Iraq

European Parliament Plenary Session, Brussels

09 October 2002 

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 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 has just referred to the Cincinati speech. It was important, of course, because he 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, 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 great 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, confers 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 UK- has made public a detailed assessment of Iraq's possession of chemical, biological and, possibly, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The 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 - who (I want to make this point) had previously done a better job than they are sometimes given credit for - over the last four years.

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.

European Ministers last discussed the situation over Iraq on Monday 30. September at the GAC. 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 in the States, 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 e.g. 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 like Al-Qaeda, 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 and the concept of humanitarian interventions was supported by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in an outstanding speech 3 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 can not be seen in isolation from other equally sensitive cases. Shouldn't we 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 other than profoundly disturbing.