Mr President, I am sure we all agree that the regime governing Iraq is without a doubt dictatorial, that it tramples all over human rights, and that in the past it has waged criminal wars using chemical weapons against Iran and Kuwait, and even against its own people. Mr Haarder, I find it rather striking and not just an academic question that just now you only mentioned the war against Kuwait. Why did you not mention that war against Iran, which involved a far greater number of deaths? I think the answer is obvious: the war against Iran was a war which at the time suited the West very well. It was the West that armed Hussein and even paved the way for him to have chemical weapons. The war against Kuwait was fought for this dictator's own reasons. If I say that this is not an academic issue, I say that that because we are seeking difficult answers in a very, very complicated situation. If we want to get to the roots of war and aggression we need to ask ourselves how such situations arise in the first place. There is also another point of view. Hussein is an unsavoury dictator whose military position has now been clearly undermined. There is very little to choose between him and some of our allies in the war on terror. In Iran we have a regime that uses torture and has nuclear arms, and a nuclear arms strategy little different from that of the United States. Quite remarkable! Last week President Bush was virtually paying court to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the representative of one of the most reactionary regimes on this planet. Surely it weakens the credibility of our human rights policy and of our security policy if such people are our allies? I anticipate that my group will conclude that anyone who really wants to guarantee democracy, human rights and security cannot call for a war to secure them, and can certainly not indulge in hypocritical power politics that demonstrate the absurdity of our stated objectives. That is the key issue for my group. We are unreservedly against this war, come what may. However, I welcome the fact that – whatever the underlying motives may be – there has been very wide-ranging criticism indeed in this House of these preparations for war. That is far more important. With regard to the most recent Council of Foreign Ministers, I would like to say that I have come to respect you very much here in this Parliament, but what I have heard from you today demonstrates to me that you are totally trapped in your current position. That is unsatisfactory as far as I am concerned. I believe that a common European policy in this area would be valuable in its own right in view of the dangers of the present situation. I agree with Mr Poettering on that – a policy of this kind is urgently needed. But where is it? I believe that we are facing a serious crisis as regards the Common Foreign and Security Policy in what is a vitally important international relations situation. However, this community of interest cannot just be arbitrary. I think that it involves alternatives to the US approach, to a unilateralism that I find ever more threatening, and which I think is in any case counterproductive for the United States. So, as far as I am concerned, putting forward an alternative is anything but anti-American. We believe not only that this war should be unreservedly rejected but also that the inhumane and politically counterproductive embargo should be lifted, with the exception of arms exports, so that Iraq's exclusion from democratic development can be lessened. Thirdly, the UN inspectors should go back, but on the basis of the existing mandate. My fourth point is that we need multilateral cooperative relations and not unilateralism. And my fifth point is that we finally need to return to disarmament. You cannot say that you are willing to go to war to force others to disarm and at the same time rearm yourself without expecting weapons of mass destruction to proliferate. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL