Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.5.3-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the greatest achievement of European construction is the fact that for half a century we have broken the pattern of war, replacing it with peace and a shared destiny. The European peoples do not just co-exist in the Union, but we share a destiny in brotherhood and mutual tolerance. And we are still constructing Europe, with difficulties, but the united Europe is not the old Europe of endemic civil wars between us nor the new Europe which was preached by fascism and Nazism. At this time much more unites us than divides us. We all want peace, we are all against bloodthirsty dictators and we all want to see the disappearance of weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, Mr President, since 11 September we have insisted on the need to coordinate efforts with the United States and we have expressed our solidarity with this great country in the fight against the threat of international terrorism. This is not only a result of our historic gratitude and friendship, arising from the role of the United States in favour of European democracy in the two world wars. The issue today is not the extent to which we are friends on paper with the United States. We are in disagreement – and this must be said – over the doctrine of preventive war. We are even more in disagreement and we totally reject the unfortunate comments of the Secretary of State, Mr Rumsfeld, in Munich last week, insulting a European country and not explaining the thing he should explain: why, as Secretary of the Reagan administration, he went to Baghdad to give weapons of mass destruction to his then ally, Saddam Hussein. This must be explained.
Mr President, I will end by saying that we are friends and allies who behave like genuine friends: we say what we think. We are allies of the United States as a result of shared historical responsibilities and principles. We must fight to give peace and hope a chance. We are not condemned to the disaster of war and mass destruction, and we call on President-in-Office Simitis to speak on behalf of a Europe with one harmonious voice next Monday.
In families – and in the Union – there can be moments of tension, but we must be able to overcome them through solidarity and mutual compromise. The approach which can unite Europe is the mandate of the United Nations, respect for international law and the continuation of the inspectors’ work. We are not condemned to war; we must work to give peace a chance.
In this context, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we in the Group of the European Socialist Party support and welcome the correct and timely initiative of President Simitis: we must do everything possible to find a common position and overcome the disagreements within the Council and also with the candidate countries, who are already members of our Union.
I would like to correct Mr Poettering on a point relating to the isolation of the current German government. I would like to remind him that the first government of the German Federal Republic since the war to fully assume its responsibilities in the international field was the Socialist/Green coalition of Chancellor Schröder. Before that there was nothing more than passivity. Therefore the Schröder government is not isolated, it is in good company.
From the point of view of our responsibilities as the European Parliament, we were significantly united in the resolution approved in January by a large majority – from which, curiously, the Group of the European Peoples’ Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats withdrew at the last moment, after having negotiated it. My Group would ask the President to use the resolution as a guide for his speech on Monday, in which we urge him to make a solemn appeal and to insist on the need for the United Nations Security Council resolutions to be fully applied and complied with, to express opposition to any unilateral action and to consider that a preventive attack does not conform to the United Nations Charter, and that he also urge the Council and the Member States to take the initiative of proposing to the International Criminal Court that the Iraqi leader is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In this regard, it is important to point out that at this time we must not anticipate events. The military machine must not be allowed to take on its own dynamic, leading us into war, the war is still avoidable and the United Nations Organisation is still necessary.
The geopolitical effects of action adopted unilaterally outside the framework of the Security Council would be catastrophic not only for Iraq but for the whole of the Middle East, with unpredictable consequences. We must not forget that Iraq, despite everything, is still a secular and religiously pluralist regime, which is important in view of the situation of increasing fundamentalism. We have heard the Commission’s report on the humanitarian issue – and I thank Commissioner Nielson – which also points out the risks involved in this.
We must therefore carry on supporting the inspectors, insisting that Iraq comply with the resolutions of the Security Council without allowing it to make any excuse or evasive response. In this context, the inspection chiefs have noted that it is a positive step that Iraq has agreed to allow surveillance flights and is cooperating. At the moment, the international community has put is faith in the inspectors. They must continue their work and we must support them."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples