Mr President, let the current situation in Afghanistan be a hard lesson to the United States and Europe about what happens to a country during and after military intervention. In my first point, I should like to comment on Mr Wurtz's contribution and the indications he has given, in combination with, in my view, strong clues in the article in Newsweek, as well as in the footage which he and his fellow MEPs showed last time, that hundreds, possibly even more, Taliban have been killed under suspicious circumstances. I am not quoting this to indict the Americans in any way for something which may be completely unrelated to them. I am quoting this because, in my view, it is extremely important finally to put an end to lawlessness after 20 years of civil war. This means that a serious inquiry must be mounted into this and, unfortunately, similar cases. We are all agreed without much hesitation that this inquiry falls within the remit of the United Nations. The only problem is that the UN's special representative, Mr Brahimi, has already made it clear that the United Nations is unable to carry out this enquiry because it cannot guarantee the safety of, for example, witnesses and researchers. My very explicit question to the Commission and the Council is whether they would make every effort to enable the United Nations to look into this and similar cases, and to sufficiently protect witnesses and researchers. My second point concerns the comment I made earlier in the debate on Iraq. The much vaunted regime change can only be effective if there is support for it in the country itself. Militarily speaking, such support was in place in Afghanistan, in the form of the Northern Alliance. If a regime change were to depend on the construction of civil society or the existence of NGOs, then this would be extremely difficult. These have all but gone in Afghanistan, and the European Union is at the moment trying its best – for which all credit to it – to develop these. Nevertheless, I am very anxious about the way this is going and the resistance that is met along the way. There are large groups in Afghan society that reject what they call Western, but in my eyes, crucially democratic, values. As Baroness Nicholson already mentioned, there is what I see as a setback where the role of women is concerned. Although I welcome the fact that the Loya Jirga included many women, there are now all kinds of signs that the role of women is being repressed. I think that this is a sign that nation building does not happen overnight. I am also addressing this statement to the Americans: nation building does not happen overnight. Building a democratic society is a long-term commitment. My final point is, in my view, politically speaking, the most important point at the moment and I would particularly ask the Council to address this matter. It is about extending the mandate of ISAF, the peacekeeping troops currently based in Kabul. We as the Parliament and also most Member States have been insisting for months that the mandate should be extended beyond Kabul because that is where chaos is escalating. Although the United States seems able to permit this, it will not supply a single soldier. It will be up to the European Union, the European Member States, to extend the mandate of ISAF by sending more troops to Afghanistan. My question to Mr Haarder is the following: is the Council prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan in order to control the chaos outside Kabul and to keep the peace? Finally, Mr President, the lesson I have drawn from this situation is that we ought to think twice, if not more, before we decide on military intervention. Once we are there, however, we should acquit ourselves of our tasks effectively for as long as this proves necessary.

Political group: Verts-ALE