Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.1.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, one might wonder whether we are in Parliament or whether we are listening to continuous CNN propaganda.
What has been said about Saddam Hussein could be said about countless other heads of State the world over. We are well aware, since we are the representatives of the nation States, that the Member States are, by nature, cold-hearted monsters, so cold-hearted that they only very rarely back down in the face of war, especially when seeing where they stand in the power stakes leads them to assume an imperial mindset, which is the case today of the United States which is fuelling potential conflict situations, throughout the world, in the simple, albeit acknowledged aim of achieving world domination. This is absolute madness, because let there be no doubt, it is not the United Nations that is waging war, it is the Empire. Imperialism equates to war.
In order to prevent Member States engaging on this slippery slope, a few rules were drawn up through the ages, which, in the twentieth century, took on the name of collective security. Unfortunately, in the same way as the efforts of The Hague were scuppered in 1905 by the First World War, the efforts of the League of Nations were scuppered by the ‘Imperial’ and not the ‘National’; the Imperial Hitler Socialism and, more specifically, its preventative wars, particularly in the Sudeten region. In 1948, we had to start again from scratch. That was the task of the UN founders and of the UN Charter, which now forms the backbone of any international order.
In our book, war is banned. War is only permitted in specific cases, framed by stringent rules which assume, on the one hand, the support of the Security Council and, on the other hand, the monitoring of military operations by a major multinational State, itself placed under the authority of the Security Council.
We are brushing all that aside today
We are completely brushing aside international law. This is an enormous breach of the law. We are now in the middle of a discussion to determine whether we shall condemn a State which is, led by its own President, contravening international law, whereas Europe should quite simply condemn it, not simply out of pity – and I did indeed say pity, speaking as a Christian – for a nation, which has, for ten years, been suffering genuine martyrdom and upon which we are turning our backs because it reminds us of our own powerlessness, but we must, above all, think of the very concept of law, with which Europe has become synonymous for centuries. It is this concept that the United States is now disregarding, thus opening the door to new acts of barbarism.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Watson is right: the Council’s position does not surprise us because, as illustrated so well by Mr Pasqua earlier, there is no more of a common foreign and security policy than a common policy in Europe. Our positions will never be similar, but Europe should, at the very least, remember that it has become synonymous, as has France, with the concept of law and this is much to its credit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples