Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-155"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-01-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Work programme of the Greek Presidency2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030114.5.2-155"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-01-14-Speech-2-1562
lpv:speaker	lp:Martin Schulz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 vice-chair; PES (2002-03-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, much has been said about policy relating to Iraq, to most of which I do not need to add anything, but I would like, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to address two remarks to you. There appears to be broad agreement in this House that Resolution 1441 does not automatically result in military action, but rather that, in the light of the weapons inspectors' reports, any further action must be subject to a resolution by the Security Council. It is important that the presidency should also say this on behalf of the EU, and so I ask you to take the initiative by stating this here and now. That you should do so is made all the more important by the powerful impression that the United States of America takes a different view, and we do indeed need to state what our differences with them are. They do indeed believe – and how else is the deployment of 100 000 troops in the region to be explained? – that Resolution 1441 does not exclude the possibility of immediate military strike action, but there is also the implicit danger that international law, to which nations are subject, and by which alone world peace can be guaranteed on a long-term basis, will be jeopardised by unilateral power-seeking on the part of one UN member state. This is where the European Union has to state its position in clear terms, the primary reason for this being that international law cannot be enforced in an arbitrary and opportunistic way. In the case of North Korea, against which there is a mass of evidence that it is desirous or capable of producing weapons of mass destruction – and its actions suggest that this is the case – negotiations are in progress, and yet it is Saddam Hussein who is threatened, despite the presence of a host of inspectors in his country, who have found nothing. I might add that this threat is not justified under the UN Charter. Bringing this difference between us into the open is one of the primary tasks of the European Union and of its Greek Presidency, and I know that you are determined to do this. You can count on the support of the Group of the Party of European Socialists in this House!"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph