Brussels, 01/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - During a plenary debate on Thursday morning, MEPs stressed that divergence between Member States over the latest US-British bombing raids in Iraq once more show the weaknesses of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In answer to questions on the effectiveness of sanctions, Commission and Council representatives urged for such sanctions to be more "targeted".
For the Council, Swedish Secretary of State Lars Danielsson acknowledged that "some Member States have taken part in military intervention while others have regretted it, and yet the CFSP is supposed to be a Council common position". Francis Wurtz, French Communist and initiator of the debate, felt participation by the United Kingdom in the raid against Iraq, alongside the United States, brings the credibility of the European project into question, since one of the pillars of the future vanguard, on defence matters especially, plays against Europe with the United States". "What an example for the candidate countries whom we are asking to form an alliance with their neighbours rather than with the American super-power!" added the president of the United Left/Nordic Greens Group.
Mr Danielsson noted that "there is no convergence of views on the international legal basis that allows such intervention". Along the same lines, Jacques Poos from Luxembourg remarked on behalf of the PES Group that it is "up to the United Nations Security Council to give its position on the legality of the attacks and coercive measures against a country". Speaking on behalf of the Greens, Dutch national Joost Lagendijk also felt the legal basis for bombing is very problematic and that the use of military force strengthens the "anti-imperialist feeling" of the Iraqi and Arab populations. British Labour member Gary Titley, on the other hand, defended the intervention, stressing that one cannot allow western pilots to be attacked without retaliating. "There is a way to stop the sanctions", he said, "if Saddam Hussein complies with the UN resolutions".
In the same way as divisions appeared within the political groups during the hearing organised at the beginning of the week by the EP (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.3), MEPS are divided over the need, or not, to lift sanctions, which most believe are counter-productive though others believe they are necessary to prevent Iraq from re-arming. "No-one has taken such great advantage of the suffering of the Iraqi people as the regime itself", remarked Spanish national José Ignacio Salafranca, speaking on behalf of the EPP. He raised the question of how relevant the embargo is. According to the Arab countries, circumvention of the embargo represents annual fraud of over $1 billion, he pointed out. Mr Poos also stressed the magnitude of "collateral damage" caused to the population through sanctions that are still ineffective for destabilising the regime. Mr Wurtz urged for the embargo to be lifted and for effective support to be provided for the Iraqi opposition.
The President of the Council and External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten recalled that the UN is currently examining how appropriate it is to adjust the sanctions. An important point in negotiations with Iraq was reached today, said Chris Patten, who added that, after ten years of sanctions without results, the international community should contemplate so-called "intelligent sanctions", while making sure that there is no re-armament. Mr Patten trusts that, despite their uncertain results so far, the meetings between the UN secretary general and the Iraqi minister for foreign affairs will allow positive developments to take place. The Commissioner recalled that the EU has provided EUR 8-10 million in humanitarian aid to Iraq and that 12 million more will be disbursed this year.
In response to questions put by Emma Nicholson (British Liberal Democrat) on the creation of an international tribunal for judging the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, Mr Danielsson said: "Anything done against the Iraqi regime must come within the framework of a United Nations resolution. To go any further would be detrimental to everyone". He recalled that Resolution 687 demands a change of regime in Iraq.