Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-006"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.1.3-006"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I do not simply want to repeat or parrot what the Minister has just said in his comprehensive speech about what has led up to the present situation. So I will discard some of my remarks that would otherwise have been rather repetitive, which should allow even more honourable Members to take part in this exceptionally important and, I think in terms of procedure, almost unique debate.
(
We have a consensus. The situation may not quite exist in other countries yet, but at least we can begin in this Parliament with a consensus on that point. The EU Presidency declaration of 20 May reaffirms European Union support for United Nations Security Resolution No 1284 and unhindered access for UNMOVIC inspectors.
Second, we must recognise that efforts to force Iraqi compliance are more likely to succeed if they are backed by a coalition of concerned parties as broad and effective as that which was put together with great diplomatic finesse in 1991 and which helped to secure the expulsion of Iraqi armed forces from Kuwait after the unprovoked invasion of that country. We should also be looking for as broad an international coalition to secure UN compliance as possible. Again, that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable proposition.
We must all respect the authority of the United Nations and of international law. The Security Council has charted the way forward in dealing with this intensely difficult problem and every nation should act within the framework of the decisions and resolutions issued by the United Nations.
Finally, the plight of Iraq’s population – and this was a subject that we certainly discussed at some length on the basis of the honourable Member's report back in May – has highlighted the difficulty of dealing with a regime which is as ruthless as it is reckless. Since the Gulf War in 1991 the EC has been the major donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq. We have contributed over EUR 270 million. Over the last three years we have provided assistance of some EUR 10 million annually. In 2002 we shall provide around EUR 13 million. Yet the impact of our help is reduced by the limitations placed upon it by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
That is why we strongly welcomed UNSC Resolution No 1409, to which the Minister referred last May and which introduced so-called 'smart sanctions' intended to limit Saddam Hussein’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction while also limiting his ability to inflict hardship on his own population.
Meeting at Elsinore last weekend, Europe’s Foreign Ministers called for full implementation of the UN resolutions and a resumption of inspections without excuses, without prevarication, without 'ifs' or 'buts'. That is obviously the best way to proceed.
I would like to make a couple of personal remarks. I hope that, as the debate on how to achieve these shared objectives continues in the coming weeks, it will shed light as well as generate heat. We need to consider how we can best limit the production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
We have to look at how we can continue successfully the international campaign against terrorism on as broad a front as possible. We have to promote the end of violence in the Middle East, the restoration of a peace process and the establishment of a Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel. That is what Foreign Minister Møller in the office of presidency is trying to do this week in the Middle East, taking to the region a roadmap which suggests extremely convincingly what Europe thinks is the way to get back to peace talks and to get away from violence.
We have to prevent a gulf opening up between the democracies of Europe and North America and the Islamic World. We have – and this may not be popular everywhere these remarks are heard – to encourage the development of participative democracy, civil society and the rule of law in all countries, including those which comprise the Arab World. We have to think constructively about what can and should justify intervention by the international community in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. We have to think equally constructively about whether the global rule book that has by and large governed our affairs for the last 50 years is still valid or whether it requires some changes, how it can be reinforced and strengthened.
Over the past few weeks Iraq has figured more and more prominently, as the Minister just said, on the international agenda. The situation appears to be evolving day by day. What is plain, whatever else may be doubtful, is that the risk of a very grave new crisis is increasing. Many important voices have been raised, not least in Washington, about how to deal with Iraq and with the problems linked to its possession and development of weapons of mass destruction. Positions have been expressed by many key players, including European governments. I note from this morning's papers what was said only yesterday.
It is important that on all these issues, which are going to shape the sort of world we live in for the next decades, Europe’s voice should be heard.
(
I would just like to offer one last thought: it is perhaps ironic that the debate on these far-reaching issues at the beginning of a new century is triggered by the question of how we should deal with a dictator whose rule exemplifies much of what was worst in the last century. I just wish I were as certain about some of the answers to these questions as are many of those whose voices are currently raised so loud.
(
Against the background of this tumult of speeches and articles, I would like today simply to concentrate on the things we know with certainty and on which we should all be able to agree.
First, as pointed out by Baroness Nicholson’s excellent overview of the present situation in Iraq, which we discussed in this Chamber last May – and I agree, incidentally, with everything the Minister said about our concern for the people of Iraq – we can have no doubt about the evil nature of the regime led by Saddam Hussein. That was made manifest in the excellent report that we discussed in May, albeit, I have to say, with slightly fewer people in attendance than is the case this morning. Terrible events have occurred throughout the 23 years of his rule: wars, aggression and brutal internal repression, including the use of chemical weapons against his own people. There is, in his country, a total absence of basic human and civil rights and I have no doubt that the Iraqi people would be better served by new and different leadership. Indeed, I would be surprised if anybody thought that they are best served by this leadership, not just the Iraqi people, but the Middle East region and indeed the whole world. His is not the only regime that the world would be better off without – there are a lot of others as well – but it is certainly as high on the list as any.
Secondly, following the departure of UN inspectors in 1998, a UN Security Council Resolution, No 1284, which the minister referred to, was adopted in December 1999, establishing a new arms inspection entity, UNMOVIC, and setting out what Iraq has to do to have UN sanctions lifted. Notably, it had to cooperate with the inspectors 'in all respects'. This means that Iraq should give full unrestricted access to UNMOVIC inspectors to any site, area, equipment and installation at any moment without any conditions.
Yet Iraq never complied with this Security Council Resolution – just as it failed to cooperate with the UN throughout the 1990s – there were nine Security Council Resolutions – either refusing entry to UN inspectors, or imposing unacceptable conditions on their operations. This House has always been absolutely clear about the importance of the UN in securing better global governance of our troubled planet and I do not think that you can exempt Iraq from those considerations.
According to the UNSCOM report of January 1999, there are legitimate suspicions that the Iraqi regime is developing weapons of mass destruction. It is not the Commissioner for External Relations who is saying this, UNSCOM is saying it. At this point in time, no clear evidence has emerged, although it should be noted that the Iraqi Government has not facilitated the task of the UNSCOM inspectors to gather evidence about this. Whenever I think about this issue, one question crops up again and again. If the Iraqi regime has nothing to hide, why do they bar access to the UN-mandated inspectors? It is not an unreasonable question to ask.
I think two conclusions stand out clearly, from whatever point people come to this argument and this debate, which is going to cause a great deal of passionate discussion in the next few weeks and months.
First, we must continue to press for full Iraqi compliance with the UN resolutions. Is there anybody in Parliament who disagrees with that? Good!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples