Intervention
full and Gaspar Llamazares replica of the Prime Minister during the Special Plenary (03/22/2011).
Lord President of the Government, on behalf of the United Left I say 'No'. Mr. President, who has seen and who sees! Once after the banner of 'No to War': no \u200b\u200bwar in Iraq, and later with the other, but ... the war in Afghanistan, and now leading the coalition of Paris, recalling all the other coalition: coalition the Azores.
But I say 'No' to this statement, 'No War' because the arguments of the intervention, although it has, unlike Iraq, a United Nations mandate, they are not human rights, not democracy in Libya, because neither human rights nor democracy are exported. Neither human rights nor impose democracy through war. On the contrary, the interests, strategic interests, political and economic interests in Libya and, above all, opens a new stage in international politics, and I do not like. I hate this new era where everyone sets their 'backyard' and that 'backyard' governs with the support of others or with the consent or abstention of others: we in the Mediterranean Russia in its environment, China in his, and the United States at all. Mr. Prime Minister, this is not multilateralism, that is not also democratic future for world government.
Lord President of the Government, it is not true, it is hypocritical to talk of human rights. There are currently 32 conflicts in the world almost the same, with very similar characteristics to that of Libya, where a despotic government, a tyrant who oppresses his people and in many cases, exterminate part of his people, tribe or who thinks differently than him, and though it would be sheer madness that international politics was the use of war to eliminate these situations. It would be folly because it would lead to global conflict. For this is not done. So other measures are taken.
Why do we do in the case of Libya? Why in the case of Libya in place policy measures that have been made in the first resolution, and say hurriedly hurriedly in the second resolution go directly to military intervention? Because Libya plays an important role in North Africa and the Mediterranean, and because we want to govern changes in the Mediterranean to our accommodation. Let us be clear: we want to govern the changes that are taking place, channeling, control, and we also want to know and ensure the future of energy in the Mediterranean.
is not the responsibility to protect, ladies and gentlemen. This is the right to control, that is the question: the right to control our space, the right to control in our backyard, in our opinion it can not be done through war. Ladies and gentlemen, if it were a human rights issue, one must know that war, military intervention, excluding the airspace cause more suffering, and have the experience, "causing more displacement, festering situations and the clashes and difficult the solution of conflicts.
Why have since this strategy? Because our goal, as I said before, there are human rights, our goal is the defense and geostrategic interests. And, in my opinion, even for this purpose less 'holy' strategic interests and strategy of war is also wrong.
ladies and gentlemen, we propose, by contrast, are maintained in other cases policies have been successful, and I remember South Africa. South Africa was not bombed, nor do we bombard Palestine, Morocco bomb nor the Sahara, or Burma. Do not think any of those things. What we can do is to make maximum use of civilian means of the international community: to block the accounts of the tyrants, also seizing weapons that have no means to suppress their people and take steps to isolate these regimes politically. These measures were successful in the case of South Africa, have also been successful in other countries and not have to make things difficult in the case of Libya.
finish by referring to something I think is very important. Look how we have devalued the things we've gone from NATO! and No to war! to yes to this war and to lead. Devalue the authorization House and became a mere ratification. This shows how things are devalued, but-and end-also demonstrates our own hypocrisy. It is the Odyssey, or, if the Odyssey, we're not going to Troy to Ithaca, we are going backwards, from Ithaca to Troy. Thank you very much.
LLAMAZARES TIME TO REPLY Zapatero RESPUSTA
Mr Prime Minister, the words are not innocent, and you said that my speech has been aggressive. Here the only aggressive the dictator against his own people. What I've done has been a critical intervention. You said also that I have caricatured position. You mine. You have fought with windmills but wanted to transform into giants.
Lord President of the Government, I said that specifically to combat the violation of human rights to also fight for democracy in North Africa, the war-where we are, in a resolution that is white letter goes fly-military intervention is the worst method, because it increases the suffering of the population because the situation fester and ultimately it does not allow a political solution.
But say the same thing I said and I have not responded. He said, first Resolution: blockade, embargo; second resolution after one month: because they do not directly military intervention. Will you do the same with all those who break the first United Nations resolutions? Is that the way to Myanmar? Is that the way to Israel on Palestine? Is that the way to Morocco in relation to the Sahara? Is it the way? I think it would be wrong, despite my profound disagreement with these regimes also exterminated and beat their sister nations or peoples. I think the mechanism should be very different. He recalled in particular the case of South Africa, where the embargo, the embargo and international isolation were hard and difficult, but today South Africa is a consolidated democracy and a future. In my view, that values \u200b\u200bthe diplomacy of values \u200b\u200band detract from the diplomacy of the cannon.
Honor, finished with Afghanistan. I told her yes, but ... 'in Afghanistan because you was the one who said we were leaving Enduring Freedom and ISAF were still on. That is 'yes but', that is, yes I am in Afghanistan but I am not fully in Enduring Freedom. Yes, it has been, I have starred in such discussions with you during this term, but if you do not remember no problem.
wanted
pose a final question regarding the position of the presidents of the Government to end their legislatures. I really do not know what happens, they lose contact with people, and people in this country is peace, and that it only accountable to history.
Lord President of the Government, on behalf of the United Left I say 'No'. Mr. President, who has seen and who sees! Once after the banner of 'No to War': no \u200b\u200bwar in Iraq, and later with the other, but ... the war in Afghanistan, and now leading the coalition of Paris, recalling all the other coalition: coalition the Azores.
But I say 'No' to this statement, 'No War' because the arguments of the intervention, although it has, unlike Iraq, a United Nations mandate, they are not human rights, not democracy in Libya, because neither human rights nor democracy are exported. Neither human rights nor impose democracy through war. On the contrary, the interests, strategic interests, political and economic interests in Libya and, above all, opens a new stage in international politics, and I do not like. I hate this new era where everyone sets their 'backyard' and that 'backyard' governs with the support of others or with the consent or abstention of others: we in the Mediterranean Russia in its environment, China in his, and the United States at all. Mr. Prime Minister, this is not multilateralism, that is not also democratic future for world government.
Lord President of the Government, it is not true, it is hypocritical to talk of human rights. There are currently 32 conflicts in the world almost the same, with very similar characteristics to that of Libya, where a despotic government, a tyrant who oppresses his people and in many cases, exterminate part of his people, tribe or who thinks differently than him, and though it would be sheer madness that international politics was the use of war to eliminate these situations. It would be folly because it would lead to global conflict. For this is not done. So other measures are taken.
Why do we do in the case of Libya? Why in the case of Libya in place policy measures that have been made in the first resolution, and say hurriedly hurriedly in the second resolution go directly to military intervention? Because Libya plays an important role in North Africa and the Mediterranean, and because we want to govern changes in the Mediterranean to our accommodation. Let us be clear: we want to govern the changes that are taking place, channeling, control, and we also want to know and ensure the future of energy in the Mediterranean.
is not the responsibility to protect, ladies and gentlemen. This is the right to control, that is the question: the right to control our space, the right to control in our backyard, in our opinion it can not be done through war. Ladies and gentlemen, if it were a human rights issue, one must know that war, military intervention, excluding the airspace cause more suffering, and have the experience, "causing more displacement, festering situations and the clashes and difficult the solution of conflicts.
Why have since this strategy? Because our goal, as I said before, there are human rights, our goal is the defense and geostrategic interests. And, in my opinion, even for this purpose less 'holy' strategic interests and strategy of war is also wrong.
ladies and gentlemen, we propose, by contrast, are maintained in other cases policies have been successful, and I remember South Africa. South Africa was not bombed, nor do we bombard Palestine, Morocco bomb nor the Sahara, or Burma. Do not think any of those things. What we can do is to make maximum use of civilian means of the international community: to block the accounts of the tyrants, also seizing weapons that have no means to suppress their people and take steps to isolate these regimes politically. These measures were successful in the case of South Africa, have also been successful in other countries and not have to make things difficult in the case of Libya.
finish by referring to something I think is very important. Look how we have devalued the things we've gone from NATO! and No to war! to yes to this war and to lead. Devalue the authorization House and became a mere ratification. This shows how things are devalued, but-and end-also demonstrates our own hypocrisy. It is the Odyssey, or, if the Odyssey, we're not going to Troy to Ithaca, we are going backwards, from Ithaca to Troy. Thank you very much.
LLAMAZARES TIME TO REPLY Zapatero RESPUSTA
Mr Prime Minister, the words are not innocent, and you said that my speech has been aggressive. Here the only aggressive the dictator against his own people. What I've done has been a critical intervention. You said also that I have caricatured position. You mine. You have fought with windmills but wanted to transform into giants.
Lord President of the Government, I said that specifically to combat the violation of human rights to also fight for democracy in North Africa, the war-where we are, in a resolution that is white letter goes fly-military intervention is the worst method, because it increases the suffering of the population because the situation fester and ultimately it does not allow a political solution.
But say the same thing I said and I have not responded. He said, first Resolution: blockade, embargo; second resolution after one month: because they do not directly military intervention. Will you do the same with all those who break the first United Nations resolutions? Is that the way to Myanmar? Is that the way to Israel on Palestine? Is that the way to Morocco in relation to the Sahara? Is it the way? I think it would be wrong, despite my profound disagreement with these regimes also exterminated and beat their sister nations or peoples. I think the mechanism should be very different. He recalled in particular the case of South Africa, where the embargo, the embargo and international isolation were hard and difficult, but today South Africa is a consolidated democracy and a future. In my view, that values \u200b\u200bthe diplomacy of values \u200b\u200band detract from the diplomacy of the cannon.
Honor, finished with Afghanistan. I told her yes, but ... 'in Afghanistan because you was the one who said we were leaving Enduring Freedom and ISAF were still on. That is 'yes but', that is, yes I am in Afghanistan but I am not fully in Enduring Freedom. Yes, it has been, I have starred in such discussions with you during this term, but if you do not remember no problem.
wanted
pose a final question regarding the position of the presidents of the Government to end their legislatures. I really do not know what happens, they lose contact with people, and people in this country is peace, and that it only accountable to history.
0 comments:
Post a Comment