Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner Patten, ladies and gentlemen, the reason for this debate here and the debate in the international community is Saddam Hussein's dictatorial and criminal regime. The focus of evil is in Iraq, not in the United States. As both the President-in-Office and the Commissioner have already pointed out, Saddam Hussein already has a history of using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against Iraq's neighbours. He invaded Kuwait. If he is still stockpiling and producing weapons of mass destruction, that is a threat both to the Middle East and to the international community as a whole. Anyone who wants to prevent a war must prevent Saddam Hussein from being able to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. The way Saddam Hussein is flouting international law is quite unacceptable. He is obliged to permit unconditional and unfettered checks by UN arms inspectors in Iraq. That is what we in the Group of the and the are calling for. Saddam Hussein must comply with the demands of the United Nations. That is why we must maintain pressure on this Iraqi dictator. If we in Europe are not united, he will exploit that. That is why it is unacceptable – and I am saying that very calmly – for the Federal Chancellor of Germany to talk about a German approach to this issue. That will only encourage Saddam Hussein and weaken Europe's unity and solidarity. We in the European Union will only have any influence if we act jointly. There can be only one European approach. America's President Bush has promised the allies close consultation. We call on our American friends to share all the information they have with their European allies. The use of force can only be justified if all other means fail. The United Nations should have a monopoly when it comes to making decisions and taking action. Military means should only be used if all other means fail, but even in that case the following questions need to be answered. The first question is whether the coalition against terror that President Bush so impressively assembled after the events of 11 September will survive. The second question is what the plan for the Middle East is after that. I can only emphatically support what Commissioner Patten said when he told us that we need a peace plan between Israel and Palestine, we need a Palestinian state and an Israeli state that can peacefully coexist. The third question is what the consequences are. What consequences would military action have for our relations with the Arab and Islamic world, with whom we want to coexist in partnership and – if possible – in friendship? I know just how important an answer to this question is at the moment, because I have just visited Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Qatar. These questions need to be answered, and on all of them we need to establish a joint position with the United States. People are also wrestling with these questions in America – it is not as if there is only the position of Vice-President Cheney and the position of the Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld, there is also the position of the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, the position of the former Secretary of State, James Baker, and that of the former Security Advisor to the President's father, Brent Scowcroft. That is why there is absolutely no reason for anti-Americanism in this debate, because exactly the same debate is going on in America as here in Europe. What is important is for the United States and the European Union ultimately to establish a joint position. I want to request and call upon our American friends to resist the temptation of unilateralism and not to act alone. This does not just relate to Iraq, it also relates to how we deal with the International Criminal Court. I also call on all parties, on all the governments of the European Union, not to take unilateral action, but to follow the lead of the European Union as a whole. I also call on our American friends to consistently act in unison with Europe on other issues, such as Kyoto, just as in the present case with Iraq. I have the impression that our American friends see their relations with Europe more in terms of their bilateral relations with France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and other states, than in terms of seeing the European Union as a single entity. President Bush made an important speech to the Bundestag in Berlin. We can agree with nearly everything he said, but he did not mention the concept of the European Union once in that speech! That demonstrates how important it is to strengthen our dialogue with the US Government. I would very much welcome it if in the foreseeable future we could also invite the US President to address this House, because if my memory serves me correctly, the last US President to address the European Parliament was President Reagan in 1986. All these things would help to strengthen our relations with America, with our American partners and friends. We need to step up our dialogue with America. We need to act together to avert the threats posed by Saddam Hussein, and above all we in Europe, the Member States of the European Union, and the European Union itself need to act together and in unison. I say that because if we are not united, Europe cannot hope to have any influence. That is why the top priority is for us to act jointly on the world stage through the European Union. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE