Mr President, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein poses a real threat. He has used weapons of mass destruction in the past to oppress his own people and in seeking to draw Israel into a wider Middle East war. The international community has a responsibility to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet the consequences of war are potentially so serious that, for my group, it should be only a last resort. Avoiding war does not mean letting Saddam Hussein off the hook. Those who urge America not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq are not appeasers, as Donald Rumsfeld implies when he compares George W. Bush to Winston Churchill. To my mind that comparison is more absurd than Dan Quayle comparing himself to John F. Kennedy. If I may paraphrase Senator Lloyd Benson I would say 'Donald, George W. Bush ain't no Winston Churchill'! The real lesson of history is this: Churchill correctly identified the Nazi threat at an early stage but when he acted it was not unilaterally and pre-emptively. He drew a line in the sand. He acted with moral authority and international backing when that line was crossed. Churchill did not bomb Berlin and try to overthrow the Nazi regime based on his suspicions of Hitler; he acted in concert with his allies when it was clear that he had right on his side. For the Group the issue today is about getting United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq, not about George W. Bush settling an old family score with Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi Government must comply with UN resolutions and must let weapons inspectors back in unconditionally. Once in, those inspectors must be allowed to go wherever they want, whenever they want. Only if Iraq refuses to readmit inspectors, if it unreasonably obstructs their work or if those inspectors find evidence of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction would the international community be justified in taking further action. European governments must make clear their support for UN-backed military action in those circumstances. If it comes to war it must be the international community that acts together, not the United States unilaterally. A UN resolution needs to be approved setting a deadline for Iraqi compliance. A broad international coalition must be built and must include Arab countries if we are to convince world opinion that we are not seeking a clash of civilisations. Frankly, as the Commissioner said, our task would be a lot easier if the US showed the same focus on resolving the crisis in the Middle East, as it does on removing Saddam Hussein. We also need to think seriously about how to rebuild stability in the region after any strike. The international coalition, including America, must commit resources to nation-building. Unless we rebuild its economy and society and help to develop viable political institutions, an Iraq devastated by war would risk imploding and posing an even greater danger to the stability of the region. We cannot postpone the debate much longer by claiming that no decisions are imminent. I would say this to the President-in-Office of the Council: Mr Haarder, it is no good saying the European Union's position is clear while referring to a statement of 20 May. The Union's position is as clear as mud. If it were clear, Ambassador Burghardt in Washington would not lament how Member States are jealously guarding their own access to the American Administration rather than acting as a common front. Just as at the UN Summit in Johannesburg, the European Union will have influence only if it acts as a United States of Europe. That is your job. Consensus needs to be built about how to tackle the threat, evidence of weapons of mass destruction needs to be published and – most importantly of all – any strike needs to be backed by international law and the moral authority of the international community. The world cannot afford the instability which would come from a unilateral and pre-emptive military adventure in Iraq. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR