Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-10-Speech-3-324"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-03-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU policy on Arctic issues (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100310.22.3-324"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-03-10-Speech-3-3252
lpv:speaker	lp:Søren Bo Søndergaard2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-02-04)3 substitute; IMCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-02-04)3 unknown; Folkebevægelsen mod EU (2009-07-14--2014-02-04)3 member; CONT (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2014-02-04)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there are many good reasons for discussing the Arctic. A number of them have been mentioned. There is the question of climate change, in that the Arctic region has been hard hit by global warming. There is the question of natural resources, in that the Arctic region offers enormous riches. Then there is the question of the opening of the northern maritime route, which entails totally new transport patterns. However, the crucial question for my group is from what angle we should approach the Arctic. Should our starting point be all the advantages, in a narrow sense, which the EU can get from the Arctic region? Or should our starting point be how the development of the Arctic region can benefit the global community – while at the same time, let us not forget, fully respecting the right to self-determination of the Arctic people? A key test of this question lies in the position we take: should we work towards the Arctic becoming an area where a new arms race can be allowed to flourish – Russia has played an active part here and others have followed – or should the Arctic, like the Antarctic, be a demilitarised area? Obviously, there is a difference between the North Pole and the South Pole, the Arctic and the Antarctic. However, it is interesting that we have succeeded in forging a treaty on the Antarctic, in which we have ruled out military presence and stipulated that this region may only be used for peaceful purposes. The major issue facing the Commission is whether it should work towards making the Arctic a demilitarised area, and should that be the case, which specific initiatives it should take in that direction."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph