Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-01-Speech-4-017"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Air strikes in Iraq2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010301.1.4-017"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-01-Speech-4-0182
lpv:speaker	lp:Bas Belder2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2000-10-05--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, undermining one’s own political authority is always a bad thing. If this is done in front of a ruthless enemy, it can have disastrous implications. I would like to outline my view on the divided European reaction to the recent American/British action against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. With regard to their Iraq policy, the EU Member States deserve criticism on three critical points. To begin with, how can the CFSP’s goal be reconciled with the disturbing lack of consensus in the most recent Iraq crisis? I fully share the opinion of the German commentator who noted last week: ‘A European foreign policy? How wide the gulf between ambition and reality still is has been demonstrated in the way the EU’s Fifteen handled the most recent Iraq air attack: the Brits joined in, the Germans ran for cover and the French launched a verbal attack on Washington.’ And who had the last laugh? Saddam Hussein, of course! It is exactly this Iraqi President who, after two lost Gulf wars, remains the main destabilising factor in the Middle East. After all, Saddam is forever fanning the flames of the unholy conflict in Palestine/Israel, the very region, incidentally, where the European Union claims to be making efforts to resume the peace process. How do the Council and Commission reconcile this ambitious goal with the conflicting European signals which are being sent out in the direction of Baghdad, where a self-confessed opponent to the same peace process is continuously stirring up Arab sentiment and is even threatening to destroy the Jewish state? I would like to conclude with my third, and probably most fundamental, criticism of the divided European policy on Iraq. Saddam Hussein is being backed by the EU in his efforts to erode the UN resolutions on Iraq. And what is at stake? The risky revitalisation of Mesopotamia no less. Instead of reminding Saddam’s regime of the crucial arrangement whereby the UN would supervise the dismantling of his weapons of mass-destruction, including production capacity, in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions, the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese have chosen to enter into a pact with a despot who has turned his country into an aggressor externally and a republic of terror internally. I therefore urgently call on the Council and Commission, in proper consultation with the Bush administration, to arrive at a consistent European policy on Iraq."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph