Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.3.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, when I returned from the mission I was assigned by the United Nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I remember visiting Manfred Werner – who was then NATO Secretary-General – in Brussels in the autumn of 1993. I strongly asserted that the alliance should prepare itself to intervene in the Balkans or otherwise it would, eventually, cease to exist. Today, I can easily outline the argument that I put forward at that time.
In the period following the end of the Cold War, the alliance had to be capable of intervening in the major crisis which was unfolding at the heart of Europe, otherwise European citizens would wonder what purpose it could still serve, and whether it was worthwhile continuing to invest a proportion of their taxes in it. It took two long years and the tragic fall of Srebrenica for this message to be understood. On 31 August 1995, however, by supporting the action of the UN reaction force deployed on the Igman mountain to put a stop to the Serbian batteries which had resumed their indiscriminate bombing of the city of Sarajevo, the UN played an essential part in resolving the crisis, enabling the signature of the Dayton Accords and the introduction of a lasting cease-fire. Since then, UN forces have been successfully deployed in Kosovo and more recently still in Macedonia, helping to restore calm to the area, although it has not resolved all the political problems.
Today, the same debate has started on the role that the Atlantic alliance could possibly play in the fight against international terrorism. The alliance is in crisis, illustrated by the fact that the Americans did not believe they should call upon its support in the war in Afghanistan. Does this unilateralism spell the demise of the alliance? I cannot believe so, since the Americans themselves would have pointed this out and expressed this desire.
The vocation of the alliance to this day is to intervene in European territory and neighbouring countries, wherever there is a potential threat against its values that Pacheco Pereira has just reiterated. International terrorism is one of these threats, and it is a major threat. To this end, the only way of reforming NATO and ensuring its survival is to construct, at long last, a Europe of defence.
The choice is simple, either the European Union continues to leave the Americans to deal with military problems on its continent by being happy to play some minor role in resolving problems that threaten peace, much like the Athenians in ancient Rome, or it finally becomes their equal and shares the burden of defending itself against all the threats, which is what they have been asking us to do since the Atlantic Alliance was formed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples