Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.1.3-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the issue with which we are concerned is not the odious regime in Iraq but the way in which that country can best and most effectively be disarmed. The regime is clearly detestable – there is probably no one in this Chamber who has any time for Saddam Hussein – but the issue is one of how his weapons of mass destruction are to be got rid of. Is such disarmament best achieved through military intervention or through continued work on the part of the weapons inspectors?
For my part, I am convinced that, in the present situation, the best way is that of continued work by the weapons inspectors, quite simply because military intervention is always the last resort. It may be appropriate once all the other options have been tried. Such intervention would have very grave consequences, not only for the population of Iraq and all the innocent people who would be affected but also, I believe, for continued relations with the Arab world.
What is more, I believe that the weapons inspections are working. One might perhaps wish that they were working still better, but progress is at present being made. We must bear in mind that the inspections are working because of the pressure on Saddam Hussein and the threat of armed intervention. It is therefore important for this pressure to be maintained. This situation cannot go on forever, but the time limits that have up until now been proposed by the United States and others have been quite unrealistic. That is why the weapons inspections must continue.
To launch an attack without a decision by the UN Security Council would be utterly reprehensible and a violation of international law. It would have far-reaching consequences for the UN’s future legitimacy. The UN system has its faults, but we have no other such system on a global basis. We must therefore join together in helping to maintain this system.
The EU’s role in this conflict is a sorry chapter. The proud declarations concerning the common foreign and security policy that are usually made on solemn occasions have of course proved brittle when they have been put to the test. It is mainly the large countries that are at fault, go their own ways and pursue their own national interests instead of waiting, sitting down together, engaging in discussion and finding a common approach.
If the EU is in future to play a role in the area of foreign policy, we must learn from what has happened. If we are to be able to play a role in Iraq, in the Middle East, in the Korean peninsula and in other places, common policy must take precedence over national interests. Otherwise, the EU will not be able to play an important role in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples