Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001005.5.4-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Even if we sympathise with the idea of regulating the European production and export of arms politically, we are sceptical about the Titley report, mainly for the following reasons.
There is no link between the development of the arms industry and EU cooperation in the area of military policy. The EU has decided to develop a joint military capacity in order to fulfil the so-called Petersberg objectives (crisis management and conflict resolution outside the territory of the EU), but it has no common defence policy. The individual EU countries are members of NATO and the WEU, or else are non-aligned. Policy on arms exports must start from that point, and a distinction must be made between supervising an arms industry developed for political reasons (namely crisis management) and arms exports for purely commercial reasons. In our view, such exports ought to be kept to a minimum and, in the long term, completely abolished.
We are particularly opposed to the wording of Paragraph R and Paragraph 1 d) and e) of the report, to the effect that the development of arms exports should lead to the development of a common defence policy and the establishment of a defence identity within NATO, and that the arms industry should benefit from the EU’s developing a common code of conduct on arms exports."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples