Brussels, 10/10/2002 (Agence Europe) - The debate on Iraq that took place on Wednesday during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Brussels, confirmed the attachment of Europeans to the collective multilateral defence system of the United Nations. Although many recognised the threat represented by Saddam Hussein to peace, a large number stressed that all countries and not just Iraq, ought to respect UN resolutions.
Commissioner Chris Patten welcomed the desire of the US Administration to work, if possible, with the UN. He also welcomed diplomatic efforts of the "Arab world" to encourage Iraq to accept the return of UN inspectors, but still harboured doubts about the promises made by the Iraqi authorities. "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 potentially disastrous consequences of a spread of unilateral actions allegedly to 'solve' regional disputes." The President of the Council, Bertel Haarder, also welcomed the intention displayed by the USA to follow the UN approach.
Ignacio Salafranca (EPP-ED, Spain) believed that Saddam Hussein was a "real threat to peace" before adding, "this is no chimera" and stressed that the reaction of the international community and EU had to remain in proportion. He called for a cautious approach and touched on the possible repercussions that an intervention could have in the region. He also insisted that the EU response should be backed by all Member States and that the link between UN resolutions and an intervention would need to be debated insofar as it might meant the EU needing authorisations for Petersburg type missions. German Social Democrat, Jannis Sakellariou speaking on behalf of the PES, said that this should mean that there should be no obstacles at all to the inspections and that the response should be multilateral and backed by the UN. On the issue of whether the inspectors had to have an agreement in the form of a new Security Council resolution before going into Iraq, Mr Sakellariou stated that a definition of their job from the UN Secretary General would suffice. He also believed that Koffi Annan should elaborate a timetable for weapons destruction and the lifting of the embargo, as well as the suspension of US and British bombings while inspectors were in Iraq. Mr Sakellariou also insisted on the need to get all resolutions respected and that there should not be a kind of "UN à la carte". Speaking on behalf of the ELDR, Emma Nicholson (UK) specifically insisted on the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly its minority groups. Ms Nicholson supports the putting of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen on trial for genocide under terms of the 1948 Convention. Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL, France) stated that, "Bush hasn't renounced war but he's perhaps beginning to realise that international political life is not a western in which he's playing the role of sheriff". Mr Wurtz also appealed for the lifting of the embargo once inspections are begun and that the Council and Commission made a declaration on the subject of the new US military doctrine, which affirms the right to act alone in a preventative way and could lead to the ruin of the collective system of security that has been in place since the fall of the Nazi regime. While acknowledging the horrific character of the Saddam Hussein regime, Per Gahrton from Sweden insisted on behalf of the Greens/EFA that each intervention involving Iraq was decided by the Security Council, in order to prevent anarchy. Mentioning President Bush's "obsession" and a lack of proof of the existence of arms of mass destruction and Iraq's involvement in terrorism, Florence Kuntz (EDD, France) asserted that the USA simply regarded Iraq as an anomaly on the road to oil. Ms Kuntz insisted on the cost of war, not only on a human scale but also on the fact that that it would engender instability in the region.