Mr President, an eminent and noble friend of mine recounts how he became convinced of the need for regime change in Iraq when during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait Iraqi soldiers put Kuwaiti prisoners of war into manholes, closed the covers, poured petrol through the air vents and set them alight. Few can be unaware of the barbarity of Saddam Hussein's regime, either towards his own citizens or towards others, and for that reason I applaud the initiative of my friend and colleague, Mr Rutelli, in seeking to establish an international criminal tribunal for Iraq. Iraq has been under notice from the international community for over a decade and our patience on the issue of disarmament is running very thin. For Liberals in this House good relations between Europe and the United States of America are of huge importance. Our commitment to shared values, our commitment to economic and cultural ties reflected in our military alliance are things that we hold dear. We share America's pain about the attacks of 11 September, and not just because European citizens were among those so brutally murdered. But we do not share the US President's view that war against Iraq is justified at this stage. The report presented by Hans Blix to the UN Security Council last Friday does not make a case for immediate military action. On the contrary, he reported substantial disarmament and, while he recognised that cooperation was by no means immediate, he welcomed it as active, even proactive. His report showed that inspections are delivering tangible results for the weapons inspectors, sufficient to be given the additional months needed to complete Iraqi disarmament. To pull the rug from under Hans Blix's feet and resort to war now, would be incomprehensible to moderate opinion around the world. I would ask our American friends to pause and reflect, if only for a few minutes, on some fundamental questions. Will a regime change in Iraq help bring to justice Al-Qaeda terrorists? Will upheaval in a secular Arab state advance the cause of peace between Israel and Palestine? And would not the cost of continued vigilance, resilience and patience be lower than the cost of war and reconstruction? We must not underestimate the casualties of war, and not only the human casualties, though they would be many and costly, but the diplomatic casualties of which the collapse of the reconciliation talks in Cyprus is perhaps the first. As the crisis unfolds we are also approaching a critical moment for the future credibility of the United Nations and a world order based on the rule of law. The remarkable unity displayed by the international community last November in agreeing unanimously to Resolution 1441 is in danger of falling apart. We are witnessing the unedifying sight of the pro- and anti-war factions in the Security Council seeking to win over the undecided countries through bullying, bribery and even blackmail. The dignity and integrity of the United Nations is at stake. Having gone down the UN route to achieve Iraqi disarmament, a decision which my group warmly welcomed at the time, the United States must stick with the multilateral route. For the US to disregard a UN decision against early military action would deal a potentially fatal blow to the United Nations. It does not matter whether this decision is reached because of the failure to muster the required nine votes or because of a French or Russian veto. A veto one opposes will always be less reasonable than a veto one imposes. Yet rules are rules, and UN backing for military action must not be circumvented on the grounds that a veto is 'unreasonable'. It would be far better for any vote on a new resolution to be postponed until a consensual outcome can be achieved. The elements of a consensus can be readily identified, if only the artificial demands of a pre-determined military timetable could be set aside. Mr President-in-Office, you have told us that war can still be avoided. The gates of the Temple of Janus have been unlocked, if not yet opened. Hans Blix has set out the disarmament tasks which remain to be achieved and these tasks could be set out in a new resolution as clearly defined benchmarks to be met by Iraq in the coming months. Recognising that Iraq has only moved as far as it has because of the threat of military force, why not keep up the pressure until the process is completed? If Saddam Hussein fails to meet the benchmarks in the resolution, then the diplomatic and inspections options will have been exhausted and the international community would have the moral authority and legitimacy to resort to war. In conclusion, it is claimed in London, Washington and Madrid that war could be short, swift and successful. With UN support this could indeed be the case, but without it, in a conflict which divides the international community, we could be on the brink of another Hundred Years War which could bring down regimes well beyond Iraq. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR