Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.1.3-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves.
I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq's chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions.
I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way.
It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples