Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.2.3-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, we have asked for this debate because preparations will shortly be underway for a new discussion round within the framework of the UN about the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the agreement that is opposed to nuclear proliferation. We are pleased that, over the past few months, it has been decided to issue another separate resolution on this subject, on which a vote will be taken during the next plenary sitting. We believe it to be important that the European Union should play a significant role, as it has done before, and to take the lead in the discussion on weapons of mass destruction and particularly on the spread of nuclear weapons and the risks with which we have been faced lately. The subject is very topical in the light of everything that is going on with regard to Iraq, Iran, North Korea and, in the past few weeks, Pakistan with the so-called Khan affair.
As I have already stated, a consultation will also be held at the end of April about the workings of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. To us Social Democrats, there are guiding principles that apply in respect of that discussion: we are in favour of a multilateral approach because there are no unilateral solutions to the problems that face us. All goals of the Non-Proliferation Treaty remain valid, even those of general disarmament. The recognised nuclear weapons powers, as we call them, should set the right example, and we continue to set great store by a total ban on nuclear trials. In addition, we should like to urge those who consider developing new nuclear weapons, the so-called smart nuclear weapons, to discontinue this development. It is right that attention should be paid to what we refer to as the welfare states, and I should like to stress in this respect that we are very much in favour of the approach which the EU recently adopted in terms of Iran, namely to persuade the country to adhere to the agreements and inspections of the Atomic Agency by means of economic, political and diplomatic pressure. At the same time – and we would appreciate reactions from the Council and Commission on this – when the Non-Proliferation Treaty is being reviewed and assessed, thought should be given to ways of improving the inspection and sanctions arrangement. After all, that is the route by means of which we should be able to improve the world situation. Attention should also be paid to the possible harmful role of nuclear weapons states that are not recognised but are left alone in terms of the proliferation of expertise and equipment. I already mentioned the Khan affair very briefly. I should like to have a response to that as well. What have the EU countries done so far in order to avoid practices of this kind? The risks appear to be increasing, even in the former Soviet Union. Initiatives that have been taken have come off the ground only partly, and I would appreciate reactions from the Council and Commission on that score too. Are we simply waiting until something goes wrong, or are we really trying to prevent this?
One final question: needless to say, there has been an interesting development in the Middle East, also recently by the opening in respect of Libya. We are actually able to conclude that Iran is now more or less adhering to the agreements of the NPT. Libya is abandoning its nuclear weapons programme. Iraq appeared not to have them. Is it not time to look at whether we can start a discussion about a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples