Mr President, I wish firstly to thank Commissioner Nielson and Mr Yiannitsis from the Greek Presidency for their contributions. Commissioner Nielson deserves special recognition for his visit to Baghdad to ensure that the EU’s humanitarian activity was getting under way quickly. In the debate here today, I agree with Mr Titley that we have a tendency to ignore the fact that the population of Iraq has in actual fact been liberated from a tyrant. Baroness Nicholson, who has just returned from Iraq, testified to the joy felt by large portions of the population at having been liberated following decades of terror. I was among those who were opposed to the war, but I cannot refrain from expressing deep satisfaction at the fact that a people that has lived under oppression for so long is now being given the opportunity to build its own future. Everything depends of course upon how the reconstruction is organised. The United States went into Iraq on the basis of arguments concerning Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. It was emphasised very often that economic interests had nothing to do with the matter. Nonetheless, an organisation for reconstruction is now emerging that is under the total control of the Americans. The Bush administration has already distributed multi-billion dollar contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq to American companies. As I am well aware, having worked for the UN, tender procedures of this type normally go via the UN or the World Bank, and that is of course what should happen in this case too. Otherwise, there are no guarantees against arbitrariness in the tender procedure itself and in the way in which the income from Iraqi oil is used. Only a UN mandate can give legitimacy to the reconstruction of Iraq. That should of course be obvious, especially to us Europeans. The basis on which we ourselves are entitled to make agreements has been established precisely in order to create stability and predictability in relations between our states. I appreciate that it is difficult precisely to define the EU’s role in the reconstruction until UN decisions have made matters clear. The difficulties also have to do, of course, with the division between the Member States before and during the war. I agree with what Mr Poettering said, namely that that there is more that unites our Member States than divides them. I am therefore disappointed that the EU has not succeeded in uniting around a proactive plan for how best to make use of our special experience of reconstruction. I read in Scandinavian newspapers that individual Member States, such as Denmark, are preparing to contribute to the long-term reconstruction. That is naturally commendable, but what would of course be more significant is for the EU, under the leadership of the Commission, to draw up such a plan. Time will not now permit me to define which tasks we are concerned with here, but, clearly, we are talking, above all, about efforts in the legal area and in the areas of education and of medical treatment and health care etc. I would therefore call upon both the Presidency and the Commission immediately to devise such a proposal so that the EU can regain a portion of its reputation and, above all, play that central role in international politics and in this region that the situation demands.

Political group: PPE-DE