EP - Debate on Iraq

Council and Commission statements on Iraq
Debate: 12.03.2003

The Greek Foreign Minister Georgios PAPANDREOU, on behalf of the Greek Presidency of the Council, opened the debate on Iraq by saying that the world faced many challenges, and thus indeed was a testing time for the international community. The Iraqi crisis, he said, should be seen in the broader context of fighting international terrorism and questions of the Middle East. The EU, he said, had a special responsibility to respond to global challenges by promoting the values of freedom and democracy, values that are shared, he said, with the USA. Making reference to the extraordinary summit held in Brussels on 17th February, the Greek Foreign Minister stated that the meeting had been a "success" and the goals of full disarmament of Iraq and full compliance of Iraq with UN resolutions had been underlined. In line with the conclusions of the Summit, he stated that inspections could not go on forever.

The Foreign Minister underlined that the Presidency is fully involved in the UN process and welcomed the recent Iraqi moves in destroying banned missiles and permitting interviews with scientists. Stressing the importance of the Arab - EU relationship, he welcomed the opportunity to speak at the Arab League Summit. EU-US relations, he commented, had also been under severe strain in recent times, citing the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court as cases of tension. However, the Iraq crisis, he commented, had acutely increased the tension between the US and Europe. It would be wrong, he remarked, for this to continue and deteriorate as the two continents shared common values and principles. He called for a reinforced framework for dialogue to improve this relationship. On Turkey, the Minister was concerned about the impact of war on the country and the regions, citing the impact on Kurdish question as a particular difficulty.

Mr. Papandreou emphasized the importance of multilateral approach and said the Presidency would ensure an EU common position, as much as possible within the UN. Overall, he stated, the Iraqi crisis had brought new issues to the table and stated that Europe's experience of transforming dictatorships into democracy was a strength and an example that the international community could learn from.

For his part, Commissioner Chris PATTEN, after emphasizing that he had always been aware of the limitations of the CFSP, took the Member States to task for going their separate ways. As he explained, the Commission had not been given the sole rights of initiative here, nor had the national governments agreed to respect majority votes. Indeed foreign policy remained primarily a national responsibility which as he put it, "has never been more evident than over the last few miserable weeks."

Reinforcing his criticism of national divisions, he added "mere inter-governmentalistm is a recipe for weakness and mediocrity: for a European common policy of the lowest common denominator". Nevertheless, he did point out that there had been achievements in recent times, notably in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and he acknowledged it could even be possible for small groups of states to act as a driving force for a European policy, but he was firmly of the view that this could not be achieved without a better system to put in place a common approach. His other conclusion, from recent events, was that the authority of the UN should be enhanced, especially as a basis for military intervention. On the downside, the refusal of the US to ratify the nuclear Test Ban Treaty did not set a good example to countries such as Iran or North Korea and neither did the US position on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He was firmly of the view that international co-operation was the only way to tackle terrorism successfully. Wars, he contended, were more likely to recruit terrorists than to deter them. More needed to be done to address world inequalities by, for example, implementing Johannesburg decisions on sustainable development and pursuing the WTO Doha development agenda.

Turning to the question of humanitarian aid to Iraq in any possible post-war situation, he told MEPs that the EU was already the largest donor in the country and that €15m had been set aside for emergency aid but that more would be needed. He also warned that it would be more difficult for the EU to co-operate in a long-term reconstruction process if the Member States remained divided and military intervention took place without UN authorization. His conclusion, therefore, was that European efforts should be directed towards minimizing the worst effects, not only of the death and destruction brought by war but of the destabilizing impact on Iraq's neighbors and the damage to the authority of the UN, NATO and transatlantic relations. This, he felt, should be tackled by redoubling efforts to shore up the Common Foreign and Security Policy, not to abandon it. In other words, to seek to persuade the large Member States to change their attitude and, as he put it, "to see how much they have reduced their common influence as a result of public squabbling". His other concern was to see that the enlargement project was not put at risk by recent events. The European aspirations of the new countries should not be questioned because of their views on the Iraq crisis, he added. But he felt it was time to remind the new countries of their new responsibilities to refrain from actions likely to threaten the effectiveness of the EU as a cohesive force in international relations despite, as he recognized, the bad example set by present EU members.

Turning to the impact on Israel and Palestine, he pointed out that the present state of life for Palestinians was characterized by a quarter of Palestinian children suffering from malnutrition "for purely man made reasons". He recognized the stated commitment of the US to take a much more proactive role in the peace process here, but did express the fear that the outcome of a war in Iraq could be followed by more violence and terrorism in Palestine and Israel. He was not convinced that to defeat Saddam Hussein would be to defeat terrorism.

For the EPP/ED, Hans-Gert POETTERING (D) reminded MEPs that the regime of Saddam Hussein was characterized by a secret service, violence, murder and terror. There was no doubt, he said, that Iraq should disarm fully and he expressed concern that the US was being blamed for enfolding events here. Recalling the reaction of the international community to the events of 9/11, he felt it was now important to emphasize Europe's friendship and partnership with the US and recognize its contribution to international affairs and promoting democracy in the past. If the US could persuade Saddam to disarm peacefully with the threat of military action in the presence of 260,000 troops, then this would be no mean achievement, he said. He did, however, emphasize the need to act through respect for international law and the United Nations.

Turning to the role of Europeans, he felt more efforts should now concentrate on working for friendship and partnership with the Arab world, and indeed providing assistance to enable North African countries to progress and their people deterred from turning to terrorism. He appealed to the new government in Israel to make a concerted effort for a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis and to work for a democratic Palestinian state.

Enrique BARÓN CRESPO (E), for the PES group, asked the Greek Foreign Minister to deliver a clear message to the Spring European Council: no to proliferation, no to tyrants and no to unilateralism; but yes to the UN process, yes to disarmament and yes to democracy. This he said, was the simple message that all could agree on. He stressed the importance of continued inspections and praised the views of former US President Jimmy Carter on the matter as someone who has spoken out against unilateral military action. He said that war would lead to the destruction of Iraq with a very high level of casualties. A pre-emptive strike, he contended, would contravene international law, and furthermore was unnecessary. He called for the EU Members of the UN Security Council to be united and stated that the EU Spring Summit would have to deal with the Iraqi crisis.

For the ELDR group, Graham WATSON (South West) praised the idea of establishing an International War Tribunal for Iraq. He underlined the importance of the EU-US relationship, and said that Europe shared the pain of the 9/11 attacks. However, he stated, the Liberals did not share the US' view that war was now the appropriate. The costs of war and reconstruction, he outlined, would be much higher than continued inspections and containment. The lack of agreement on Cyprus, he remarked, was perhaps the first casualty of the disagreement between the US and the EU on the Iraq question. War he said could only be swift with UN support, if unilateral military action is taken, otherwise there was a risk that the world could enter into a second hundred years war.

Francis WURTZ (F) for the GUE/NGL group stated that there was only one legal and moral way out of the Iraqi crisis, and that was through the United Nations process. The international community, he said, should listen to the peoples of the world whose will for peace had been expressed so clearly. Colin Powell's efforts to blackmail Members of the Security Council, he said, were reprehensible, instead, he commented, the US should listen to figures such as Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter and the Pope who had spoken out against war.

For the Greens/EFA group, Daniel Marc COHN-BENDIT (F) stressed the importance of Article 19 of the Treaties which obliges Member States to support the agreed common position on foreign policy. He said this was particularly important for Germany, France, Spain and the UK - the EU Members of the Security Council. He criticized the Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana Palacio, for riding roughshod over the Treaties that she had defended as a Member of the European Parliament. On Turkey, he stated that the international community should respect the democratic will of the Turkish people as expressed in the Turkish parliament and he deplored the bypassing of democracy through attempts to negotiate directly with the Turkish military. EU Member States, in the past, had suffered from fundamentalism and dictatorship, fought it, and won. The same could be done for Iraq and other non-democratic countries in the region.

After recalling the achievements of the USA in defending freedom and democracy on the international stage, Charles PASQUA (UEN, F) then pointed out the vital importance of working for an international solution through the United Nations. Any alternative route based, as he put it, on "might is right" would, he felt, be a step backwards. While he recognized the right of the USA to defend itself, he felt there had been no proof provided of any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, thus if the USA was acting from any other motive then the international community should be told. The danger of military action, he warned, would be to open a new front for terrorism. He supported disarmament as the way forward and the French President exercising a veto to oppose a military operation.

For Bastiaan BELDER (NL), speaking for the EDD group, the problem was putting in place a UN inspection system with a firm deadline authorizing military intervention in the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply. It would, he said, be paradoxical if Saddam's actions succeeded in promoting disunity amongst European leaders.

Jean-Marie LE PEN (IND, F), on the other hand, held out the possibility of awarding the Noble Peace Prize to George W. BUSH if he could achieve the disarmament of Saddam Hussein in a peaceful way. He warned, however, that military intervention could be limitless with other regimes in countries such as Iran and Syria under threat and the international destabilization that this could cause.

Speaking for the British Conservatives, Jonathan EVANS (EPP-ED, Wales) recognized that the stakes had increased and indeed that Saddam Hussein was still playing for time. He reminded the House that UN Resolution 1441 had still not been respected and that the Iraqi leader was indulging in "gamesmanship", especially as he failed to inform the UN of what had happened to dangerous, chemical, biological and other weapons discovered in 1998. He also concluded that the disunity shown by European leaders only underlined the importance of NATO acting as a defense arm and a vital component in the transatlantic relationship which he firmly supported. The action of the French, German and Belgian governments in withholding support for Turkey was, he said, "deplorable". The future would be a testing time for the international community but there should be no doubt that responsibility for avoiding war rested firmly with Saddam Hussein.

Gary TITLEY (PES, North West) questioned the effectiveness of the inspectors, and contended that they were just scratching at the surface. The likelihood was, he said, that Iraq possessed thousands of liters of anthrax, and the discovery of a drone and cluster bombs was further condemning evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Inspections, he stressed, could not go on forever, a clear timetable had to be set otherwise Saddam Hussein would simply draw out the process further. If Iraq is not disarmed, he said, the credibility of the UN would be totally undermined. Those who made reference to former Presidents and to the Pope were mistaken, since as he put it, they were "totally powerless." He praised the leadership of Tony Blair on the issue and called for other leaders of political parties to back his position.

John CUSHNAHAN (EPP-ED, Munster), while recognizing the important US contribution in preserving democracy through its participation in two world wars, did however feel that Europe should not be obliged to agree at all times. Indeed he pointed to rather earlier dubious US foreign policy decisions which in effect allowed Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to thrive. He urged both the British Government and the US pause and reflect about taking any action without UN authorization. This would be a blow not only to the UN but to the CFSP as well.

Charles TANNOCK (EPP-ED, London), on the other hand, was firmly of the view that the split in Europe could be put down to the Franco-German position and indeed he pointed out that 19 other governments supported the US. France and Russia, he said, would be judged harshly for exercising a veto against military intervention and he supported a change of regime in Iraq as a means of introducing democracy and peace to the region. For the future he looked forward to the US playing a positive role in a resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN (EPP-ED, Eastern) said the divisions in the international community were extremely dangerous. He contented that Iraq had been armed by Russia and France and this was demonstrated by the type of military equipment that Iraq possesses. For those who supported the transatlantic alliance, then now, was the time to show it.

David SUMBERG (EPP-ED, North West) found himself in what he called an "extraordinary situation" of supporting a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour leader in the European Parliament. 12 years ago, he stated, the allies stopped at the gates of Iraq on the condition that Iraq would disarm. He too stressed the importance of the transatlantic relationship.

Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT (EPP-ED, Yorkshire and the Humber), however, put the failure of the CFSP down to Europe itself. Indeed he pointed out that the Bush line had been approved by the US Congress. Furthermore, the record of Britain and France in the Middle East was hardly one to be proud of and he added there was a growing demand for true democracy and respect for individual liberties in the Arab world as a whole. After pointing out that there was nothing intolerant in the Islamic religion, he emphasized that the aim of the CFSP was to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights in an international context and that this should be firmly supported.

Replying to the debate, Georgios Papandreou, underlined that the international community shared the same final goal of disarming Iraq. Every diplomatic avenue, he stated, would be explored and military action should only be a last resort. War, he said, was not inevitable. The crisis had raised many questions on the EU's Common and Foreign and Security Policy and laid down challenges for the European Convention. He stated that enlargement cannot be jeopardized, and this would be a priority of the Greek Presidency. He called for a new and full dialogue with the US on issues that divide the two continents. He feared the repercussions of war for Turkey underlining the fragile state of the Turkish economy. On Cyprus, he said the issue was still one and he hoped to see a united Cyprus joining the EU. As the Chinese proverb goes, the word for "crisis" can also be the word for "opportunity", he trusted this would be the case for the international community.

| Arriba |

• EP - Situation in Iraq (14/5/2003)
• Greek FM Papandreou's speech on Iraq to the EP (12/3/2003)