President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened extremely carefully to the statements by the representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and Commissioner Patten and I would like to point out one thing, as a preface to the speech I am going to make, and that is that, regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein’s regime has weapons of mass destruction, I would like to express my conviction that this regime is a danger to international peace and security, and this is no fantasy, as demonstrated by the invasion of Kuwait and the repeated and defiant violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. This does not mean, of course, that the European Union and the international community must react in an unmeasured and disproportionate way. I believe that we must be very careful in seeking a response, since it is clear that any response of the international community, supported by the European Union, could have repercussions for relations with the Arab world and also, as Mr Patten said, very clear and direct repercussions in terms of the conflict in the Middle East. Mr President, the initiatives I would suggest on behalf of my political group clearly follow the line put forward by Mr Patten. Obviously, for a system of values such as that of the European Union, which enshrines peace, understanding, harmony and solidarity, force should be the last resort. In this regard, we must of course exhaust all political, diplomatic and commercial avenues; but we must also, Mr President, guarantee free access, unrestricted and unconditional, for the United Nations inspectors, so that they can fulfil their mission of verifying whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction. And it is also clear that we must take account of the need and the determination of the international community so that, in the event of non-compliance with these United Nations resolutions, the international community and the United Nations itself can respond appropriately to verify and demand compliance with those resolutions. This issue of legitimacy, or the need for the legitimacy of a ratification by the United Nations Security Council, for taking military action, is precisely one of the issues we debated yesterday in the Committee on Foreign Affairs when we voted on a resolution on terrorism. And it was very interesting because, during the vote, Mr Robinson, the Secretary-General of NATO, appeared, and in response to the question of whether it was necessary to have the backing of the United Nations for action by his organisation, he told us that, while it was desirable, he believed that a mandate from the Atlantic Council was sufficient to be able to act within NATO. This debate, Mr President, is not trivial, because there may come a time, when the European Union’s rapid reaction force is ready for operation, when we have to seek the backing of the United Nations so that that force can carry out a Petersburg task, and it is possible that a member of the Security Council with the right to vote may put a stop to any action of the European Union’s rapid reaction force. I wanted to point out this debate, because it seems to me appropriate at the moment, especially in light of the events of September 11, and it is clear that we have to make progress in a whole series of areas relating to the security and defence policy. We must assess the compatibility of the European Union’s rapid reaction force with the initiative of the United States to create a rapid reaction force within NATO; we must consider the extent to which we can make the use of NATO’s infrastructure compatible in relation to the European Union’s actions in the field of defence; we must preserve the European Union’s capacity for autonomous decision-making in the field of defence and we must resolve the problem of military expenditure, or to put it another way, we must decide, on the basis of the facts, whether we want to spend more or spend better. Mr President, these issues are very relevant in the current context. The events of 11 September demand a response from the international community because, in the face of the threats and problems of international terrorism, we must all respond together, and within the European Union, we must offer a single response. I believe that the best contribution the European Union could make to the system and the principles of the United Nations is to respond cohesively within the international organisations, because the strength of the European Union lies in its unity, but fragmented we are weak.

Political group: PPE-DE