Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.9.4-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is right that the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project, which has been planned over several years, is subject to a European Parliament urgency procedure today, both because it is reported that the World Bank may be on the verge of making its decision and because of deep concerns at reports of harassment and intimidation against the project's opponents.
I have met with the Chad Government representatives who, contrary to claims of those on the other side of the Chamber, say they have not threatened to withdraw their invitation to Parliament's mission to Chad because we are holding this debate. Indeed, they claim that there is now observance of democracy, human rights and transparency in relation to this project.
But if that is so, why do we continue to receive reports of consultation at gunpoint? Why is one German development NGO threatening to pull out because of threats and attacks by the Chadian military? Why, on 4 January, did one expatriate resident in N'Djamena find her home attacked by Chadian soldiers? If the oil pipeline project is transparent, why do independent studies question its efficacy so fundamentally? For instance, Professor Rosenblum of Harvard questions the impact on poverty; Professor Downing of the University of Arizona concludes there is a failure to meet the World Bank indigenous peoples' guidelines; and the University of Warwick from my own country considers there will be a potential loss to national income from the project if potential spills and leaks are taken into account.
It is right that the European Parliament should express its concern about a World Bank which is still pursuing the old policies of privatisation, major infrastructure projects and mass agricultural exports which have become so discredited. As for the oil companies themselves, why do they need to see the environmental protection requirements lifted, development controls waived and the unfettered right of action in the event of civil emergency which will allegedly give them ‘carte blanche to act as a paramilitary power’? Can the European Investment Bank really justify giving EUR 8 million direct to Exxon in these circumstances? We do not want to see another Ogoniland in Africa."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples