Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.2.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"High Representative, the establishment of your post and, in particular, your appointment, have certainly created high expectations among those members of the public – and I think they are numerous – who think that Europe needs a Common Foreign and Security Policy if, as you said, it wants to be at all credible in areas other than trade or economic stature.
It is therefore a question of high expectations and, I believe, also high hopes, especially if – as Commissioner Patten said – a synergy really will be created between the two institutions.
Your task is certainly a very difficult one. I do not mean it is impossible, but a host of good wishes – which we all give you (they are free and cost absolutely nothing) – will certainly not suffice. Maybe you need something more tangible.
The first steps, taken in the Council at least, do not seem particularly promising. I am referring to a fact that might be considered to be of secondary importance by many, but that I think is very significant: you thought Monday’s Council meeting a historic occasion for defence. Can this be true? I, too, consider Monday’s Council meeting historic, but in a negative way and for other reasons. I refer to the incomprehensible attitude taken in respect of an initiative, promoted for once by the European Union, on the moratorium on capital punishment.
If I have understood correctly, this time the Ministers have decided to be particularly thorough. They have decided to stand their ground and to withdraw the proposal for a moratorium, or at least to block it. They have decided to make a huge effort to be verbosely and verbally maximalist and extremist and are refusing to give ground or negotiate … Basically, they have decided to lose.
This position is so astonishing that I wonder whether any of the Ministers have actually read the amendment and the facts, because this is completely incomprehensible, unless it is true, as some people suspect, that this strict, moralist position will serve to save the face of some of the great powers who are not especially interested in the proposed moratorium.
It does not take much to realise, Commissioner, that what we should have done was to use serious negotiations to bring moderate countries which do not use capital punishment over to our side, countries which had taken positions and which were sensitive regarding the preamble – I repeat, the preamble – based on an article in the United Nations Charter. But why are we trying to amend the United Nations Charter, Commissioner? What do we hope to gain with a proposal for a moratorium? Are we trying to reform the Security Council or change the Charter? None of this makes sense.
If I may say so, what happened on Monday was disgraceful. As a consequence, the European Union will withdraw – so it seems – the proposal for a moratorium, or it will not even put it to the vote. Just think about it: a freeze on the proposal. And we want to talk about credibility? The truth of the matter is that today, Mr Solana, Europe is very good at making empty, pompous announcements, but it is completely incapable of learning from history and seeing how and where we really can negotiate.
So again, my heartfelt good wishes, but these in the form of a simple suggestion on the Common Foreign and Security policy: maybe using the process of economic and monetary union to reach diplomatic and military union would be a good way of transforming declarations of intent into more concrete steps."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples