Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-017"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation in Iraq2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030514.1.3-017"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-14-Speech-3-0182
lpv:speaker	lp:Jannis Sakellariou2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is only a few weeks since the USA unilaterally decided to attack Iraq. Acting without a UN mandate, the United States began a war of aggression in a flagrant breach of international law. To be precise, it was not the USA alone that initiated the war: a whole string of allies, some of whom acted openly, but others secretly, also joined together in the ‘coalition of the willing’, or perhaps we should say ‘coalition of the compliant’. In addition to the self-appointed occupying powers – the United States, United Kingdom and Poland – the ranks of the coalition of the willing also included such major military powers as Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Kingdom of Tonga. The aim of this war of aggression was, acting in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. There is no legal basis in international law for the attacking forces' additional objective of overthrowing the regime of the dictator Saddam Hussein, nor is there any such provision in the Charter of the United Nations. Nor do I believe that it should be the role of the international community to remove dictators throughout the world by means of warfare. It also leaves a rather unpleasant aftertaste to consider that Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was willing to send umpteen thousand British soldiers into Iraq to hunt down one dictator, while the same Jack Straw, when he was Britain's Home Secretary, decided to release another dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and thereby thus allow him to escape from the clutches of British justice. The USA's unilateral war against Iraq achieved its objective of removing Saddam Hussein's regime. However, the war also resulted in appalling collateral damage: the first immediate victim was the United Nations Organisation and international law, the second was the unity of the European Union and the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the third was NATO, which also received its share of ideological cluster bombs. The new doctrine of preventive war, launched by the chief ideologist, Richard Perle, the Lord of Darkness, has also shaken the foundations of NATO. Among the questions that remain to be answered, Mr President and Mr President-in-Office of the Council, are when this war will end and when the end of the war will be declared. So, firstly, what is the European Union doing to ensure that end to the war is declared? Secondly, where are the weapons of mass destruction on account of which the war was declared? If the Americans are not prepared to tell us what the position on weapons of mass destruction is, then we in Europe should at least tackle them and demand a statement. ( )"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "Applause"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph