Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.19.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this was a very useful debate in a difficult situation. We will study your recommendations very carefully, because the preparatory conference in Vienna gives us an important opportunity to better prepare for the 2010 conference and thus, hopefully, make up for a very difficult conference in 2005.
We know that the seriousness and the importance of the situation as regards non-proliferation goes far beyond what is commonly known among our citizens. We conclude also from recent Eurobarometer surveys that our people want positive action. I agree with Mr Zappalà and Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck when they say that the agreement on the importance of the link between weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and terrorism is necessary. This has to be stressed in the European security strategy, and it is being stressed, but we now have to implement it in the right way.
It is also my conviction that the efforts of the European Parliament to promote coherence and more joint action are absolutely crucial. Everyone has mentioned that speaking with one voice is also crucial. Therefore, the Commission needs your valuable support to maximise its impact with regard to the common objective. Certainly, we will contribute to the work that will be done in Vienna because this will enhance our credibility, as many have said.
I should also like to thank Mr Pirker and Parliament’s delegation, particularly with regard to North Korea. I agree that North Korea is important not only in itself but also as a possible window of opportunity for progress elsewhere. However, we are still committed to never giving up as long as that is possible.
In our headlines, we see the non-proliferation issues mostly referred to with reference to individual countries. However, let us not lose sight of the importance of the issue, as Mr Schulz has said, of the international system as a whole on the multilateral approach and effectiveness.
The most important four principles we should try to enhance again at the Preparatory Committee and then at the next review conference are as follows. Firstly, the question of the non-parties: I think there are three states which have so far refused to adhere to the treaty. Let us try to bring them in. Secondly, on the withdrawals in January 2003, the DPRK announced that it intended to withdraw from the NPT – it was the first state to do so. Several states believe that the DPRK is still legally bound by the treaty and has not followed the correct legal procedures to withdraw. Let us try to tackle this question on non-compliant parties. Some states which acceded to the NNWS have, nevertheless, sought to acquire nuclear weapons in the past and this, therefore, needs to be tackled.
Finally, there is the question of good faith. It has been mentioned a lot around the table that most non-nuclear weapons states believe the nuclear weapons states have not done enough to make progress towards the goal of nuclear disarmament – Article 6. I think this should be the main bone of our contention at the five-yearly review conferences. We also see, therefore that a broad basis for a consensus is necessary, and all the big countries, like Russia and China, should be included in such a dialogue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples