Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-23-Speech-4-101"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031023.2.4-101"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
The rapporteur, Mr Brok, levels the accusation that the Council’s report on foreign policy in 2002 is just a book-keeping exercise listing action, without opinions on objectives, priorities or the meeting of costs. In his report, he takes the opportunity to himself express what the Council omits to say. When talking about influence over neighbouring regions, he makes no distinction between possible future EU Member States in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union on the one hand, and desired spheres of influence in West Africa and the Middle East on the other. The EU’s capacity for action would be benefited by the abolition of the principle of unanimity of the Member States and by increased power for the future European Foreign Minister. A powerful, united European superstate is a major contributor to the United Nations, which must be radically reformed, partly for the sake of European interests. From 2004, a European intervention force should have a 5000-man force permanently available for rescue and humanitarian operations, which, by 2009, should be ready to fight in wars elsewhere in Europe according to the Kosovo model. A united front with the USA is desirable. I thank Mr Brok for his clarity. Since his model differs substantially from my beliefs, I shall be voting against this report, although I do agree with him on one point. Omission to combat the human rights violations in Chechnya on the part of the EU will result in the formation of a new seed-bed for widespread terrorism."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples