Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.8.3-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I have to say that there is much in the Brok report that we can support, in particular the importance attached to enlargement of the European Union.
However we have concerns in particular about the nature of common European security and defence policy. I say this in spite of the mass of apparent reassurances on this subject that have miraculously been generated in the past few days. If the proposed European capabilities were indeed designed to reinforce NATO or the options for the alliance, we would have few difficulties. But this is not the case.
The Union is bent on establishing an autonomous capability in pursuit of European political integration. Mr Richard says he does not want to compete with NATO but he does want to compete with America in the security policy arena. Among other ambitions, Mr Brok proposes that the European Union should set its military operational sights on a zone of instability in Asia, from Afghanistan to the China sea. He mentioned Kashmir – I find this alarming.
The Lalumière report wants EU military operations to be funded from the Community budget and even those not participating would be expected to pay up as well. There is a proposal to turn to Russia for long-range air transport and yesterday the Russians suggested common intelligence-gathering with the European Union. There are some here who would prefer Russia rather than America as a strategic partner. Mrs Lalumière and Mr Brok want EU defence policy to be under the control of a Vice-President of the Commission, who would assume the CFSP responsibilities of the Secretary-General of the Council. Under this scheme the Commission would run defence policy.
This is all barmy stuff. The Commission should concentrate on its civil external assistance programmes, military matters should be left to the nations on an intergovernmental basis.
Let NATO first decide how it would deal with a crisis and then, if required, Europeans, having developed greater capability, could indeed assume responsibility for a particular task, as agreed in NATO four years ago. Let us not pretend that the present proposals have this in mind."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples