Mr President, today’s debate is probably the most important of all the debates in which I have had the honour of taking part since entering this House. I believe it concerns the very future of the European Union in its legitimate ambition to take up the position expected of it by the world on the international stage: a Europe allied with the United States to defend our common values, but not necessarily in agreement with all their positions. We know that, in order to do so, Europe must succeed in speaking with a single voice and we are working continually within this House and within the Convention to achieve this. We are forced to note, however, that, with regard to Iraq, voices are currently divided between those who are opposed to any kind of military action or threat; those who, alongside the Americans, seem determined to take military action in the next few days and those, myself included, who are a majority within the Group of the European People’s Party , who ask that we only resort to war when we have exhausted all diplomatic means of persuading Saddam Hussein to give in and of forcing him to abandon all his projects for the development and production of weapons of mass destruction. To all those who reject any idea of military action, to those who say ‘never again’ to war, I would like to say that I respect the generosity of their commitment, even though I do not share their angelic vision of a world entirely without weapons, where universal peace could be established, where all violence could cease for moral reasons, and not simply because of a fear of retribution. I would like to remind all those people of the unfortunate experience of Kosovo, where Europe was unable to oblige Milosevic to end his ethnic cleansing policy because that dictator, who had always known how far he could go before going too far, did not believe in the political will of the European Union or in its ability to implement it within the alliance. Today, we are all in agreement in condemning Saddam Hussein, not only for the risk he represents in relation to international terrorism in the production and distribution of weapons of mass destruction, but also because of the cruelty of the regime he imposes on his people. We believe, together with the United Nations Security Council, that he should realise that he can no longer prevaricate and that he must now, in the next few days, provide proof that he is resigned to disarming and has resolved to do so, or he will have to face a war which he has no chance of winning. To those of my fellow Members who are determined to go to Iraq to send a different message and ensure that there will never be a war, I would therefore say here, rather solemnly: take care that you yourselves, in encouraging him in his extremism, are not responsible for the fact that the international community might have no other option than the use of weapons to impose the implementation of the will it has been stating for years. I would now turn to all those who think that all the elements are present to authorise the immediate deployment of armed intervention, with no need for a new United Nations Security Council resolution and I would say to them: public opinion does not agree with you on this point since it is demanding proof that this action is unavoidable and a guarantee that it will be carried out in compliance with and in defence of international law. Colin Powell must provide this proof to the Security Council and a delegation from Parliament must go to New York on Monday to give the matter the serious consideration it deserves. If this proof is provided, I have no doubt that the United Nations Security Council will not fail to draw the appropriate conclusions. If the proof, however, is not yet sufficient, then the United Nations inspection mission must be given the time it requests to try, again, to avoid a war. That is the essence of the proposal for a resolution by our political group and the joint resolution that will be presented tomorrow. You will understand, however, after what I have just said, that we must not in any way give the impression that we are excluding the possibility of military action. That would be totally counter-productive and that is why we have tabled several amendments to the draft joint resolution, the most important of which concerns the current wording of Article 3, which some people could interpret that way. As I believe, together with the majority of my fellow Members, in the importance of this joint resolution, which must show the world that, at least within the European Parliament, the voices of Europe are in harmony, I sincerely hope that, taking account of the amendments we are proposing, this resolution will be able to win over the votes of as broad a majority as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE