Strasbourg, 04/09/2003 (Agence Europe) - Recent attacks in Iraq, and especially those on Sergio Vieira de Mello and Mohammed Baker al Hakim, as well as the continuing insecurity in this country make a majority of the European Parliament feel that EU commitment must be called for, within the context of the UN. A debate was held in Strasbourg on Wednesday: voting on a resolution is foreseen for the second session in September. The EU must assume its responsibilities, Council President Franco Frattini said, hoping there would be a large majority of the Security Council in favour of broader UN commitment in Iraq. The Donors' Conference in Madrid on 24 October must be generous, and the economic and social reconstruction of the country must not be simply a technical operation but should be a real driving force for cohabitation, the Italian Foreign Minister said.
One should no longer ask "whether" the Union should be committed to rebuilding Iraq, but "how" it should do so, Christopher Patten said speaking for the Commission. He affirmed that a democratic society cannot be built "on the cheap". The Commission, he recalled, has provided humanitarian aid, and is preparing proposals on a European approach for the reconstruction of Iraq. We are ready to cooperate whenever security allows us to do so, if there is an "adequate multilateral umbrella", separate from the work of the provisional authority but in coordination with it. It is imperative to have an international trust fund which operates transparently and separately from the Iraqi Development Fund and the Coalition, concluded Mr Patten, saying that, without such guarantees for the budgetary authority, he would not be able to acquire the necessary funding.
The time has come, declared Elmar Brok on behalf of the EPP-ED, to reach an agreement with the United States on sharing military, political and humanitarian tasks. The logic behind occupation must be replaced by the logic of sovereignty, insisted the president of the Socialist Group, Enrique Baron, who sees a role for the Union here, after the obvious failure of the pre-emptive strike doctrine. The Liberals have always argued in favour of a multilateral approach, but on the basis of an UN resolution with the UN having a central role, confirmed their president, Graham Watson. Some MEPs, like Pernille Frahm for the United Left/Nordic Left, could not help themselves telling the Americans that "they had told them so". Pierre Morillon (UDF) said he, too, was among the gloom mongers but that now it is time to act by trying to understand the Iraqi people who, rightly or wrongly, consider the occupation of their country as unacceptable. Although we were right before, Co-President of the Greens/EFA Daniel Cohn-Bendit said, we must "now be more intelligent" and help the Americans and the British. In his view, the EU should make proposals on a conference for stability and peace in the region, including Iran and other countries, which would allow Washington and London to find their way back along the UN road. Yes, exclaimed Italian Radical Emma Bonino, the Americans do perhaps have a bad policy, but the Union does not have a policy at all. The first thing to do, according to French sovereignist Dominique Souchet, is to establish a timetable for political transition "piloted" by the Iraqis with the assistance of the whole international community. What principles should be followed in order to resolve the conflicts on the ground? asked one MEP who has direct experience of conflicts, John Hume (Socialist from Northern Ireland). He gave the answer: respect for differences, the establishment of institutions that make sure there is such respect, the creation of conditions for facilitating joint work. John Hume suggests that, at Union level, the post of Commissioner for Peace and Reconciliation should be created, backed by a department that could go to the regions in conflict to help find a solution. Speaking for the Group of a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, Paul Couteaux raised the question of two "lies". First of all the pretext that it was necessary to destroy a country to do away with weapons of mass destruction that were not there. And another: Did George Bush and Tony Blair really want to eradicate Islam from Iraq, the only Arab country that did not have fundamentalism? At any rate, the result they achieved is exactly the opposite.