Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-014"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Order of business2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021021.3.1-014"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-21-Speech-1-0152
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Cohn-bendit2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-09-02--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of December 2001, we voted on a report on strategy and organisation for energy development in the Korean peninsula, as a result of which we decided to participate in civil nuclear development in Korea. Here I would like to mention three points from this report which, given what we have learnt over the past few weeks, are quite interesting. One of the recitals of this report read: ‘whereas the European Union recognised KEDO as a major industrial project constituting a vital contribution to nuclear non-proliferation and peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and, following negotiations with the founder members, signed an agreement’. Nuclear non-proliferation has not been observed, as North Korea has even decided to develop nuclear energy for military purposes, as we have learnt. Furthermore, we have once again, in this highly intelligent report against which the Greens voted – we said that it was impossible for Korea to maintain what it claimed to want to maintain. We said on page 9 of this report, in Article 16, that Parliament ‘stresses, however, that it will continue to push for an appropriate Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) and that it reserves the right to block transfer of funds to KEDO at any point in the future’. The last point I would like to highlight is this: ‘[we stress], in conclusion, that the DPRK will have to show evidence of good faith as the KEDO project progresses, in particular when the final IAEA verification is due’, etc. This means that we need to discuss this matter, that we must call this agreement into question, that we must stop funding the civil nuclear sector in North Korea and that, lastly, we must fund a non-nuclear energy production sector for North Korea. Consequently, we must enter into this debate to do what the Americans have done, namely to stop funding the Korean nuclear sector."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph