Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000615.8.4-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greens wanted the joint resolution of this House to specifically consider the illegality of the election of Mr Fujimori as President of Peru and to ask that fresh elections be organised.
The joint resolution which will be proposed to you and to which the Greens have not put their names, merely highlights the irregularities and concludes that these challenge the legitimacy of this election. We are therefore dealing with a far weaker declaration than the one we wanted.
First, we deplore such a cautious choice of words. Let me remind you that the conditions of this election, at least in the second round, were so disastrous that not only did the main opposition candidate withdraw, but so did all the international observers. In these circumstances, it could be concluded, even before the election, that the election was not valid. After the election, obviously, Mr Fujimori’s government could argue that since their candidate Fujimori had obtained more than 51%, it had to be concluded that even in the absence of any opposition, the vote was valid.
Having said this, the vote count in many regions showed an excess of theoretical votes in relation to the first round, which is completely impossible given that there were no longer any opposition candidates. The excess vote was around 20% in some places. So not only was there no opposition, but it was even necessary to resort to fraud in order to obtain the figure of 51%. These observations should lead the European Parliament to proclaim the illegality of the election of Mr Fujimori and call for more elections, rather than being content with merely questioning its legitimacy.
Unlike the case of Paraguay, we are not going to see this as a reason for voting against the resolution. We are prepared to put our names to the joint resolution of the other groups, provided, however, that two points are introduced. We agree with what Mr Salafranca said about making European Union aid conditional on sending a European Parliament delegation on current human rights to Peru.
However, we think this insufficient as, at this very moment, since the election in fact, military demonstrations and intimidation are being used against those members of the population who show their fury at this election, which is invalid in their eyes. We therefore ask that a tiny amendment be added, condemning the use of intimidation against the Peruvian population. This condemnation is not accompanied by any particular threat, and with regard to the conditionality of European Union aid, we gladly support the wording put forward by Mr Salafranca.
The second amendment we are proposing, on the other hand, is a sort of catching-up on the matter of legality. You know that the Organisation of American States goes further than the European Parliament’s joint proposal apparently does, as this organisation is actually volunteering to suggest a democratic way out of the political crisis which Peru is stuck in over this matter. We are simply suggesting that the Parliament should approve the current efforts of the Organisation of American States to find a legal, peaceful way out of the crisis.
These are the two amendments that would enable us simply to support the joint motion for a resolution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"FR"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples