President-in-Office of the Council, allow me to put to the test all the capacity for thought inherited from Greek philosophy, one of the sources of European political philosophy, by asking you to show imagination, insight and lucidity in your role as President of the Council. Let us begin with the Iraqi crisis. No, Mr Poettering, you are wrong when you say that we cannot do this or that. If we want a UN position, we must also say what must be decided at the Security Council; we cannot always hide behind the Security Council without specifying what it should decide. To date, there is no proof of renewed aggression from the dictator Saddam Hussein. No proof at all. If the secret services have proof, they should announce it in all the newspapers. If they have proof of what Saddam Hussein possesses, he must also know. If that is the case, therefore, it is not a secret from anyone in Iraq, nor from Saddam Hussein. If he has weapons, he knows where he is hiding them, and if the CIA or the other secret services know where these weapons are hidden, we can tell the world, since, in any case, the enemy already knows. I do not, therefore, understand this strategy. That is why we are asking you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to be Socrates and Plato rolled into one, in other words, to bring together Mr Chirac, Mr Blair, Mr Aznar and Mr Schröder, the heads of four governments represented at the United Nations Security Council, around a table to establish a European position that says ‘no’ to military intervention, which would not only be harmful to everyone, but which furthermore would not solve any problems. We must have the courage to say what we expect from the Security Council and I believe the European Union has a decisive role to play in this regard. We said ‘yes’. One part of my group was in fact against this, but I have always said ‘yes’, to the need for military intervention in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Today, however, all those who said ‘yes’ to intervention in these two cases must say ‘no’ to pointless intervention. We must tell the Security Council this. France and the United Kingdom have a right of veto which would prevent this intervention. The European Union must have the strength to impose a ‘no’, at precisely the moment when North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, when it could make an atomic bomb, and yet we are, quite rightly, going to negotiate with it. Our current policy is one of encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons, by saying to dictators who already have nuclear weapons that we will not do anything to them, and saying to those who do not yet have such weapons that we will attack them. That amounts to telling dictators in every country to hurry up and get nuclear weapons, so that, that way, we will not do anything more to them and will negotiate with them. That is the Platonic logic currently being applied by Washington. I would ask Athens to say ‘no’ to this completely crazy thinking. I would now like to address the matter of the Spring Summit and sustainable development. I agree, but what are the relevant indicators with regard to the environment, the economy and social issues? These indicators must be equal. In Salonika, we therefore need to draw up a genuine list of indicators and a strategy to assess and put into perspective sustainable development. That would truly be an historic initiative, a first. There are numerous proposals here and there, but nothing more. You spoke of maritime safety – fine! Where do the responsibilities lie, however, in environmental terms? Who will pay for the Erika? Who will pay for the Prestige? By way of an example: EUR 11 million were paid out by those responsible for the Erika. That is scandalous! It is scandalous because those responsible for maritime disasters should pay for everything. They must take on the entire risk and until they are forced to shoulder their responsibility, all the responsibility, they will do whatever they like. You know what I am talking about, since Greece is one of the countries that has the most responsibilities in this sector. Lastly, you spoke of Cyprus. Naturally, you want a united Cyprus. In that case, however, both Turkey and Greece need to approach the problem of Greek and Turkish nationalism. One of the final barriers concerning the possibility of a united Cyprus is the fruit of these two nationalisms, I would even go so far as to say the joint action of Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides. The Cypriot people, the populations of the north and the south, do not want the same thing as their representatives. I therefore believe that together we must all have the strength and courage to provide a future for people who want this future. In conclusion, you would truly be Socrates and Plato combined if you succeeded in solving the problem of the status of Members of Parliament. If you achieve this, you may be my guest at the Parisian restaurant of your choice, as you will have become a grand master in politics.

Political group: Verts-ALE