Mr President, beyond the polemic to which these military interventions may have given rise and quite apart from the fact that the allies might have been consulted, I believe that what our debate today is really about is how, on the one hand, to pursue a coherent policy of respect for international law by the international community – and I am thinking here of the twelve resolutions approved by the United Nations Security Council – and, on the other hand, to take account at the same time, as Mr Patten said, of the suffering now being endured by the Iraqi people. That is the position from which I should like to tackle this problem, but not without first laying a very secure foundation. I believe it has been wisely said that no-one has caused more suffering to the Iraqi people and Iraqi society than the country’s present regime, and I believe it would be correct to recognise too that no-one has derived as much personal profit from this suffering as the Iraqi regime itself. From this perspective, I should like to address a number of questions to the Commission and the Council. Mr Patten has stolen a march upon us this morning by suggesting a line of thought we might pursue concerning the way in which we should proceed, and I should like to ask the Council of Ministers whether it thinks that an embargo is or is not essential in order to achieve the objective – which my political group shares one hundred per cent – of preventing Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I believe that – as Mr Patten has just explained – the Commission and the European Union as a whole can have a very clear conscience in the sense that we are the major donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq, but I believe that we should carry out a serious analysis and ponder the results of the ‘oil for food’ programme, given that many Arab countries believe that the Iraqi authorities are committing fraud to the tune of more than USD 1 000 million per year. I should also like to ask the Presidency if it thinks that the problems created by the embargo might instead be solved by replacing the system of United Nations sanctions with an international verification committee focusing, as Mr Patten said, upon the flow of cash and arms. I share the view expressed by the Presidency that the easiest solution of all would be for Saddam Hussein’s regime to apply United Nations Resolution No 1284 which, subject to cooperation with the United Nations, would in fact enable the trade embargo to be suspended for a period of 120 days, subsequently extendable for further periods. Saddam Hussein’s regime has obviously been defeated without, however, having been destroyed, and I therefore think that to say that these military interventions are the acts of an imperial power against an unprotected people is a rather simplistic interpretation. That said, I believe it is also legitimate to ask ourselves whether these actions by the international community and this policy of sanctions are really helping to weaken Saddam Hussein’s regime or are instead helping to reinforce it, because everyone knows perfectly well that, in order to consolidate their power, dictatorial regimes of this type invoke the spectre of foreign enemies. (Applause from the PPE Group)

Political group: PPE-DE