Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-20-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030320.2.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, whatever else the Parliament may or may not think about me, I think that it would concede that I have always taken this Chamber and, indeed, the issue of democratic accountability, extremely seriously. One day - I will leave it very late because it may be a very unpopular thing to say and I may be accused of lèse-majesté - just before I leave the European Commission next November, I will deliver a little speech in this Chamber about how much better debates are when the people who make speeches have the courtesy to stay behind and listen to the answers.
I do not think that anybody accuses them of being anti-American. Do we accuse most of the last Democratic administration of being anti-American? Do we accuse a lot of Republicans today of being anti-American? If signing up to whatever Richard Pearle has to say is a necessary price to pay to demonstrate that one is a passionate believer in the transatlantic relationship, then you had better put in a call to Brent Scowcroft or to many of the most distinguished figures in previous Republican administrations. Let us make that point gently: I am not prepared to be judged on my relationship with America by whether or not I agree with Richard Pearle.
And since I am in an excessively candid mood, I shall make a third point. There have been many discussions in the Convention - which rolls on under its distinguished presidency - about the future of the common foreign and security policy, discussions in which I have taken part myself, discussions about the use of qualified majority voting, discussions about double-hatting; all this and much more: it has been an extremely exciting ride for all of us who have taken part.
But let me remind the House of what the Treaty already says. Article 11 was referred to by the honourable Member in her extremely good speech. Article 11(2), subparagraph 2, says that 'The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall
from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations'.
I do not know how this translates but, as my late father would have said, pull the other leg.
Institutional change can certainly help to create political will. I do not doubt that at all. But you cannot create political will through institutional change alone, and institutional change is not a substitute for political will. I am afraid that is a lesson which I have learned the hard way over the last three and a half years.
I should like to answer three of the points that were raised in this debate. They were raised in one case by somebody who is still here, and someone else who raised a point to which I will respond was one of a number who mentioned U.S. relations. Let me begin with the discussion on humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
My honourable friend, Mr Evans, who alas is not able to be with us, claimed to detect a difference between the remarks I made last week on reconstruction and humanitarian assistance and what I said today. I want to do something which I always used to criticise the former Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, for doing. I shall read to you one of my own speeches. I would just like to quote what I said last week and then move the debate on a little.
After talking about humanitarian assistance, I said that 'immediate humanitarian help is one thing, but the demands upon us will certainly extend much beyond that. As the House is all too well aware, Europe’s external relations budget is already heavily committed. It will be very difficult in any circumstances to launch massive new programmes in Iraq and in the neighbourhood of Iraq.' We have had representations already, for example, from the Jordanian Government. But it will be that much more difficult for the European Union to cooperate fully and on a large scale – also in the longer-term reconstruction process – if events unfold without proper UN cover and if the Member States remain divided.'
I went on to say 'I am simply making an observation of fact: if it comes to war, it will be very much easier to persuade you – the European Union's budgetary authority – to be generous if there is no dispute about the legitimacy of the military action that has taken place; about the new political order that emerges thereafter; or about who is in charge of the reconstruction process. I am not making a quasi-legal point. I am simply offering a political judgement of no great novelty or sagacity. It seems pretty obvious to me.' Indeed it does seem obvious.
I am delighted that since then, others have taken up a similar theme. There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict, providing not just for humanitarian help, but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation. These are not my words; they were from the speech made by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the House of Commons this week. I say without any hint of irony that I am glad that the argument some of us have been putting for weeks, if not months, is now starting to take off. I wonder, just in passing, whether it would have done so if we had never raised the point in the first place.
Second, I should like to say a brief word about the United States and our relations with that country. Criticising the United States is not the same as having a European foreign policy. It is equally the case that to disagree with the world view of Richard Pearle or Robert Kagan is not to be anti-American. There are millions of Americans who disagree with Mr Pearle and Mr Kagan."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"refrain"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples