Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.5.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I recently attended a debate at a school in Germany. To my surprise, I was faced with a banner reminiscent of demonstrations my contemporaries and I were involved in, back in the mists of time. Emblazoned on this banner was a text to the effect that making war to preserve peace is like making love to preserve your virginity. I have not quoted the exact English version so as to preserve some elegance. I am sure none of you will have difficulty understanding it.
On this basis Chile and Mexico had the courage to table a resolution which rightly retained inspections as the way forward. It should be borne in mind that both these countries are economically dependent on the United States. The House must therefore understand that when it votes tomorrow, it will also be sending out a message on that carefully nurtured lie perpetuated by the UK and Spanish Foreign Ministers and several others. The moral majority that emerged on the Security Council in favour of intervention in Kosovo was 13 to 2. No such majority emerged in favour of intervention in Iraq. That is a historical fact. The rest is simply a brazen lie kept alive by Heads of Government afraid of their own people. One must call a spade a spade.
Finally, I have to say how much I hope the House will have the good sense to vote tomorrow in such a way as to make it plain that the advocates of war have been overcome and relegated to the minority. If we win, we will have won a greater battle than a mere battle of words. Each group will then be able to resort to its ideology to defend the common view. If we are prepared to make compromises I am confident we can win this moral victory over the advocates of war tomorrow.
(
Mr President, you are quite right when you say this war is an intellectual challenge. I would add that it is also a physical one. Plainly, we are allowing our divisions to stunt our intellectual faculties. It is also plain that a number of Council declarations have a surreal quality. So too have statements made by Members of this House. Plainly too, we are all in favour of humanitarian aid. That is the one point on which there is general consensus, and on this I agree with Mr Watson. That much is clear. The issue we are confronted with today is quite straightforward, however. Will Parliament make a clear statement on this war or will it not? Will Parliament be tarred with the same brush as the Council of Ministers or the General Affairs Council or will we achieve a majority tomorrow? I appeal to those who do not want a majority at any price. I urge them to stop and think.
The choice is between two clearly defined positions. One is the stance taken by the coalition of those in favour of the war because they believe it is important and necessary, as has just been stated. They can go ahead and vote for a resolution that might read as follows. Carry on the good work Mr Rumsfeld, or any other like-minded person. Right is on your side. Off you go, in the name of God, liberate the planet and show how to make love without losing one’s virginity. They have every right to do so. The second position involves obtaining a majority in this House to reject war as an option. Such a majority was achieved at the end of January when the war was declared illegal.
Accommodation will be called for in order to obtain a majority against the war. If we are unable to make compromises we shall show ourselves to be as intellectually stunted as the Brussels Council. That is the problem confronting us today. It is actually quite easy to solve. Some state that the war was not sanctioned by the United Nations. Others state it is neither legal nor legitimate. I maintain it all comes to the same thing, and that only honourable Members skilled in hair-splitting could come up with differences in meaning between these various phrases. Obviously, having established that the war does not have the backing of the United Nations, it can be said to lack legitimacy. Consequently if this motion is passed, we will have notched up a victory. That much is plain.
Turning to the text of the resolution, a heated debate is in progress over the form of words. It concerns whether to express deep regret or condemnation of the fact that the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, Italy, Poland and several other states I cannot recall should have unilaterally decided war was justified and gone ahead. In my view, what needs to be made plain in this resolution is that inspections should have been continued and that we are opposed to those who put an end to them and resorted to war. I do not therefore believe it is a matter of vocabulary.
I should like to make one further point quite clear before I conclude. Some Heads of Government are intent on keeping certain lies alive. The reason why the Security Council did not vote for the resolution tabled by the United States, United Kingdom and Spain was not a French or Russian veto. The reason was that there was no moral majority in the Security Council in favour of going to war. That is the plain truth!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples