Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 9 October 2002 - Brussels OJ edition

5. Situation in Iraq
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – We will move on to the next item on the agenda, the statements by the Council and the Commission on the situation in Iraq.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council.(DA) Mr President, I should like to thank you for the opportunity once again to discuss this very topical and difficult subject with the European Parliament. As I said during the last questions on Iraq on 3 and 4 September, this debate comes at a time when there is a lot of international attention and debate on policy in relation to Iraq.

When I was last here, I reported in broad outline on developments in the situation since the Gulf War. I emphasised that the EU’s position is clear. It was expressed in a declaration by the Presidency on 20 May of this year, stating that the EU is calling upon Iraq to comply with the resolutions without delay including, specifically, the resolution whereby the weapons inspectors would be able to return, as anticipated in Security Council Resolution 1284. In this connection, the EU is well disposed towards the meetings between representatives of the UN and Iraq. We unreservedly support all the efforts on the part of the Security Council and the UN Secretary-General. This attitude was confirmed at the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on 30 and 31 August in Elsinore and also at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 30 September and 1 October in Brussels. The EU also welcomes the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1409 of 14 May, that is to say the resolution on the revision of the oil for food programme.

With what I have just said in mind, I want today to talk mainly about current developments in connection with Iraq and to concentrate on the Security Council negotiations concerning a new resolution, as well as on the negotiations with Iraq concerning the return of the weapons inspectors.

The permanent members of the Security Council are currently engaged in negotiations concerning a new resolution on Iraq, based on an American draft. The United States wants to see a resolution that tightens up the demands made of Iraq in earlier resolutions, making them more specific; that sets earlier deadlines for Iraq’s compliance with the demands; and that provides a mandate for a possible military intervention in the event of Iraq’s not meeting the demands. The United States has stated that it wants the weapons inspectors to have unconditional access to all areas, including the so-called presidential palaces.

Two subjects are absolutely crucial, namely the issue of a renewed mandate from the Security Council on the use of force, and unconditional, free and unfettered access by the weapons inspectors to all installations and areas in Iraq, including the presidential areas, which is to say the palaces.

We in the EU are satisfied with the Iraq issue’s remaining on the agenda of the UN Security Council. The hope is that the Security Council will reach an agreed position on the matter.

On 30 September and 1 October in Vienna, the chief UN weapons inspector, in the form of the Swede Hans Blix, together with the Director-General of the IAEA, Dr El Baradei, who is responsible for the investigations into Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme, met representatives of the Iraqi Government to discuss the practical arrangements in connection with the unconditional return of the weapons inspectors. Agreement has apparently been reached on a range of issues, based upon the demands made of Iraq in the Security Council resolutions already adopted. The issue of access to the presidential areas is still unresolved, however.

In addition, there are outstanding issues concerning the ways and means of the weapons inspectors’ return, such as the way in which the Iraqis are to be questioned by UNMOVIC, that is to say the UN weapons inspectorate, and the way in which UNMOVIC is to report back. The weapons inspectors will presumably not be sent to Iraq until a new resolution has been adopted and accepted by Iraq.

It is still too early to establish the content of a new resolution. It is crucial, however, for an inspection regime that is effective and credible to be established. The EU attaches importance to going down the UN route, both in order to secure broad international support for the disarmament of Iraq and with a view to the credibility and effectiveness of the Security Council and of multilateral cooperation. Against that background, it is encouraging that, in his speech yesterday, the American President, George Bush, again emphasised the United States’s readiness to go down the UN route.

So much has been said. I should like here finally to say that it would of course have been better if this debate had taken place at a time when Mr Solana could have been present. Since Parliament insisted, however, on debating the matter in any case, I accepted the President’s earnest invitation to take part in the debate.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Patten, Commission. – Mr President, I have already spoken twice about Iraq in this Chamber. My last intervention was just one month ago, on 4 September, right after the informal meeting of EU Ministers in Elsinore. Since then, Iraq has, for obvious reasons, remained the most important topic of international debate, though there is not all that much of substance that the Commission can add to what has just been said, or, frankly, to what is reported daily in the press.

The most encouraging development since I last spoke was President Bush’s speech which I heard at the UN General Assembly on 12 September and the Presidency referred also to the speech that he has just made in Cincinnati. It was important, of course, because Mr Bush signalled the American administration’s wish, if possible, to work through the UN framework to tackle the threats posed by the Iraqi regime. From all corners of the globe, leaders of the world welcomed the US decision, and virtually everyone has put strong pressure on Iraq to comply with UN Resolutions. Of particular relevance was the extent of the renewed diplomatic efforts of the Arab world to press Iraq to allow the resumption of the inspections. These growing pressures have clearly helped drive Saddam to offer the return of the inspectors, even if his offer needs to be treated with a good deal of scepticism. We have been here with Saddam Hussein before, watching him in due course resile from promises made and commitments given, behind a smoke-screen of ifs, buts and maybes.

The European Union has warmly welcomed President Bush’s decision to deal with Iraq through the UN system. As a Union, we believe this is by far the best and incomparably the most effective way to take things forward. There is no real alternative to the UN system of values and international rules that was set in place and agreed by world leaders to preserve global security. It offers the best hope of avoiding the potentially disastrous consequences of a spread of unilateral actions allegedly to ‘solve’ regional disputes. Working through the UN confers legitimacy and a sense of moral consensus on the actions that it is sometimes necessary to take.

Also in the last couple of weeks, one of the EU Member States – the one as we say coyly that I know best – has made public a detailed assessment of Iraq’s possession of chemical, biological and, possibly, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. This report has shown the risks that these weapons pose to regional stability in the Middle East. A number of eminent institutes have also shared their assessments of the threats to global security posed by the Iraqi regime. They all agree on Saddam’s attempts to rebuild his capabilities in weapons of mass destruction, taking advantage of the absence of the inspectors over the last four years. I would like to point out, incidentally, that these inspectors had previously done a better job than they are sometimes given credit for.

There may be room for debate about how imminent a danger is posed by this armoury of lethal weapons, but I do not detect any serious dispute about its existence.

Currently, discussions are taking place with and between EU Member States on the terms of a new UN Security Council Resolution designed to pave the way for a completely unconditional return of UN inspectors to Iraq. As honourable Members well know, there are various options under consideration, some of them at the instigation of Member States.

As the Presidency made clear, European Ministers last discussed the situation of Iraq on Monday 31 September at the General Affairs Council. They reiterated the position set out one month earlier in Elsinore, including the overall aim of the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the need for the unconditional return of UN inspectors with unfettered access to every part of Iraq, and the need for the situation to continue to be addressed along the UN Security Council track.

Against this background of intensified international diplomacy, I believe – and I hope the Parliament shares this view with me – that the following considerations should be uppermost in everybody’s minds:

First, over recent weeks, leaders around the world have continued to repeat their calls for a multilateral response to the challenge posed by Iraq. They have clearly argued that the alternative of a unilateral response would be very unwise. And it is not just world leaders; our citizens clearly believe strongly that this is the right way to solve the problem of Iraq. Recent polls in Europe and the US, as well as public demonstrations, show that citizens would like any decision on Iraq to be taken within the framework of the United Nations system.

Second, the main reasoning behind any UN intervention is the perception that the international community is confronted with the possession of weapons of mass destruction by a dangerous regime. There is a genuine and justified worry about both use and proliferation. In addition it has been suggested that these weapons could be supplied to terrorist networks, though some notable public figures, for example Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to President Bush Senior, have expressed scepticism on this point. Others still have argued that there may be some links between Iraq and terrorist organisations with global links such as Al-Qa'ida. I am not aware of any convincing public evidence on this point, but perhaps I have overlooked something.

The resort to the pre-emptive use of force is not a new idea. The international community for example decided to intervene in Kosovo on humanitarian grounds. The concept of humanitarian interventions was supported by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in an outstanding speech three years ago. Through the action in Kosovo, the international community made clear that it was no longer possible for world leaders to hide behind the concept of national sovereignty to do whatever they wished within their own borders. It was recognised that people too have rights, not just the states in which they live. That seems to me to be a welcome advance.

However, what is clear from the debates going on around the world is that we need to develop some kind of framework of international law to address such circumstances. Iraq cannot be seen in isolation from other equally sensitive cases. Should we not look at the principles to guide our international action and identify the circumstances that may justify international intervention when there is a clear and present danger, either within a sovereign state or outside its borders? The view of international law that has more or less prevailed since the Treaty of Westphalia – as students of the work of Dr Kissinger will know – is no longer wholly valid. But I find it difficult to believe that any acceptable alternative view should not rest principally on UN mechanisms and procedures.

Third, I am sure that those who are considering the need for a new resolution will be taking into account all options and scenarios. The international community needs to address how to frame a UN Security Council resolution or resolutions on Iraq. But they also need to think about what to do in case of non-compliance. This is a general issue of the utmost importance since it is related to the credibility of the multilateral system. We need to preserve the authority of the UN and the Security Council whose resolutions we have seen defied again and again. In this case, it is defiance by Iraq, but there are others in a similar situation of non-compliance. We have now reached the point when such lack of compliance with UN decisions needs to be addressed in an objective, serious and coherent manner.

I hope that as events unfold in the coming months, we see a re-assertion of the authority of the UN with beneficial effects for Iraq, for its region and indeed for the whole world. We may then, in addition, be able to focus our efforts more constructively on the continuing bloody crisis in the Middle East. I cannot say that I find any alternative outlook anything other than profoundly disturbing.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE).(ES) President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened extremely carefully to the statements by the representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and Commissioner Patten and I would like to point out one thing, as a preface to the speech I am going to make, and that is that, regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein’s regime has weapons of mass destruction, I would like to express my conviction that this regime is a danger to international peace and security, and this is no fantasy, as demonstrated by the invasion of Kuwait and the repeated and defiant violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

This does not mean, of course, that the European Union and the international community must react in an unmeasured and disproportionate way. I believe that we must be very careful in seeking a response, since it is clear that any response of the international community, supported by the European Union, could have repercussions for relations with the Arab world and also, as Mr Patten said, very clear and direct repercussions in terms of the conflict in the Middle East.

Mr President, the initiatives I would suggest on behalf of my political group clearly follow the line put forward by Mr Patten. Obviously, for a system of values such as that of the European Union, which enshrines peace, understanding, harmony and solidarity, force should be the last resort.

In this regard, we must of course exhaust all political, diplomatic and commercial avenues; but we must also, Mr President, guarantee free access, unrestricted and unconditional, for the United Nations inspectors, so that they can fulfil their mission of verifying whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction. And it is also clear that we must take account of the need and the determination of the international community so that, in the event of non-compliance with these United Nations resolutions, the international community and the United Nations itself can respond appropriately to verify and demand compliance with those resolutions.

This issue of legitimacy, or the need for the legitimacy of a ratification by the United Nations Security Council, for taking military action, is precisely one of the issues we debated yesterday in the Committee on Foreign Affairs when we voted on a resolution on terrorism. And it was very interesting because, during the vote, Mr Robinson, the Secretary-General of NATO, appeared, and in response to the question of whether it was necessary to have the backing of the United Nations for action by his organisation, he told us that, while it was desirable, he believed that a mandate from the Atlantic Council was sufficient to be able to act within NATO.

This debate, Mr President, is not trivial, because there may come a time, when the European Union’s rapid reaction force is ready for operation, when we have to seek the backing of the United Nations so that that force can carry out a Petersburg task, and it is possible that a member of the Security Council with the right to vote may put a stop to any action of the European Union’s rapid reaction force.

I wanted to point out this debate, because it seems to me appropriate at the moment, especially in light of the events of September 11, and it is clear that we have to make progress in a whole series of areas relating to the security and defence policy.

We must assess the compatibility of the European Union’s rapid reaction force with the initiative of the United States to create a rapid reaction force within NATO; we must consider the extent to which we can make the use of NATO’s infrastructure compatible in relation to the European Union’s actions in the field of defence; we must preserve the European Union’s capacity for autonomous decision-making in the field of defence and we must resolve the problem of military expenditure, or to put it another way, we must decide, on the basis of the facts, whether we want to spend more or spend better.

Mr President, these issues are very relevant in the current context. The events of 11 September demand a response from the international community because, in the face of the threats and problems of international terrorism, we must all respond together, and within the European Union, we must offer a single response.

I believe that the best contribution the European Union could make to the system and the principles of the United Nations is to respond cohesively within the international organisations, because the strength of the European Union lies in its unity, but fragmented we are weak.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sakellariou (PSE).(DE) Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are issues relating to the current situation in Iraq which are uncontentious, which we all share and where we have a broad consensus. The first is that Iraq must comply with all the UN Security Council's resolutions in full and without any ifs, buts or maybes. I am very grateful to you, Commissioner, for saying that it is not only Iraq which should do so, but we are talking about Iraq here today.

Secondly, we all agree that the weapons inspectors must return to Iraq and that they must have unfettered access to be able to do their job properly. In particular, they must search for, and then destroy, weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. I am most grateful to you, Commissioner, for making a further point on this consensus, and I am especially gratified that you did so by pointing out that the response to this situation, to the problem of Iraq, should be sought multilaterally and through the United Nations framework. That is the opportunity for us genuinely to resolve this problem once and for all.

There are other issues where we do not have this consensus. They include, for example, the question whether the weapons inspectors who now have a mandate to go to Iraq must wait until the Security Council adopts a new resolution. I think that a definition of their mandate by the UN Secretary-General would suffice. If it is indeed the case that a major threat emanates from Iraq, then it is logical, after all, to ensure that these inspectors go to Iraq as soon as possible. At the same time, the UN Secretary-General must look at the issue of the embargo. While the inspectors are searching for weapons in Iraq, conditions must be re-established for the embargo to be abolished entirely, and for the embargo to be ended. I think this is axiomatic, but I would like to reiterate and underline this point here once again. While the weapons inspectors are searching for weapons in Iraq, the bombing campaign by the US and the United Kingdom, which is not based on any UN resolution, cannot continue. It should be suspended – I am phrasing this carefully – until we have the inspectors' report.

Finally, the UN should prepare a roadmap for the destruction of weapons and for the inspections, and a roadmap for the embargo and for Iraq's reintegration into the international community. This would be an important step which could be initiated by the UN. In the context of the UN, let me say that if we opt for the UN, we cannot have a UN à la carte. In other words, we cannot comply with the resolutions which suit us and ignore the ones that do not! We must be very clear about this, and I am in favour of our respecting and implementing all the UN resolutions accordingly.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ELDR). – Mr President, we know that one reason for military intervention is the search for weapons of mass destruction, but there are, of course, other reasons. Parliament's resolution of May 2002 made a proposal which still has not been taken up. It suggested that an international ad-hoc tribunal be set up to try Saddam Hussein and his officials, and that the Commission should set up an office of human rights to collect the evidence.

There are, of course, different reasons for intervening: humanitarian interventions, self-defence, Article 51, as was used in Afghanistan, and now a new proposal of anticipatory self-defence – the so-called pre-emptive strike – discussed by President Bush for regime change. Even the 'bullet in the head' option has been discussed. But this Parliament, surely, should have one thing in mind: the people of Iraq. Here I call for a prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his officials under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

This is a crime against humanity of such a scale that it can never be forgiven and we must invoke justice and the rule of law. The Genocide Convention to which we and all our allies are parties imposes a duty upon us to punish all acts of genocide ordered by constitutionally-responsible rulers. It expressly envisages that an international court may be established for that purpose, preferably in the territory in which the crimes were committed and if not, elsewhere. In this way all perpetrators may be tried by such international panel tribunals which may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting parties which have accepted its jurisdiction.

The Nuremberg precedent reminds us that a torturer is a torturer even if you are in a uniform and you have accepted an order to torture one of your fellow men or women. In other words, being an official does not exempt you from prosecution. This means that we have an absolute duty to look not just at Saddam Hussein but at all of those officials.

What are Saddam Hussein's genocidal acts? In the past, we have seen the use of chemical weapons in the north, the decimation of the gypsies, the persecution of Jews, the Assyrian Christians, over three-quarters of a million displaced people, assaults on Shia Muslims and those of Iranian descent. Thirty years of murderous assault and still he goes after the remnants of those unfortunate people. Genocide now concerns the marsh Arabs: over half a million people destroyed in the last few years. They have lost their place, the people, the fish, the animals, the water, the land, their homes, their farms, villages, towns, boats and agriculture through killing, burning and draining. We have seen the total destruction of a unique, distinctively different and ancient tribal people. That is genocide. A UN resolution is required but we need the evidence to be brought up front, in front of the peoples of the world, to alter the perception of why this course of action is required.

The establishment of the Office of Human Rights was accepted in principle by Commissioner Patten at our debate in May 2002. I urge him to set up this office without delay – we have already lost too much time.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner Patten, President-in-Office of the Council, as we speak, there is reason to hope that the new war with Iraq will not take place. It is not absurd to imagine that the resolution currently in the process of being adopted by the United Nations Security Council could finally be drawn up to encourage disarmament in Iraq rather than to legitimise a military intervention there. That would be a great victory of wisdom over irresponsibility, but there is still a long way to go. And can we do anything, while the decision is that of the member countries of the Security Council? I am sure that we can, as it is clear that the requirements of our societies and the political initiatives taken by various States have greatly influenced the development of the positions of the main Heads of State, starting with George Bush himself. His goal was to change the regime in Baghdad. Apparently today the international community has only one possible objective, the disarmament of Iraq. He ordered the UN to either be on the side of the US or to stay on the sidelines. He nevertheless seems to understand that the framework of the United Nations is difficult to circumvent. He had put forward a theory of pre-emptive war. He now stresses that military action is not necessarily imminent or inevitable. Nobody is fooled. The American President has not given up any of his plans, but he is perhaps beginning to realise that international political life is not a western in which he can play the role of sheriff.

I believe it is time to promote the mission of disarmament inspectors as an alternative solution to war. It was these inspectors who, until 1998, prevented Saddam Hussein from acquiring the atomic bomb and who destroyed stocks of chemical and biological weapons and their means of manufacture, military research installations, missiles and launch pads. Today, they say, their experience is greater still and their equipment more sophisticated. They are ready to start work again immediately. One of them, however, the American Scott Ritter, opportunely suggests that, upon their return, the embargo should be lifted. This mercilessly cruel burden was imposed twelve years ago on the population.

My group, in conjunction with others, is going to take initiatives in this spirit, which you are all welcome to join. Furthermore, my group would consider highly useful a further declaration by the Council and the Commission on the new strategic doctrine published by the Bush administration on 20 September. I find it inconceivable that the European Union is silent on this text which magnifies what is described as the unparalleled force of the United States and emphasises their determination, to paraphrase, to act alone, if necessary as a pre-emptive measure, to extend the triumph of freedom. We cannot remain inactive in the face of the official confirmation of a doctrine which would undoubtedly lead to war in Iraq and which would lead to nothing less than the destruction of the collective security system set up around the Charter of the United Nations following the victory of democracies over Nazism. Lastly, we are still waiting for the beginning of the first stages of the implementation of the last parliamentary resolution on the Middle East. While George Bush draws the world’s attention to Baghdad, however, his protégé, who, not long ago, he classed as a man of peace even though he is violating all the resolutions of the Security Council concerning his country, is attacking the Palestinians with indescribable cruelty, thereby exposing his own people to a new infernal cycle of vengeance and hatred. Europe still needs to prove itself on all these points which, in fact, form a whole. The status of world player cannot be decreed; it must be earned.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gahrton (Verts/ALE).(SV) Mr President, the problem with the American threats of war against Iraq is not the desire in itself to replace an undemocratic regime. Saddam Hussein’s regime is indeed repugnant: I have been able to see this for myself in the course of a number of visits; and it has only got worse. We should certainly support the democratic opposition and we can by all means try economic boycotts, as we did against the South Africa of apartheid, provided that this does not hit the victims more than the offenders, which is the case in Iraq. From time to time, we can even support an armed national struggle for liberation against a dictator, as many of us did against the European colonial powers in Africa.

If anarchy is to be avoided, however, all outside interventions in the affairs of a sovereign state must be based on an egalitarian, global world order, which applies equally to all nations. That is why the UN Security Council must make a resolution on any armed campaign. In addition, military force must only be resorted to if all non-violent means have been exhausted. The weapons inspectors must therefore be sent back into Iraq as soon as possible, and the American threats of a military strike without a UN Security Council resolution must be condemned. Otherwise, we are just legitimising lawless Wild-West violence in other parts of the world, for example Israel’s massacre of Palestinians or perhaps Russian interventions in Georgia.

If the EU is to be able to bear out its claims to represent a judicial culture in contrast to American lynch law, it must now with renewed vigour, and especially where Iraq is concerned, oppose the global dictatorship of the USA and insist on a global legal system within the framework of the UN.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kuntz (EDD).(FR) Mr President, the debate on Iraq you provided us with last month in Strasbourg made us fear the worst, namely war. All the speakers involved in today’s debate, as a whole, have the merit of taking into consideration the developments of Iraqi positions over the past few weeks and resistance within the UN itself to US unilateralism, as well as to the excesses of the Bush administration. As Europeans, we cannot agree to or allow others to bombard this complicated region with simple, I would even go so far as to say simplistic, ideas, which are those of the Bush dynasty, whether of the father, who admitted on television that he hates Saddam Hussein, or of the son, who justifies his obsession with Saddam Hussein with these ridiculous words: 'the guy … tried to kill my father'. These statements could be laughable were it not for the fact that a war in Iraq would have a cost, in terms of human lives, obviously, both in the Iraqi camp and in that of the allied armies, and at this point I would like to thank the speaker from the PSE Group for recalling or re-launching the debate on the subject of lifting the embargo for the Iraqi civilians who have already been suffering for eleven years. This cost, moreover, would be incalculable in terms of the instability created by a military intervention in the region, and would also be irreversible for international law, and we therefore feel that, at the end of the day, it is in relation to the Iraqi crisis that UN credibility is at stake.

That is why, above and beyond the moral considerations, we cannot lose sight of these few factors. After a year in which the United States have not made any bones about comparing Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden, we still have no proof that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks and the broader Al Qaida organisation. Similarly, we still have no proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today, notwithstanding the impassioned assertions of Tony Blair. The only certainty so far is that, to the United States, Iraq and the Iraqi regime are a setback on the road to oil. This much is clear. At this point, however, we are a long way from the objectives assigned to the international coalition that Europe joined just one year ago and the countries of Europe must now ally themselves with the United States so that together we can fight the only real, immediate threat to the world, the broader Al Qaida organisation. We could not seriously, however, tell the world today that tomorrow we will be able to capture Mullah Omar or Osama Bin Laden on Babylonian soil.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cappato (NI).(IT) Mr President, the European Union is an observer rather than an active player in the events currently taking place, and it may be because we are speaking as observers that, in many of our speeches, we are getting the facts all wrong, congratulating ourselves on what will probably be avoided – military attacks on Iraq. We should instead ask ourselves what we have done, what we ourselves have managed to do, as the European Union, to bring about a situation in which it will be possible to achieve that which we all hope for, to reach a point where military attacks are not necessary and the inspectors have full access to the Iraqi sites. It is my view that we have done nothing and that, if the situation we are observing has now improved, this may be partly, principally or wholly due to pressure from the United States and the ways in which that pressure has been exerted.

Well then, it may be that what we have to do is endeavour to cast off our role of observer: we must do everything we can to avoid military action rather than just sitting here watching others make mistakes, running the risk, once again, that Europe will become not the Europe of Churchill but the Europe of Chamberlain, the risk that we will find ourselves once again in a position of impotence and inertia where we lack institutional and even maybe military resources and instruments and are thus unable to take any action.

Do we want to develop alternatives to weapons, violence and destruction? Then let us make a start! We must explore the possibilities provided under international law for raising awareness and providing information, for defeating a regime which is waging a constant, daily war against its own people, a war which is constantly causing deaths in Iraq and which is a danger to the international community. We must see what we ourselves, as the European Union, can do rather than sitting here applauding or criticising the actions of those who do, at least, have the courage to shoulder responsibilities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE).(SV) Mr President, I wish to address myself in particular to the Danish Presidency, the Minister for European Affairs, Mr Haarder, and the External Relations Commissioner, Mr Patten. These are two people in whom I have the utmost confidence.

In my opinion, there are three main questions which we, as Europeans and democrats, must answer. The first concerns how to prevent weapons of mass destruction being produced, distributed, sold to international terrorists and used in Europe, the Middle East and throughout the world. How are we to prevent this?

The second question concerns the UN Security Council. There are many powerful forces at work here in the European Parliament looking to restrict the veto as far as possible. Faced with the prospect of an enlarged EU with 25 Member States, a large majority in this Parliament is saying that we shall be unable to make decisions unless the veto is abolished. At the same time, we find ourselves in a situation in which a Communist government in Beijing in China, whose record on human rights does it little credit, actually has an unlimited right of veto when it comes to the international community’s most important bodies, the UN and the UN Security Council, and the ways in which they are to act to prevent violence and preserve world peace. This same right is enjoyed by Moscow, Paris, London and Washington.

The third question concerns how we are to be able to bring about a change in the Middle East. The Middle East can be depicted as a pressure cooker, in which the water is bubbling and seething. The lid is still on the pan, but the moment when all the steam could escape is imminent. There are many people in this Parliament who consider that military action against Iraq would lead to the whole of the Middle East being plunged into horrors and into complete disaster. Is, however, a conservative policy, in which everything is allowed to continue as before – with UN inspectors degraded and humiliated and unable to do their jobs, while Saddam Hussein, the dictator and mass murderer who had five thousand Kurds gassed in Halabja, remains in power in Baghdad – a route that will lead to democracy and human rights in Iraq and the Middle East? Has not the time come for us in Europe to take responsibility for beginning a process of change in favour of democracy and human rights and against the spread of weapons of terror from the region in question? What would be your answers to these questions?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, Commissioner Patten has referred to the dossier that was produced by the United Kingdom Government prior to the debate in the House of Commons. That dossier makes for some interesting reading. The most significant thing I found in it was a picture of the footprint of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. Superimposed on this was a footprint of Buckingham Palace. Buckingham Palace was a minute corner of whole footprint of Saddam Hussein's palaces. This is quite important because it is said that Saddam Hussein does not want anyone to go into his palaces. Well, none of us want people coming into our houses. We do not realise that these palaces are basically cities in their own right and that is why all aspects of the UN inspectors' mandate must be adhered to. They must be able to go anywhere because palaces the size that he has, and he has quite a few, have the capacity to conceal major weapon sites. We must be clear that there should be no interference with the ability of the inspectors to go in.

We know Saddam Hussein is a threat to the region and to his own people, but we know that for the interests of world peace we must act through the United Nations. This must not be unilateral action. UN resolutions, however, must clearly hold Iraq to account and there must be a willingness to follow through with action. It is not enough to threaten. We must be prepared to follow through with that threat if everything else fails. We must keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We must continue to enforce a no-fly zone, including giving the pilots the right to self-defence.

If the UN sees this through, we will change international politics. There will be a whole new environment pushing towards multilateral action. If the UN is not capable of seeing this through, the whole multilateral element of international politics would be discredited and the world would become a much more dangerous place.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frahm (GUE/NGL).(DA) Mr President, I have now been told several times that the EU wishes to go down the UN route, and I should therefore like to ask where that route is heading and for how long it is intended to follow it.

We are agreed that Iraq must, as Mr Patten said, comply, like everyone else, with UN resolutions. Must not, however, the EU and the United States also comply with international law? Can we, on the one hand, demand that a country comply with UN resolutions and, on the other hand, accept actions that are not approved under this legal system? In short, I do not have a clear answer to that question. Will the EU demand a UN mandate from the UN Security Council before it supports possible action against Iraq?

What, moreover, will happen if the weapons inspectors really and truly do not find anything? There has not of course been a shred of proof anywhere that weapons of mass destruction exist. If the inspectors really do not find anything, will the EU, then, work towards having the embargo lifted? We know that the oil for food programme means that the Iraqi people are being kept on the verge of starvation. A host of false rumours is being spread as to how much money is coming in, but the calculations made on the basis of the actual figures show that every penny is going into the oil for food programme and that that is not enough. It will not do anything to take the Iraqi people off the breadline. The programme has managed to eradicate the Iraqi middle class and is responsible for Iraq’s not having been in a position to repair its water supply, resulting in a steep increase in infant mortality.

Will the EU make efforts to have the embargo lifted and will it, in that connection, remember Iraqi Kurdistan? Will it remember that there is a people in the northern part of Iraq that will be vulnerable as soon as Saddam Hussein has the opportunity to express his anger?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE).(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though many people have spoken out against a war in Iraq, the United States are continuing their threats with new demands, on the pretext of combating terrorism. Calls for American national unity have not been able to mask the social and economic difficulties there, its crisis of political confidence and its restrictions of democratic freedom, which are condemned by many American citizens. We are all aware, beyond the undeniable arguments concerning the reality of Saddam Hussein’s power, supported thus far by Westerners, that one of the main targets of this war is oil. Such a war would also allow other objectives to be targeted, such as strengthening the direct hold over oil and gas resources in the Middle East, in order to kick-start growth in the United States, strike a blow to OPEC, one of Washington’s pet hates, and weaken the Arab world, depriving it of any possible political opposition force.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the matter of the current context of the whole region. This war can only destroy the United Nations’ efforts to consolidate international law in favour of fair, lasting peace. We know it will have further tragic consequences for the Palestinian people. This is borne out by Ariel Sharon’s stated support for Bush, for whom the international situation represents an opportunity to strike further blows against the Palestinian resistance. Moreover, commencing military action in this region will set the Arab world ablaze, plunge the people into decades of poverty, and send weakened political regimes into the arms of fundamentalism. Do not think that our continent will be spared by this war. Europe will be the first target for terrorism and will be a breeding ground for tension, and racism and islamophobia will only increase. It is not too late to prevent this war. To do so, people everywhere, as widely as possible, must express their rejection of the US unilateral policy and it is time for the European Union to shoulder its responsibilities, and forcefully and vigorously restate its commitment to peace, the reason for its construction.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rocard (PSE).(FR) Mr President, two minutes, six points.

First of all, Saddam Hussein is already a hardened war criminal. He clearly intends to continue. The only remaining doubt concerns the means still available to him.

Secondly, no situation, however serious, justifies contravening the fundamental principle of public and private morality, in other words, we must not use means that jeopardise the achievement of the objective we are pursuing. Our objective here is to build peace, to refuse pre-emptive war in favour of negotiations, weapons inspections and the establishment of the Rule of Law.

Thirdly, I have rarely seen situations in which so little attention is paid to the study of what could occur should force be used. We are only discussing the legitimacy of the decision and decision-taking procedures. We are not considering what this could lead to.

Mr President, Europe already has a Military Staff. We are preparing a rapid-reaction force. We should at least ask it to consider the various possible consequences. Quite frankly, I have never seen such a lack of reflection.

Fourthly, President-in-Office of the Council, Europe needs a strong, clear, public position, and is capable of this. Many of us have asked you to communicate the European Union’s position in writing to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and make it public.

Fifthly, the main thing in this matter is to adhere to the UN rules on two counts. The first is to convince the United Nations not to change the rules once the game has begun. This is also part of behaving with common decency at an international level. The second aspect proposes solving the problem in two stages: first, with regard to inspectors and their right of work, and second, lastly, taking account of what would happen should Saddam refuse, in other words the use of Chapter 7 of the Charter. We are not pacifists. I believe it is possible to have recourse to force. Saddam Hussein is dangerous, but it is the legality of this operation that is key, in particular with regard to the world as a whole.

Lastly, Mr President, all this is not at all anti-American. On the contrary, it involves preserving the Rule of Law with the agreement of an overwhelming majority – as shown by surveys – of the American people today, in order to prevent a government, intoxicated by its own strength, from forgetting the law when it thinks of the power it could use.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Souchet (NI).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the international community considered that the Iraqi regime, which was responsible for two wars, against Iran and then Kuwait, constituted a permanent potential threat to the security of its neighbours. That is why the Security Council drew up a strategy to cut off Iraq in order to prevent it from equipping itself with weapons of mass destruction, which, up until 1998, was effective.

The question the United States is asking today concerns abandoning this strategy in favour of the far more radical strategy of waging a pre-emptive war against Iraq, before Iraq equips itself with the decisive means for blackmail. What must our position be should this extreme situation arise? First and foremost, it must involve restating that waging a war against Iraq would be the sole decision of the Security Council. The United Nations system is a guarantee of peace, and weakening this system is in nobody’s interests. We must not repeat the serious error that was made against international order in waging war against Yugoslavia without the backing of the Security Council. Unilaterally waging a pre-emptive war against a sovereign State would set an extremely dangerous precedent that could be invoked in future by any country in order to try to solve its problems, for example India or Pakistan with regard to Kashmir.

Secondly, we must state that such a war could only be decided upon should Iraq refuse to implement the resolutions of the Security Council. The mandate given to the inspectors must therefore leave no room for ambiguity, but we must not speculate in advance over the failure of the inspections. That would amount to denying the remarkably efficient work carried out by inspectors from the United Nations and the IAEA between 1991 and 1998 and to renouncing any future disarmament control missions. What is despicable is the inertia of the international community in allowing a black hole of four years to follow the expulsion of inspectors from Iraq, thus enabling Iraq to increase its capability. Naturally, the Security Council, in order to be effective, must not automatically exclude any hypotheses. Automatically excluding the use of force under any circumstances, as suggested, for example, by the German Government, would weaken the position of the international community.

Lastly, we must at all costs prevent inappropriate action in Iraq from making the international fight against Islamic terrorism more difficult, as this is a priority. Waging a pre-emptive war, however, without Iraq having refused to apply the resolutions of the Security Council, could doubly compromise the essential objective of dismantling the Islamic terrorist networks. Such action could in fact, as emphasised yesterday by Philippe de Villiers at the French National Assembly, cause a sudden resurgence of Islamic extremism and the collapse of the international coalition constituted after September 11.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Naïr (GUE/NGL).(FR) Mr President, for several months now, there has been a real commotion among the Western countries with regard to Iraq. The inspections stopped in 1998 and President Bush discovered in 2002 that Iraq was once again a threat. This is a serious matter, as, through the Iraqi affair, the US has in fact tried to gain support for a new concept in international relations, the concept of pre-emptive war. They have asked that UN inspectors be allowed to return unconditionally to Iraq. The Iraqi Government agreed to this. Now, it is the United States that will not agree to the UN inspectors going to Iraq. They now want to adopt a resolution that would allow them automatic recourse to force. President Bush’s speech yesterday did not go back on this condition in any way. He maintains this condition. In reality, the United States covet Iraqi oil resources, control of which would allow them to dictate price policies to the rest of the world.

Beware! The fight against terrorism, after the savage attacks of September 11, must not, in the hands of the American Government, become an imperial strategy to conquer the world. A military intervention against Iraq would have terrifying consequences today in the Middle East. It would unleash all kinds of fanaticism and discrimination against ethnic minorities. It would encourage a surge in Islamic fundamentalism. A war against Iraq – and we must realise this today – a war against Iraq would be considered by Arab-Muslim public opinion as a war against the entire Arab-Muslim world. That is why, today, no Arab regime supports Washington’s position. Two countries have stated their opposition to this strategy: France and Germany. Well, I consider that to be an honour for Europe. If a new resolution had to be adopted, under no circumstances must it include the principle of automatic recourse to force. We must not accept the use of the Security Council as an instrument.

I would also like to ask Mr Patten and Mr Haarder a question: why do the European Union and the Commission not suggest to the Arab League, to all the Arab countries, that they take a common initiative to reintegrate Iraq and lift the embargo? That is the best way of fighting for the renaissance of democracy in Iraq.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, no one is in any doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. That is not sufficient justification for launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. If it were, we would be attacking many countries around the world.

We need to be clear that the motivating force for this war is primarily about trying to ensure secure access to oil. President Bush cannot, of course, admit this. Instead, we are told we must go to war in order to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Let us be clear about this, our moral authority might be a little stronger if we did not also have weapons of mass destruction.

I also want to talk about the United Nations. Commissioner Patten said that working with the UN confers legitimacy. I agree it is a step towards legitimacy. It is a necessary but insufficient requirement for any action because the UN process is itself highly imperfect. In order to get agreement from the UN Security Council for the first Gulf war, the US used bribery, blackmail and threats and they will do it again.

The resolution which the US is currently trying to get through the Security Council is not designed to avert war but rather to provoke war. Leaked drafts resemble nothing so much as a plan for unopposed invasion.

A just war to the extent that any such thing might be claimed to exist can only be pursued when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, peaceful means are not only unexhausted, they are being deliberately avoided.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Berthu (NI).(FR) Mr President, following Mr Souchet’s superb speech, I would simply, in one minute, like to call for two things.

First of all, we must scrupulously follow the United Nations’ procedures in demanding the disarmament of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator, a real threat to peace. We must not allow our procedure to provide him with the slightest loophole which he would of course use to portray himself as a victim to try to side-track the debate.

Yet at the same time, we ourselves must not stray into secondary details. We must keep the compass firmly at north. We must stop this regime from doing harm and in particular from using weapons of mass destruction. That is a condition of peace, at least in the region concerned.

Consequently, let us not be caught up in speeches which reverse the responsibilities, which almost try to make Saddam Hussein into a persecuted innocent party, which in fact are just speeches of refusal to take responsibility in the face of threats.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Keyser (PSE).(FR) Mr President, after September 11, a broad international coalition was formed to combat terrorism. This battle is still taking place here in Europe. Al Qaida sleeper networks still remain in 52 countries. After 30 January this year, President Bush’s speech on the state of the Union disconcerted many Europeans. The countries described as ‘the axis of evil’ no longer had anything to do with international terrorism. Fortunately, at the time, Commissioner Patten spoke out, clearly distancing himself from the unilateral, over-simplistic American policy. The US is now trying to impose a concept of pre-emptive war against Iraq which falls outside the scope of international law. In today’s speech by the American Government, it was no longer possible to dissociate concerns about oil from legitimate concern over weapons of mass destruction, equally legitimate concerns over human rights and Saddam Hussein himself as a person, whom Mr Bush professes to hate. We should not adopt this mixed bag as our own approach, since the various factors need to be addressed separately.

Europe has always backed the United Nations Security Council. For the past few months, however, we have witnessed a veritable bid, instigated by the United States, to take control of international law – a policy of double standards. In some cases violations of human rights and United Nations Security Council resolutions are flouted and go unpunished, while in others they are not.

We are also witnessing major internal division within the European Union and preparation for a war that would constitute a real confrontation between civilisations and would undoubtedly strengthen the terrorism we are trying to fight. In this strong-arm contest, this race against time, it is the credibility of the UN and Europe that is at stake. One thing is certain, if there is military intervention in Iraq, the Iraqi people, who have already suffered so much, will defend themselves to the last and we will not enter Baghdad as liberators.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wyn (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, it would be a grave misconception to look at the imminent attack on the Iraqi state as a new state of affairs. We all know that the attacks on Iraq are already underway on a massive scale in the no-fly zones in the country. I do not know under which international agreements they have been allowed to continue, but such attacks have only intensified and worsened the situation in the country.

However we view, as a Parliament, the proposed attack on Saddam Hussein, we cannot look at it in isolation. The attack would be seen, along with the incursions against Palestine, as an attack on the Arab world itself. It would, along with the threat to oil supplies, globalise an already-escalating conflict.

We condemn Saddam Hussein unreservedly for his regime which oppresses minorities and offends democracy in Iraq. A more sensible and productive international approach, however, would be to defend and ensure self-determination for all minorities in Iraq, especially the five million Kurds in the north of the country comprising one quarter of the Iraqi population. Human rights and freedom in Iraq would be better served were we to take that course of action, uniting minorities and the international community behind a common front to topple Saddam and all other world dictators.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Napoletano (PSE).(IT) Mr President, a variety of things have been said. For my part, I have a number of questions to put to the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council, for it would appear that, once again, Europe and the European governments are very divided, and that is not good. Moreover, despite the endeavours of the Presidency, we see the range of positions of the European governments described in the press every day. My question is this: since France is part of the Security Council – and it is the only European country to be part of it – is there any form of coordination between the other European governments in respect of the French position? What will a second resolution add to the agreements which have already been adopted regarding the sending of inspectors to Vienna?

Thirdly, the citizens of our countries are asking a lot of questions, ladies and gentlemen, including on the subject of the embargo. The public is wondering, in good faith, how it is possible that, in ten years of embargo inflicted upon the civilian population, the dictator, Saddam Hussein, has been able to rebuild his military and even his nuclear arsenal. Given that this has been possible, I believe we should open a UN investigation to find out who has broken the arms embargo that has caused the Iraqi people such great suffering. If it has been broken by members of the Security Council, then, clearly, the Security Council will also lose its credibility.

I therefore feel that we must be quite consistent in our actions; we must find the best way to achieve the greatest success without, indeed, causing further suffering or further deterioration of international relations. This is Europe’s role in my view but, once again, this time we have failed to realise it. Lastly, I feel that Europe must address the issue of combating terrorism and producing legal instruments for prosecuting terrorists, acting with complete honesty towards both the United States and the authoritarian regimes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Obiols i Germà (PSE).(ES) Mr President, Commissioner Patten is right when he says that the situation, while still very complex and difficult, has developed over recent days towards a more articulate context, in which the process has matured noticeably and public opinion has moved on, especially United States public opinion.

President Bush has said that the vote for a resolution in Congress does not mean that military action is imminent or inevitable, and British Foreign Minister Straw, at the Security Council negotiations, has said that 'we prefer one resolution but we have never ruled out, and nor do we rule out, there being two'.

Also important is the statement by Mr Blix and Mr El Baradei, who lead the United Nations inspection teams, pointing out that the provisions accepted by the Iraqis last week in Vienna are, in their judgment, sufficient for them to work effectively on the inspection tasks.

I believe that in this critical situation, the fundamental issues have been raised recently by an American citizen who is no ordinary American citizen: he won the recent presidential elections in terms of votes; I am referring to Mr Al Gore, who has pointed out something obvious: that the essential and urgent issue at the moment is the fight against terrorism and in particular against those who carried out the attacks of 11 September.

In this regard, Gore criticised President Bush for having squandered – to quote literally – the extraordinary response of sympathy, good will and solidarity which followed the attacks of 11 September which – he said – has been replaced by an atmosphere of fear and reticence towards the United States administration.

I believe that in this situation, which is developing in a relatively favourable manner, energetic and mature criteria must be applied in carrying out the war against terror, and this essentially requires that Europe apply two priorities: rapid convergence within the United Nations and its Security Council and, secondly, making every effort so that the future task of the inspectors may end in success.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Souladakis (PSE).(EL) Mr President, over the last few days the European Union has faced – indeed it is still facing – two crucial political questions which bear on its common foreign and security policy. The question of the International Criminal Court on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity did not, I think, receive the best attentions of the Council of the European Union.

Now we have the crisis in Iraq, which really must be given the Council's best attentions. And just what does that mean? The UN and its decision-taking procedures have underpinned the international legal order for the last 50 or 60 years and have been used to resolve the most serious of political issues. We must not rock this boat under any circumstances, because finding a new legal order to underpin international relations will not be an easy or straightforward matter.

This being so, when faced with varying opinions on how to deal with the problem of Iraq, the European Union must not under any circumstances go beyond the bounds set by UN Security Council resolutions. Secondly, it must lay down limits, down to the last detail, on how far we can go in controlling Saddam Hussein's arsenal. However, if it turns out that he has no weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to produce them, it must have a ready, unconditional answer to the question of the embargo, while monitoring developments to ensure that Saddam Hussein or anyone else in Iraq does not revert to procedures involving weapons of mass destruction.

Nonetheless, we must admit that, as the European Union, we ought to be independent when it comes to certain decisions with crucial international implications. We cannot just fall in with whoever happens to be in power in America at the time, with the Clinton administration taking one tack and the Bush administration taking another. And, the investigation to find out if Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction should extend to anyone who has provided materials or know-how. They too must take their share of the blame.

Finally, let us not forget the millions who are suffering, let us not forget the children who are dying and let us not forget that we, the European Union, must not be inhumane.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Theorin (PSE).(SV) Mr President, we are on the verge of war, a war which could have devastating consequences not just for the people of Iraq and for the Middle East as a whole but for the rest of the world as well. Under these circumstances, sense and reason have to prevail over the simplistic venting of one’s feelings.

Following the devastation of the Second World War, the nations of the world created the United Nations as the instrument which was to guarantee world peace, and, as Mr Patten says, there is no alternative to the UN when it comes to maintaining global security. The nations came to an agreement under international law on the rules for military intervention in order to preserve world peace. It is clear from these that decisions on such action must be taken by the UN Security Council. To choose, like the USA and Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, to abide by UN resolutions only when it suits us would have devastating consequences for the whole international legal system. It would amount to rejecting and deliberately opposing the UN. Is this the legal system the conservatives stand for? The justice of the powerful and international lawlessness? Or should all countries have an equal right to take so-called preventive action? What would happen then?

It stands to reason that Iraq must comply with UN resolutions and allow the inspectors to carry out their work without conditions. An agreement has also been reached between Hans Blix and Iraq whereby the inspectors are to be allowed to resume the work which was in actual fact suspended when the USA and the UK started their last bombing campaign. The inspectors should now be able to start their work immediately. There is no excuse for dictator Saddam Hussein’s breach of the UN resolutions. Iraq, like all other countries, has to abide by the decisions taken by the UN. Obviously, this also applies to Israel. If the principle is that Iraq has not complied with UN resolutions and must therefore be bombed, what are we then to do about Israel, which continually breaches UN resolutions?

The EU has to make it clear to the world’s largest democracy, the USA, that all countries must abide by international law and that the law of the street is not acceptable, even against dictators.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council.(DA) Mr President, I should like to summarise my answers in a few points which are not new but which it is important to put into words.

I should like to warn against trivialising the Iraq problem by comparing Iraq with various other countries. Saddam Hussein is fortunately a very special case with a very distinctive history stretching back a long way. Experience clearly shows that we shall not get anywhere with Saddam Hussein if the use of force is excluded in advance. Iraq must and shall comply with the demands made by the Security Council. There must be unconditional access for the weapons inspectors, including access to Saddam Hussein’s extensive palaces.

The EU will continue to support the efforts of the Security Council and campaign for a unified approach. That is important for the UN’s and the Security Council’s credibility and effectiveness, and it is important in relation both to Iraq and to future multilateral cooperation. The EU therefore continues to support the Security Council’s work along the lines of finding a peaceful solution, insofar as that is possible.

It is encouraging that the American President has recently said that war is not inevitable and that he wants to pursue the option of going down the UN route.

Turning finally to the lifting of the embargo, the oil for food programme has in fact been revised. It is Saddam Hussein who has not so far made use of the opportunities it presents and, in that way, subjected his people to starvation. That is because, in this matter too, he is completely indifferent to the conditions of ordinary people in Iraq. He has other priorities. If we are to encourage him to think about his own people and about peace in the region and in the world, we must take a united stand – in this Parliament too.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy