Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-192"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.5.3-192"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, as has already been said, I believe it is desirable for Europe and the United States to work together in partnership. It stands to reason. All this rhetoric about partnership should not mean, however, that we evade the choices Europe has to make and the difficulty we are faced with at present. Contrary to what some honourable Members have said, we in Europe are not responsible for the erosion of the type of historic links we have with the United States.
We are having to deal with a very particular type of administration. It was extremely unilateralist from the outset. Initially, however, it did not adopt a particularly interventionist line. One section of the administration used the trauma of 11 September to impose its own unilateralist and extremely interventionist agenda which predated those terrible events. Faced with this situation, Europe has a decision to make. On the one hand, it could be argued that nothing can be done to counter the will of the United States, given the power it has on the world stage. In that case, there would be nothing to do except to give in to the United States and to go along with them, even when it comes to lies and exposing ourselves to ridicule, just like those who tried to make us believe that intervening in Iraq was justified because weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat. If we were to go down that road, Mr Elles’ proposal would make sense. It amounts to a free trade zone or in other words a new version of the Transatlantic Market Place. We must, however, bear in mind that this would mean setting aside the Union’s common external trade policy. The creation of this huge market would amount to the United States annexing the European Economic Area. Decisions would be taken in Washington. The United States would not be willing to allow Europe to have its say in decision-making on this issue.
On the other hand, we could take the view that Europe has things to say on the world stage and a vision to promote of a world order based on the rule of law. This vision would entail fairer relations between the North and the South. In our view this is important if we are to create a world order that offers everyone greater security. If this is what we want to do, this is not the time to toe the line. It is the time to promote a common foreign and defence policy. There is a paradox here in that Mr Elles said we need to strengthen the common foreign and defence policy while at the same time suggesting we make certain concessions to the United States.
In my opinion, if we believe we should promote the statute of Rome and an International Criminal Court, if we believe that we should argue for the Kyoto agreements, the non-proliferation treaty and the end of atomic testing, we must assert our independence. Relations between the European Union and the United States must be rebuilt on the basis of this independence. Our American friends will have to accept this. The current US administration will not last forever and I believe that our friendship will win out in the end."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples