Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-29-Speech-4-052"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-03-29"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Prospects for the EU's Common Foreign Policy in 2007, including the deployment of anti-missile defence systems in Europe by the United States (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070329.5.4-052"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-03-29-Speech-4-0532
lpv:speaker	lp:Bogdan Klich2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-14--2007-11-15)3 chair; Delegation for relations with Belarus (2007-03-14--2007-11-15)3 member; AFET (2007-01-31--2007-11-15)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2007-11-15)3 substitute; SEDE (2007-01-31--2007-11-15)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-11-15)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2007-11-15)3 unknown; Platforma Obywatelska (2004-07-20--2007-11-15)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, my original intention today was to speak about the conditions necessary for the CFSP to function effecrively, but Mr Schulz and Mr Cohn-Bendit's demagogic speeches call for a response and force me to correct certain errors. First of all, a few years ago the Americans transformed the original project into the project. The aim was to place not only the territory of the United States, but also that of the European Union and NATO member states, under this protective shield (or umbrella). It was done at the clear request of Western European countries, including Germany. Where, then, is this wave of criticism coming from? Secondly, we Europeans have, for some years, been building our own European shield, namely the programme (TBMD) If you have any doubts concerning this matter, I would like to refer you to the declaration of the last NATO summit in Riga. It is supposed to be ready by 2010 and somehow neither Mr Schulz nor Mr Cohn-Bendit seem to be protesting against it. Thirdly, Russian objections to the shield are simply another example of the criticism levelled by that country at various American strategic initiatives. Let us remember the wave of criticism levelled at the SDI during the Reagan administration or at the Americans when they withdrew from the ABM Treaty. I ardently support talks with Russia on the subject of the missile defence shield, but I would urge us to remain calm. Fourthly, I am also in favour of debates on the issue in the European Parliament, but we must remember that decisions will rest with the sovereign governments of European states. I would like to ask the Left wing parties and the Greens not to use arguments in this discussion that are not true and not to mislead public opinion. Such an approach may have regrettable consequences. It could lead to deeper divisions within the European Union and to an upsurge of anti-American feeling similar to what we saw in 2002 and 2003."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Missile Defence"1 "National Missile Defence"1 "Theater Ballistic Missile Defence"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph