Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-052"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation in Iraq2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021009.5.3-052"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-09-Speech-3-0532
lpv:speaker	lp:Sami Naïr2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-09-09--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (2002-07-01--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement des citoyens (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, for several months now, there has been a real commotion among the Western countries with regard to Iraq. The inspections stopped in 1998 and President Bush discovered in 2002 that Iraq was once again a threat. This is a serious matter, as, through the Iraqi affair, the US has in fact tried to gain support for a new concept in international relations, the concept of pre-emptive war. They have asked that UN inspectors be allowed to return unconditionally to Iraq. The Iraqi Government agreed to this. Now, it is the United States that will not agree to the UN inspectors going to Iraq. They now want to adopt a resolution that would allow them automatic recourse to force. President Bush’s speech yesterday did not go back on this condition in any way. He maintains this condition. In reality, the United States covet Iraqi oil resources, control of which would allow them to dictate price policies to the rest of the world. Beware! The fight against terrorism, after the savage attacks of September 11, must not, in the hands of the American Government, become an imperial strategy to conquer the world. A military intervention against Iraq would have terrifying consequences today in the Middle East. It would unleash all kinds of fanaticism and discrimination against ethnic minorities. It would encourage a surge in Islamic fundamentalism. A war against Iraq – and we must realise this today – a war against Iraq would be considered by Arab-Muslim public opinion as a war against the entire Arab-Muslim world. That is why, today, no Arab regime supports Washington’s position. Two countries have stated their opposition to this strategy: France and Germany. Well, I consider that to be an honour for Europe. If a new resolution had to be adopted, under no circumstances must it include the principle of automatic recourse to force. We must not accept the use of the Security Council as an instrument. I would also like to ask Mr Patten and Mr Haarder a question: why do the European Union and the Commission not suggest to the Arab League, to all the Arab countries, that they take a common initiative to reintegrate Iraq and lift the embargo? That is the best way of fighting for the renaissance of democracy in Iraq."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph