Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-30-Speech-3-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080130.18.3-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is not the first time that we have discussed this issue; it is also not the first time that we have had the same answers from the Council, which says that it has no competence here, as does the Commission, although – and I must congratulate the Commissioner for this – she did say at the end that things need to be organised differently in the European Union.
If something happens that affects the security of all Europeans, and that comes under the security strategy that Mr Solana described to us, we need to be able to talk to each other about it. Parliament fortunately is able to talk about it. This is an issue that concerns both the citizens and the Member States of the European Union, so we feel it is entirely proper that it should be on the agenda.
I do not intend to go back over all the objections that our Group has already voiced against this plan that the Americans have come up with. What we think is wrong is that bilateral negotiations are going on with two NATO Member States which – coincidentally or otherwise – are also Member States of the European Union, and this affects relations with Russia, including the European Union’s relations with it. It is also wrong that the system is being developed unilaterally, albeit within NATO, and that it has not been clearly explained exactly why the system is necessary, whether it will work and whether it is becoming too costly.
There is an interesting debate going on in Poland at the moment, where the new government has said that it may be prepared to cooperate on the system, but that this is because it is what the Americans want and because it is America’s security at stake rather than Poland’s. After all, the system is actually more of a threat than an improvement to Poland’s security. This is why the Poles are also asking for more help with developing air defences for the Polish army, for example, creating a sort of arms race.
So it is interesting that the debate has restarted in Poland on whether the system is useful or necessary, and that the new Polish prime minister or at least the Polish foreign minister has had the guts to talk to Russia about it. We wholeheartedly support this.
The situation is rather different in the Czech Republic, where we have the impression that the system and the Czech contribution to it are being pushed through against the will of the people, since I believe that 70% of Czechs are against the development of the system. I therefore fear that there are moves afoot to push through decisions this year, to conclude agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic, before a new administration – hopefully – takes over in the United States. We know that the democrats are fairly sceptical about developing the Air Missile System
In any event, we hope that there will be a discussion in the Council, and we urge that this issue be taken very seriously. If it goes through, it is bound to have an impact on our already difficult relationship with Russia. The public are anxious. What we have is a new arms race, and there are a number of other things that we think the European Parliament simply has to speak out about. We have done so in the past, and we should carry on doing it.
I think that our main role is to see whether this is necessary, whether it is the start of a new arms race, whether it really will improve security and whether it really will help us to combat the ‘rogue states’. I am still not convinced that the Iranians will have the capacity to fire missiles as quickly as the Americans claim. This is something else we have had contradictory information about. So I hope that we can take the discussion forward on this issue here in Parliament, and also monitor what is happening in the Czech Republic and Poland. My Group remains opposed to the system."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples