who want greater one-sided criticism of Iran’s regional role. They say they are against proxy wars but you yourselves are acting as proxies; don’t do it.
For those that are using this debate to wage these arguments, but who do so actually seeking to oppose the nuclear agreement: be honest in saying so. I will be honest with you about the consequences of the agreement’s collapse: a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, heightened security fears, undermining reformists and shifting power to hardliners here and there, a return to sanctions in which ordinary innocent people in Iran are impoverished and lose hope, a potentially fatal attack on diplomatic attempts to end suffering, death and destruction in the bloody civil wars in Syria and in Yemen. Indeed, an attack on the very principle that diplomacy and negotiated agreement itself could be successful in our troubled world.
My report stands for peace, an active diplomatic role for Europe, and a belief that by identifying common interest where it exists, that it is possible to build on it. I ask for your support."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples