Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.20.3-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree entirely with the conclusions expressed by the Minister, who is representing the Presidency.
There are some other middle paths. In this context I heard somebody mention a ‘no-fly zone’; that is a measure that could be explored, adopted and proposed. You realise that, if we proposed action under Article 7 to the Security Council, China, like it or not, would probably use its veto and so nothing would happen. I wonder, therefore, whether it might not be better to work on an initiative – which might not solve the problem but it would help – such as stopping aircraft from overflying the area and killing people with bombs and air strikes. That is another concrete possibility.
I shall end my speech with two remarks. First, President Barroso and my colleague Louis Michel will be going to Khartoum. They will be sending the highest echelons of the Sudanese Government a strong message explaining that the European Union intends to take strong diplomatic action, as well as action on the ground to help the people who are suffering. The message will refer to the isolation to which Sudan would be consigned if it continued to refuse to listen to the international community. Such isolation would be particularly devastating for Sudan itself: being isolated from the rest of the international community would not be in Khartoum’s interests; that, then, ladies and gentlemen, would take away President Bashir’s excuse for maintaining such a negative attitude.
Another very important point that the Commission’s action will address is the role of women and children. We talk about this subject all the time here in Europe: we worry about the victims of human trafficking and forced prostitution and we have even set out a European roadmap for children’s rights. Naturally, we cannot shut our eyes to the rights of women and children outside Europe in such a tragic case as Darfur.
Personally, therefore, I hope that this Parliament will stand firm in its measures on Darfur precisely so as to provide special protection for women and children, who are, as always, the victims most at risk.
I do not think anyone in this Chamber is in any doubt about the catastrophic scale of the Darfur tragedy, just as there cannot be any doubt that it really is genocide. Today's debate, however, touches on a much more general political problem that is extremely important for this Parliament and for the European Union’s institutions in general: the Union’s role as the promoter and defender of fundamental rights outside its borders.
We often wonder whether the European Union can and must (I personally think it can and it must) be a standard-bearer throughout the world for the fundamental rights primarily of respect for human dignity – human dignity that has been utterly destroyed in the Darfur tragedy. For it to play that role, however, the great political debate that we must address is how Europe can take these values beyond its borders and uphold them when there are other parties like the Sudanese Government, which tolerates and encourages fundamentalism and the most violent, horrible excesses committed by the militias. Well, many of you have said in no uncertain terms, ‘Let us go in with troops and weapons to implement Article 7; let us send in a military force that can use force to put an end to this catastrophic situation.’
I am well aware that this is one of the options provided for in the international treaties, but then I remember that, when promoting human rights around the world, we Europeans have often talked of guaranteeing the so-called principle of ownership: in other words, we cannot decide here in Strasbourg or Brussels on the right path for another country or continent to follow and simply impose it on them. We have to work with the local institutions and, in my view, the first part of the solution will be to work with the African Union, strengthening its role and ensuring that it gets the practical help it needs. We do not want Europe to be seen as aloof one moment and suddenly in there the next, deploying troops and weaponry and playing a role that, if anything, the African Union ought to be consolidating and strengthening.
As the Presidency has just pointed out, that is the first step. The second step along this path will be to provide logistical assistance on the ground. That is a job that we – the European Union and its institutions – can do, and the Commission can also provide economic aid. How can we guarantee that the humanitarian aid will actually reach its intended destination: the suffering population and the NGO workers on the ground who are risking their lives? Logistical assistance on the ground is thus another area where we, the European Union, can make a difference.
The third step, which has not really been given enough weight by some people, is how to work with the Arab League. Ladies and gentlemen, we come up against the sensitivities of Islamic or Arab countries in many parts of the world. In some cases they are our staunch allies, as in the fight against terrorism, for instance. In other cases they prove so extremely sensitive that it is advisable for us to reach agreements before intervening.
What is the difference between Darfur and Lebanon? The difference is that in the case of Lebanon there was an agreement, and the troops went in as peacekeepers because the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government both accepted it. The Sudanese Government, on the other hand, still rejects the idea. Do you believe that it would be possible to intervene unilaterally without a strong role for the Arab League? Do you not think that, without a strong role for the Arab League, such action would send out an extremely negative signal to that enormous population – which unfortunately harbours the most fundamentalist ideas in the world? Would that not strengthen the extremists and fundamentalists, who would then have a further argument in their propaganda arsenal?
The third part of the solution, therefore, is the Arab League. We are working to encourage the Arab League to distance itself from the Government of Sudan and to withdraw its consent and support; as you know, this is happening to a certain extent, but we have to do more along these lines.
Then there is another point that somebody mentioned: what if the Khartoum Government does not listen to the international community? I have always been of the opinion that military action must only be used as a last resort, even if humanitarian intervention is justified under Article 7 of the Treaty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples