Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.5.3-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a staunch pro-European, a staunch pro-American and above all a staunch and stubborn advocate for over ten years of the need to set up the International Criminal Court, I never thought that this tool could come into operation without encountering problems, precisely because it is so important. I always thought that, especially as it marks a momentous change, it would surely encounter all kinds of resistance: not just the more open and even more transparent although unacceptable resistance of our US friends, but also that of others. I hope we shall not forget the hostility and deliberately obstructive behaviour of other great powers beset with internal problems and even crime – I am deliberately referring to our Chinese friends and others – who are also putting obstacles in the way of the International Criminal Court without, however, having the courage to face an open debate in a dignified manner.
It is therefore important to debate and discuss the matter with our allies in an atmosphere of mutual respect, without trying to claim any sort of legal high ground, but resolutely putting across our point of view. With all due respect to the US Administration, I should like to remind it that the International Criminal Court is a tool that is intended to be permanent, whereas political leaders are, by definition, bound to change. It may also be our duty to do our utmost to make this tool effective, in the conviction that future administrations of our US friends may possibly take a different attitude and themselves take advantage of the major tool we are offering them. As the Council has quite rightly pointed out, something similar is happening with the death penalty issue, where dialogue has led the Federal Court to take major steps forward.
Having said that, I am not really interested in discussing whether we are facing an irreversible split in what we call the West. I am interested, rather, in understanding how we move on from here. In this respect, I believe two major responses are emerging. First of all, it is worth noting the growing number of countries choosing to ratify the court. By 11 April, 66 countries had ratified it and, in little more than two months, the number has now risen to 76. Secondly, we must realise that everything depends on us. What we have to do today is to work out whether we Europeans are willing and able to take on the responsibility, and hence also the costs in terms of money and personnel, and move forwards, for instance as regards peace missions. Indeed, I am afraid that the real aim of our US friends is not so much to scupper the International Criminal Court as to get out of the peace-keeping operations and thus in some way attack the United Nations system.
I know our ambassadors in New York are negotiating tirelessly and resolutely but not inflexibly. I believe the greatest contribution we can and must make is to stand by our convictions and be prepared to take on the costs and the responsibility. The more pro-European we are, the more I believe we will manage to provide valid tools, not to demonise, of course, but to foster dialogue and save the alliance with the United States, which I consider strategic and vital for us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples