Criteria for EU peace-keeping operations, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Debate at the plenary session of the European Parliament, Wednesday 22 March 2006 - Brussels
Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, contrary to all reason, the European Union is planning a military deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Officially, it is a question of protecting the integrity of the elections, but something seems to have gone rather wrong in the run-up to the elections. Only 60 candidates have been nominated for 500 parliamentary seats, and the close of nominations is tomorrow evening, Thursday evening that is. The EU is planning to send 1 500 soldiers to Africa’s third largest nation, a country with an authoritarian regime. As one SPD politician from Germany has commented, it is as if 750 soldiers were to land in Europe and claim that would stabilise the whole of Europe.
In military terms this deployment makes no sense at all. So what is the point of sending these troops? The German defence minister Franz Joseph Jung has not minced his words. He has said that it is all about refugee refusal and that stability in regions rich in raw materials is also good for Germany’s economy. CDU MPs in Germany have confirmed this motivation, referring to strategic raw materials such as tungsten and manganese. And the German Government has now decided not to take a decision about military deployment until the beginning of May. The military is making it increasingly clear that it is not in favour of this deployment. The position is relatively clear: once you go into Congo, it is not so easy to withdraw again – this will not just be limited to four months.
The motion for a resolution is not limited geographically and the time limit is only expressed in the vaguest terms. That is why we are asking all Members who are sceptical about this to vote against this motion for a resolution. I will make no bones about this: what is really at stake here is access to raw materials and refugee refusal by military means. As a group of the left we wish to say a very clear ‘no’ to that and we will not be voting for this motion for resolution.
Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, contrary to all reason, the European Union is planning a military deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Officially, it is a question of protecting the integrity of the elections, but something seems to have gone rather wrong in the run-up to the elections. Only 60 candidates have been nominated for 500 parliamentary seats, and the close of nominations is tomorrow evening, Thursday evening that is. The EU is planning to send 1 500 soldiers to Africa’s third largest nation, a country with an authoritarian regime. As one SPD politician from Germany has commented, it is as if 750 soldiers were to land in Europe and claim that would stabilise the whole of Europe.
In military terms this deployment makes no sense at all. So what is the point of sending these troops? The German defence minister Franz Joseph Jung has not minced his words. He has said that it is all about refugee refusal and that stability in regions rich in raw materials is also good for Germany’s economy. CDU MPs in Germany have confirmed this motivation, referring to strategic raw materials such as tungsten and manganese. And the German Government has now decided not to take a decision about military deployment until the beginning of May. The military is making it increasingly clear that it is not in favour of this deployment. The position is relatively clear: once you go into Congo, it is not so easy to withdraw again – this will not just be limited to four months.
The motion for a resolution is not limited geographically and the time limit is only expressed in the vaguest terms. That is why we are asking all Members who are sceptical about this to vote against this motion for a resolution. I will make no bones about this: what is really at stake here is access to raw materials and refugee refusal by military means. As a group of the left we wish to say a very clear ‘no’ to that and we will not be voting for this motion for resolution.
Tobias Pflüger - 2006/07/10 13:15
Trackback URL:
http://tobiaspflueger.twoday.net/stories/2318629/modTrackback