Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.4.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
From the very outset, the joint resolution adopts a paternalistic tone in its assessment that the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire ‘cannot be attributed solely to the ethnic factor’ – which, in any case, attaches value to the factor in question. Is it not, though, the neo-liberalisation of the Ivorian economy, the reduced prices for raw materials and the consequent impoverishment of the people, the way in which multinational companies openly set Ivorian neo-colonial factions against each other, that have enabled speeches about ‘
’ to find an audience, and facilitated
?
The joint resolution has nothing to say about the need to withdraw the French peacekeeping troops; the historic links between the army, French businesses, and the political class in Côte d'Ivoire and the neighbouring states mean that the French army and foreign office cannot be regarded as neutral, so the involvement of other actors needs to be encouraged. This at once weakens many of the points in the Linas-Marcoussis agreement. The best policy for preventing conflicts is to eradicate their causes, and, in this instance, those who started the fires are no good at putting them out. There is a need to get away from the profoundly anti-democratic, neo-colonialist way of thinking in order to move towards another form of cooperation between Europe and Africa. I therefore abstained from voting on a resolution that does not get to grips with these problems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples