Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-15-Speech-4-235"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Uzbekistan (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071115.24.4-235"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-15-Speech-4-2362
lpv:speaker	lp:Erik Meijer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFET (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Socialistische Partij (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; EUL/NGL (2004-11-14--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; DROI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, Uzbekistan is in need of radical change. The initial impetus in this direction was nipped in the bud on 13 May 2005, with brute force that claimed the lives of hundreds of demonstrators. Since then, the outside world has remained silent for a conspicuously long time. Little happened initially following our earlier topical and urgent debate on 27 October 2005. Yet it was not only in better-known states such as Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus that authoritarian regimes took power following the collapse of the Soviet Union; this was particularly also the case in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. There, it was not democracy that had triumphed, but a small group of people who had gained experience in the old state apparatus and the security forces. Having no objective other than to stay in power, these people turned state enterprises into their own private property, manipulated electoral results, gave the opposition as little leeway as possible, hampered free organisations, restricted the press and, if need be, used violence against their own people. Sadly, this state of affairs persists in Uzbekistan. To date, Europe’s attitude towards Uzbekistan is influenced far too much by economic and military interests. It appears that the dictatorship in Uzbekistan has been allowed to stay on because it proved itself useful in the military intervention in Afghanistan. Such an attitude would completely destroy the credibility of Europe’s pretensions with regard to human rights and democracy. Europe must not make the rights and freedoms of the Uzbeks secondary to other considerations."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph