Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-107"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Main aspects and basic choices of CFSP2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031022.5.3-107"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-22-Speech-3-1082
lpv:speaker	lp:Joost Lagendijk2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (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 chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-02-26--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, according to my group, a crucial element in the Brok report is the realisation that the European Union is, and should be, an important player on the world stage. However, if that is what the European Union does, it should do so in a way that is different from the United States. The European Union should not try to be a military superpower, but, I would say, a civil superpower. These points are hammered home in the report, and rightly. Our strengths should lie in diplomacy, trade and conflict prevention. These are, and remain, the core elements of common foreign policy. And let there be no misunderstanding about this: a military capacity forms part of this. The European Union should be capable of doing more than it is doing at the moment, but it should be capable of doing something other than the United States. This means, for example, that the first priority should be, as is stated in the report, to build our own rapid intervention force and not to focus on a NATO Rapid Response Force. This also means – and on that score I do not see eye to eye with the Commissioner – that more effective spending of what we are paying out on defence at the moment should be Priority Number One. I cannot explain to my electors that we need to spend more on defence if they know that current spending is so very inefficient. Anyone following the discussion in the media could be forgiven for thinking that the essence of the discussion between the EU and NATO was about headquarters. Let us be quite clear about this: it is not about headquarters. The United States is frightened that the European Union will develop its own, alternative view, and will come up with an alternative analysis of what security is – an analysis and a strategy that will deviate from those of the United States. I urge you not to be deterred by this resistance from the other side of the ocean. The United States does not benefit from having an obedient follower. It does, however, benefit from having a confident partner with its own vision. This means that parliamentary democratic control should form part of this vision. We can talk as much as we like about any vision whatsoever, but, if there is no Parliamentary monitoring in place, and if finances are the only concern from start to finish, then this vision will not become reality."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph