Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-29-Speech-3-056"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-01-29"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation in Iraq2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030129.2.3-056"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-01-29-Speech-3-0572
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, I would like to put four questions to this Chamber. Let me start with a photograph that I have seen in the German press, and in the French press as well; it shows the American defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in a friendly way. The photograph was taken at a time when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan's special envoy for relations with the Middle East. Might it be the case that, at that time, Mr Rumsfeld discussed the supply of armaments? Let me put another question. Why will the American administration provide evidence only after 5 February? If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, the United States of America would be under an obligation to produce such evidence at once and supply it to the weapons inspectors. Why only from 5 February onwards? My third question is this. Mrs Stenzel said that the measures needed to deal with North Korea were different from those that are appropriate to Iraq. So let her tell us what they are! Here is one state, North Korea, which announces that it is building atomic weapons. So the United States of America says, ‘We shall negotiate with you.’ Another state apparently possesses weapons of mass destruction, and the response of the United States is to say, ‘We are not negotiating with them; we shall declare war.’ Where is the logic in that, if that is not purely arbitrary? Let me put my last question. Might it not be that the coalition against terrorism, so laboriously forged in the aftermath of 11 September, might be destroyed by a warlike act that had not been thought through beforehand? Might there not be heads of Muslim states, prepared to work together with the Western community of states, but who would not be able to remain in the anti-terror coalition if there were hostilities in Iraq? And might it not be the case that what is advocated by Mrs Stenzel and others – and obviously you, Mr Morillon, as well – might become the greatest campaign for recruiting terrorists that we have seen in recent years? If you can answer all these questions in the negative, then you can count yourselves lucky. I fear that you will have to answer them with ‘yes’, and that is why my government is right to say that what this region needs is more peace, rather than war, of which it has already had enough."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "(Interruptions)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph