Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.2.4-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We have voted against the report by Mrs Lalumière for reasons that include the following:
1. We do not consider that there is any real threat to Europe at present; rather, it is now high time for an active disarmament policy and civil development. We are convinced that a Europe of Peace will not be created through military alliances. Future conflicts will not be solved through military intervention but rather via a policy for social, economic and ecological justice. Our peace policy analysis is based on the conflict theory that militarisation does not create a more secure and more peaceful world, but rather contributes to growing uncertainty and increased risk of military conflict.
2. We feel that civil crisis management is a valuable instrument for preventing conflicts, something which we must unfortunately state has not been given sufficient attention in the report.
3. We feel that military initiatives within the common security and defence policy must only be implemented following and in accordance with resolutions by the UN Security Council, a view that the rapporteur does not seem to share.
4. The report is based on an intervention philosophy that we do not share. We consider that international law and the sovereignty of the national States must be respected and must be the guiding principle of international policy. There is talk of the EU’s common interests and values as grounds for military armament. We do not consider that there is reason for militarisation on the basis of these values, which are not defined, and we would question what they mean.
5. Mrs Lalumière clearly points out that it is probable that in the future within the EU we will be forced to defend all the boundaries of EU Member States from third countries. This is not compatible with the freedom from alliances of certain Member States.
6. Furthermore, freedom from alliances is not taken up at all in the report and in the explanatory statement section of the report we sense a lack of respect towards States that are neutral. In Paragraph 49, Member States who do not wish to or cannot participate in a task are nonetheless obliged to make a contribution to the financing of the task. This is not compatible with freedom from alliances.
7. We consider the idea of a large-scale defence force to be an insult to the candidate countries that already have stretched economies and that need to invest money in, say, social welfare rather than military armament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples