Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-172"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-02-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation in Iraq2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030212.5.3-172"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-02-12-Speech-3-1732
lpv:speaker	lp:Emilio Menéndez del Valle2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, on the issue of Iraq, Europe is not divided. Its governments are, but its public opinion is not. As we all know, the majority of European public opinion is united against war. So the discussion on the division of Europe, in relation to the CFSP, must take this aspect into account. And, incidentally, the European citizens should take this into account when casting their votes in the forthcoming elections. However, there is an aspect which worries me particularly and that is the high number of governments of European candidate countries who have joined an operation which, rather than reinforcing European values and principles, supports the warlike approach of a non-European superpower whose values, such as the death penalty and the rejection of the International Criminal Court, are not our values. Having said that, I also have faith in the public opinion of those candidate countries. I am less optimistic when it comes to the gulf separating us from the United States, or rather the gulf which the Bush Administration is widening every day. I believe it is a bad sign that some sections of the so-called ‘liberal’ press in the United States are tending to jump on the war bandwagon and that in doing so it is furthermore using insults which are not supposedly worthy of it. Thus, regrettably, we have recently read this sentence in the New York Times: 'Only an imbecile or perhaps a Frenchman could be insensitive to Colin Powell’s arguments'. Well, I would declare myself French and insensitive. This francophobia is being cultivated alongside germanophobia. It has just been said insultingly of the other unfortunate partner from the old Europe: 'The Germans do not play any important role in international decision-making', said by Richard Perle, one of Minister for War Rumsfeld’s tough advisers. Well, in view of this I would declare myself to be German and a Social Democrat. In my opinion, though, the greatest and most significant blunder is from Richard Boucher, spokesman for the State Department. As you know, Bin Laden has just said in a very timely manner that, in the face of the aggression being prepared, all Muslims should support the Iraqis, despite the fact that the latter are socialists and apostates. Rather than coming to the opposite conclusion, Mr Boucher not only states that this proves the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but he also adds: 'We have already said that this is a fight by civilisation to protect the civilised countries'. So it now turns out, Mr President, dear friends, that the Bush Administration sponsors war between civilisations."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph