Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-30-Speech-4-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030130.3.4-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Socialist Group supported the compromise resolution on North Korea. We believe it is an important issue and I concur with my colleague, Mrs De Keyser, who spoke earlier.
We are concerned about human rights in North Korea, as we are about human rights in the European Union, but we should recognise the fact that when Goran Perrson, Mr Solana and Mr Patten visited North Korea back in May 2000, there was an agreement that we would have a human rights dialogue with that country and that dialogue is ongoing. We are obviously critical and concerned about possession of the technology for uranium enrichment by North Korea. It could only make a delicate situation worse. Yet, there is little if any, attempt to impose sanctions against General Musharaf in Pakistan, who is responsible for counter-trading such sensitive technology for missiles.
After all, it is not just North Korea that is outside the remit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; we have Pakistan, India and Israel, all of which have nuclear weapons. The situation on the Korean peninsula is potentially far more dangerous than in Iraq. Here the passage from peace to war would put millions of lives at risk.
Much has been made of the DPRK's secret acquisition of uranium enrichment technology in breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1994 framework agreement. It is by no means absolved, but the faults are not entirely on one side. The 1994 framework agreement promised to deliver from the United States normalisation of relations, the end of the embargo, two light water reactors as part of the KEDO project and in the meantime 500 000 tons of heavy fuel oil per annum. In fact, nine years on, normalisation has not taken place, the embargo has not been lifted, the light water reactors are seven years late and, of course, the US strong-armed first Japan, then the Republic of Korea and then the EU into cutting off the supplies of heavy fuel oil. Then it was surprised that the DPRK did exactly what it said it was going to do and threatened to open its Russian-designed Yongbyong nuclear reactor which like all such reactors is capable of producing weapons grade plutonium.
We want to talk. We want to negotiate. We welcome the proposed visit by Solana, Patten and the Presidency. This time we hope it will involve Parliament. Last time round, we were told it was a small delegation – it turned out they took 75 journalists. When we pointed this out to the Commission, they said next time around they would consider involving Parliamentarians.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to paragraph 8. This calls for a permanent EU delegation in Pyongyang and, more importantly in the short-term, for the EU to convene seven-power talks on economic assistance, security and disarmament in the Korean peninsula including North and South Korea, the US, Japan, China and Russia. This offers a way forward for the future."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples