President. The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0480/2003) by Mr Laschet, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on relations between the European Union and the United Nations (2003/2049(INI)). Laschet (PPE-DE ), . – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what do the European Union and the United Nations have in common? Why has Parliament produced a report on the subject? Is there nothing more pressing? Does a parliament really have to look at every single subject, even at those that are not particularly high on the agenda? That was what people said in 2002, when it was first suggested that Parliament should produce a report on the relationship between the European Union and the United Nations. We had hardly had any political debates about the relationship between the two institutions – there were seven lines in reports of European Council meetings when at some point in the text there was a passing reference to the United Nations; and the only active institution was the Commission which, in the quiet, calm, effective manner familiar to all of us, paid 60% of the budget for development programmes for humanitarian aid. Of course, there were no major political implications or demands involved: it was very effective, but not related to any political message. Then came the Iraq crisis, during which the US President described the UN as irrelevant. That was when Parliament began to say that this was perhaps an interesting subject after all, that we wanted to make relations between the European Union and the United Nations more political in nature, and that we wanted to produce a report in order to ask the other institutions to consider introducing more politics in our relations with the United Nations. Today, nearly one year after Parliament made that decision, we can now say that the United Nations is not irrelevant. Even the most powerful country in the world has realised that the legitimacy of the United Nations is needed in order to rebuild a state, to establish democracy and to create a nation. Here in Europe, the Commission issued a very significant communication in September – a political communication first and foremost – which defined relations between the European institutions, and also their future, in terms of a European Constitution. The Council is also much more active nowadays in seeking agreement with the United Nations, and I believe that today’s visit to this House by the Secretary-General of the United Nations marks the start of greater political cooperation. What, then, are the main subjects we need to discuss? One should be today’s message: the fact that the European Parliament is speaking out in favour of multilateralism. Not because, as Robert Kagan once claimed, the European Union favours multilateralism only because it is incapable of acting unilaterally. No, that is not the reason. Our reason is that the European Union is multilateral in structure and in nature. The horrific wars in the twentieth century taught us that multilateral cooperation is the right way to build a peaceful and just future, and the lesson we have learnt in the European Union holds true for the United Nations too – that is why we favour a multilateral approach. This is the message that Parliament should send out today, and if we do so, if we want to play our part in the world, then we have to start by doing our homework. The Heads of State and Government did not do that in December, because the tasks included creating a legal status for the European Union to put an end to the situation whereby the Commission can go over the Community’s head because it is a member of the FAO, with a seat and vote, and whereby in political matters, we have no legal personality in Nairobi, Geneva or Vienna and so cannot act. The European Union needs a legal personality. We also need a European Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will have to bring together our policies with those of the Council and the Commission and represent us all internationally. That means we need a European Union representative at the UN offices, not a Commission office, a Council office and an office for the Presidency. No, we need a representative for foreign affairs, and that is what Parliament is proposing. We should also continue discussions after Kofi Annan’s visit. We need the Commission to produce an annual report that will get Parliament discussing the political priorities in order to establish how to proceed, what we have achieved and what we have not achieved. We need clarity in the budget, so that we know which institutions, agencies, and funds receive money from us, and which do not. I think, too, that Jean Monnet’s comment – that Europe should help make a better world – ties in very well with Kofi Annan’s message at the last General Assembly, where he said that the United Nations makes the world a better place. That we are combining the two today is ideal, and means that today is very significant both for Europe and for the United Nations. Patten, . Mr President, I very much welcome this opportunity to discuss relations between the European Union and the United Nations, and I want to start by congratulating the rapporteur on the quality of his report. Nobody who knows the honourable Member will be surprised that it is really an outstanding and sensible piece of work. I would also like to stress at the outset that the Commission is obviously ready to enter into a more regular dialogue with the Parliament on relations between us and the United Nations. It is important for both the Commission and the Parliament to have such an exchange of views on such an important subject. It is only when Parliament, Council and Commission – and indeed the Member States – work well together that the European Union collectively can deliver the support that is needed for the UN system. As the honourable Member said, the timing of the report is extremely appropriate. The Iraq crisis has, in many ways, served as a wake-up call for us all on the essential role of the UN in questions of peace and security. The Union is an important partner of the UN and we should stand by our commitment to effective multilateralism. The full support of the House for this endeavour is important and I welcome it, especially on the day that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will address the Parliament. The full Commission had the great privilege and pleasure of spending two-and-a-half hours talking to him yesterday. The Commission set out its views on the subject in a communication of 10 September 2003, entitled 'The Choice of Multilateralism'. The purpose of the communication was threefold. First and foremost, it was to reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and the UN. Second, it was to demonstrate the manner in which we implement this commitment in our daily work. The paper provides an impressive inventory of the extensive cooperation between the EU and the UN that is already taking place, and of our support for UN activities on a wide number of issues, ranging from conflict prevention to development aid and from crisis management to poverty reduction. Whilst the issues of peace and security that are dealt with by the Security Council attract most of the media attention, it would be a mistake to focus our attention and support only on those questions. Third, we identify a large number of practical actions to improve our internal coordination on UN questions in the UN bodies themselves, in Brussels and also in the Member States, with the overall aim of enhancing our influence in the UN, and in an attempt to assist it more effectively. In response to this communication, the Council recently agreed on a set of comprehensive conclusions on EU-UN relations that provides a good platform for our future work. This debate takes place at a time when the Union is looking for an enhanced role on the international stage. Witness to this are not only the proposals of the Convention to streamline the CFSP and the EU’s external action more generally – and here I note in particular the proposal to let the proposed foreign minister speak on behalf of the Union in the Security Council whenever there is a common EU position – but also the European security strategy with its leading theme of effective multilateralism. The European Union should be ready to stand up for its belief in the importance of the United Nations. I think that Parliament’s report represents an additional strong signal of support from the European Union at this challenging moment for the UN. After the Iraq crisis many in the international community have made great efforts to find our way back towards collective action, including renewed UN engagement in Iraq. Of course, it is not enough to keep referring to multilateralism over and over again as though it was some mantra. We need to think seriously and creatively about the kinds of results we want to obtain from multilateral organisations and instruments. How can we improve their effectiveness in dealing with the threats and challenges that the world is facing? These include poverty reduction, weapons of mass destruction, failed states, international crime, terrorism, climate change. And how best can we contribute to that endeavour? All these goals are addressed by the Parliament’s report and there is a broad meeting of minds with the Commission’s own communication on the subject. It is clear that our common starting point is the belief that the UN system is the key to safeguarding international security in the largest sense of that term. Whether we are looking at the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in checking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or whether we are looking at global targets for poverty reduction and sustainable development, I hardly need to underline the importance of the so-called soft issues for the wider security agenda. Development and security are inextricably linked and mutually dependent. It is in this perspective that we should support the work of the high-level panel on UN reform established by the Secretary-General last year. The European Union should provide an input to this process and I welcome the intention of the Council presidency to work on the submission of an EU contribution. The Commission will participate actively in this exercise. Finally, as regards the European Union’s own internal coordination and operations of the UN, I am pleased to see that the Commission’s analysis and recommendations are very much in line with those that are presented in the honourable Member’s admirable report. As for the creation and subsequent implementation of multilateral instruments, the Commission shares the report’s opinion that the European Union should play a leading role and assist third countries in fulfilling their obligations, as we have done, for example, in relation to counter-terrorism. Parliament could in this context use its cooperation with third countries to address these kinds of issues and in that way help to build bridges between North and South. Let me conclude by commending the report to the House and by underlining as well the Commission’s determination to work closely with the Parliament, with the Council and with the UN to implement the recommendations that are contained in it. Stenzel (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it. Obiols i Germà (PSE ). Mr President, addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September last year, its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said, and I quote: ‘The last twelve months have been very painful for those of us who believe in collective answers to our common problems and challenges’. It was a time when many voices in the political world, in the media and a large proportion of public opinion believed that the United Nations was failing in some way. Subsequent developments, in Iraq in particular, have demonstrated that things are never simple, and the current situation can be described by means of the lyrics of a Spanish song which say ‘neither with you nor without you is there any relief for my pain’. There is no such relief either the United Nations – which demonstrated, not in Iraq, but in relation to previous terrible crises, in Rwanda for example, its powerlessness to prevent tragic outcomes – or the United Nations, as demonstrated at the moment by this ridiculous impasse of an intervention which has no political solution in a country such as Iraq. Our group's position on the Laschet report has been one of broad agreement, with the emphasis on certain fundamental aspects. The first is a strong commitment to principles and values. In response to the idiotic criticism of those people who believe this to be idealism, we could reply that values are interests. In our societies and in the whole world, the application of principles and values is our principal interest. While, moreover, we are talking about lesser interests, we can state that the material contribution of the European Union and its countries is so great and so disproportionate to its political weight within the UN system that the European Union is obliged to commit itself to making progress towards a modification of the current state of affairs. There are two ways of doing this: one is the establishment of a common and strong European Union foreign and defence policy; the other is to make progress towards a European Union presence on the Security Council in a positive way and on the basis of speeding up the current constitution-building process, which ensures that the voice of its peoples, by means of their representatives, are respected by governments and that we establish as soon as possible a European Constitution which allows us to implement a common foreign and security policy worthy of the name. Van den Bos (ELDR ). – Mr President, the new world order both requires a stronger United Nations and, at the same time, hinders its coming into being. More than ever, major world problems require a global approach, which entails effective decision-making and implementation. The UN should undergo a thorough overhaul in order to reflect the new relationships and to carry out the many tasks in an adequate manner. Everyone here is agreed on this, yet nothing is being done because everyone has a different opinion on how it should be. It is hypocritical to embrace the UN millennium declaration if we are subsequently not prepared to act on it and stick our necks out for it. UN reforms are not only technical, but often involve a redistribution of power, and that is where things are going continually wrong. For example, the reform of the Security Council has been the subject of squabbles for more than ten years, with no results so far. The United States is by far the most powerful player on the world stage and has little need of multilateralism, which it regards as a restriction of its power. Other countries, including France and the United Kingdom, refuse to relinquish the privileges they have inherited from the old world order. Potential permanent members do not grant each other favoured positions. Permanent seats for continents only work if the regional powers can agree on a rotation mechanism. The proposed double veto system is better than what we have at the moment, but offers no real solution, especially not if the number of permanent seats is being increased still further. Instead of this, it would be preferable to use a European model of differential vote weighting, and hence to abolish the veto system. I do not believe that the European Union's political coordination in the UN is as bad as Mr Laschet suggests in his excellent report. Generally, there is most definitely EU consensus in the General Assembly. Despite this, Europe appears hopelessly divided in major crises, such as over Iraq. In my opinion, this is mainly attributable to the increased rivalry between France, the United Kingdom and Germany. A legal entity, or even an EU minister, will be unable to create common foreign policy as long as the big European states continue to fight for EU leadership. The Laschet report contains many interesting recommendations for building up relations between the European Union and the UN. Some are very valuable, but there are perhaps too many for the short term. We have to be careful not to create another UN-EU bureaucracy. In my opinion, the main role of our Parliament is in the area of monitoring and not so much in the diplomatic arena. The enlarged European Union can, and must, make a substantial contribution to the desperately needed reforms of the United Nations. Political necessity is beyond dispute; what is still lacking is the political courage to give shape to the new world order within the UN in a decisive manner. Marset Campos (GUE/NGL ). Mr President, for a pluralist assembly such as ours today is a great day, both because of the very well-produced report by Mr Laschet in which all types of suggestion have been accepted, and because of the presence of the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, in order to receive the Sakharov Prize, which represents a strengthening of International Law as the only way to resolve conflicts internationally. Our group does not have an homogeneous opinion on the report by Mr Laschet – although I recognise that the contributions made have been accepted – since our positions range from favourable to sceptical, as befits a pluralist group. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that we attach great importance to this report, as well as to the contributions made by the Commission to improving the international panorama, and we are clearly in favour of multilateralism – as I have said previously – although we believe that the situation puts excessive emphasis on anti-terrorist aspects and does not give sufficient emphasis to better international cooperation aimed at eliminating the causes of inequality and injustice, such as the democratic control by the UN of agencies such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank which, at the end of the day, are the bodies which can create greater justice in the world. That is why, in view of the need to improve relations between the European Union and the UN, which is key to creating a panorama in which there is respect for human rights and international legislation, we believe we should have gone a little further in terms of improving the conditions for greater justice in the world. That is why our position on Mr Laschet’s report is going to be divided into several different positions. Wuori (Verts/ALE ). – Mr President, the paradox of the UN is that whilst universal human rights are its essential strength, its Charter is firmly built on the sovereignty of states. The weakness of the European Union lies in the fact that it has been incapable of integrating the sovereignties of its Member States in a way that would have led to consistent respect for human rights and a foreign and security policy which is genuinely based on global multilateralism. Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union has often proved very unsatisfactory in this regard. Of course there are exceptions, as exemplified by the support for the UN International Criminal Court. The 2001 action programme against torture, on the other hand, has been very much a case of empty rhetoric. The EU in this way is still a creation of the Cold War, merely searching for its identity and role in the world. In the absence of a strategy, tactics become the strategy, and action is taken on an basis. It is partly for that reason that the EU has less muscle in the UN than its importance and contribution might warrant. The Commission’s UN communication from the autumn and the recently published document ‘The Enlarging EU at the UN’, as well as the report now before us contain a lot of useful information and many interesting proposals. It is not enough, however. Our historic duty is now to take responsibility for creating a more sustainable world order which would cover everything from a cooperation-based security model to the prevention of climate change. Cooperation within the UN and its many special bodies is vitally important. I might mention, for example, the social norms in respect of human rights and the environment for multinational and other companies adopted by the UN’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and similar minimum guarantees for loans for development projects drawn up by the World Bank’s International Financial Cooperation. Unless we can correct the worst distortions of globalisation our Community of values too will prove to be nothing more than a façade. We will all then be the losers. Ribeiro e Castro (UEN ). Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is really too much! On the very day on which we are discussing this report and when we will be receiving Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General and Sakharov Prize-winner in 2003, Parliament has received depressing news from the Jurassic Park of dictatorships: we are being prevented from receiving Oswaldo Payá, to whom we awarded the Sakharov Prize for 2002. This authoritarian ban by Fidel Castro’s communist regime in Cuba, which brings to mind the worst excesses of the Nazis and the Stalinists in the twentieth century, draws attention to an important part of this report, which states that, as regards the United Nations and its reform, the European Union and others must succeed in placing human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms at the top of the world agenda, with all the consequences suggested in paragraph 19. Oswaldo Payá’s situation is a scandal, as is the hostile gesture the Cuban regime has directed at this Parliament. It would be even more scandalous if nothing were said publicly about these scandals. We are sure that, through Kofi Annan, Parliament will send a powerful message to Cuba and that, in the form of a permanent open invitation to Oswaldo Payá, we will continue to express our active solidarity with the winner of the Sakharov Prize 2002 and with all Cuban democrats. I wish lastly to express my appreciation of some of the rapporteur’s amendments, namely Amendment No 8, which draws attention to the importance of the Convention on human cloning and to the Costa Rican initiative, which we must support. Belder (EDD ). – Mr President, this report by Mr Laschet aims to propel humanity in the direction of world government of some kind. Only in this way does it appear possible to create peace, welfare and justice with the UN as central, vital and decisive pivot. Multilateralism is being embraced as the new political gospel. Is this pipe dream not based on a huge overestimation of the human race? After all, people like you and I are prone to evil of all kinds. True peace and justice do not ensue from people. They can only be obtained by a true belief in God, by an unconditional surrender to His will, and, by His grace, obeying His healing Commandments enshrined in the Bible, God's Word. Jesus Christ underwent the punishment that brings us true peace. It is because that point is all too readily forgotten that I should like to start by bringing it to your attention. In keeping with his eminent introduction, the rapporteur considers cooperation between the European Union and the UN a cornerstone of EU foreign policy. In the institutionally reformed UN of the future, he more or less already assumes that the EU would be a future legal entity. The EU's future Foreign Affairs Minister will, on the basis of the future European Constitution, need to fulfil the future mandate on behalf of the EU. In addition, the Security Council will need to be extended to include permanent members, one for each continent, except for Australia, which is odd. Why is this enormous continent being excluded? For fear of double vetoes, no doubt? Instead of Great Britain and France, it is the EU that is to represent Europe. To describe the situation in this manner is extremely premature, to say the least. The EU has no constitution, is not a legal entity in the UN and there is no mandated European Foreign Affairs Minister. Moreover, the recent past has acutely demonstrated that both in the IGC and in the Security Council, European unity seems to be further away than ever. That is why it will not work, and so I would urge Members to support Amendments Nos 1 and 10 and, in doing so, to come back down to earth. I would like to finish off by making two remarks. First of all, only once – in paragraph 17, second indent in brackets – is there any reference to NATO, which has been proven to be the most effective transatlantic organisation for security. You know as well as I do that when the chips are down, we prefer to see our guarantee of security in the hands of a reliable and determined NATO and will never hand it over to an ever-doubting, often indecisive and divided, UN Security Council. NATO is a better cornerstone for the EU's foreign and security policy than the UN. Finally, multilateralism is good but never unconditional. Too often have we seen it used as a cloak under which national states look only after their own interests. Souchet (NI ). Mr President, it can be assumed that the Laschet report was driven by good intentions: to reinforce the role of the United Nations and increase Europe’s influence in it. It has to be recognised, however, that the proposed method runs counter to these two objectives. Articles 10 and 12, the core of the resolution, propose to expand the Security Council and to weaken the current veto system by replacing it with a requirement for a double veto, when the subject is the fundamental issue of threats to peace, chapter 7. This challenges the two fundamental rules governing the effectiveness of the system: the limited number of members and the veto incentive available to each permanent member. As regards Europe’s influence, it is difficult to see how halving the number of permanent members in the Security Council could strengthen it. This, however, is what is implied by the proposal to make the European Union a permanent member, ‘as soon as its legal personality is recognised’. This seat, of which there could only ever be one, would be occupied by the infamous European Minister for Foreign Affairs who would, incidentally, no longer have, on his own, the right of veto. Complicating and weakening the current system seem, therefore, to be the dual characteristics of the proposal put to us. It is the Community method applied to the United Nations. We cannot, therefore, support it. We will instead vote in favour of Amendment No 1, a common sense amendment proposed by our British friends. Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE ). Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Laschet, for his report. I believe that it is no exaggeration whatsoever to state that, today, history is blending with the present, and that in this historic present which we are living in, the European Union and United Nations are two principal actors. Commissioner Patten told us clearly that the European Union is seeking to confirm its presence on the international stage and become a factor for stability, moderation and normalisation within a world order under shared leadership. The United Nations must, moreover, operate better and become more efficient in order to adapt to the new circumstances. From the founding spirit of the San Francisco Charter to the twenty-first century, from 60 nations to 190, from colonial regimes to independence and from the fall of the system of blocs to today’s globalised world. Today, following the lessons of 11 September, it is clear that notions of security, defence policy, trade, conflict prevention, crisis management, humanitarian aid, culture and even civilisation are notions which are mixed up with each other and that it must accepted in the common conscience that, in view of the dangers and threats which affect us all equally, our response must also be equal amongst all of us. This response, the European Union's response, must not, however, be a fragmented, contradictory or ineffective response: it must be a unified response. Therefore, Mr President, moving beyond the Parliamentary dimension of relations between the European Union and the United Nations – which is necessary and correct – it is important that we act in an agreed manner, in a complementary manner, and that the European Union demonstrate clearly that its strength lies in its unity and its weakness in its fragmentation. We are therefore moving towards spheres of shared sovereignty between the Member States, otherwise we will be forced to concede them to other powers which are fully aware of the advantages of unity and size. Moreover, either we stop voting in the United Nations differently 60 times out of every 100, or we will have to abandon once and for all the European Union's aspirations to be on the path to shared world leadership. I will end, Mr President, by saying that I agree with the indignation expressed by Mr Ribeiro e Castro at the enforced absence from this Parliament of Sakharov Prize winner, Oswaldo Payá. Swoboda (PSE ). – Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, to be honest, it is quite bizarre that at the very time when we are seeing ever more globalisation with global politics and economics becoming more interdependent – think of the number of multinationals around – and unfortunately, also as criminal organisations begin to operate and cooperate internationally, the United Nations is proving weak in certain areas and at this very time is often pushed to one side. I believe that many in this House share my group’s feeling – and my own – that the United Nations is the one global political institution that needs to be strengthened, that represents the rule of international law, and should not be pushed aside, as it was over Iraq. All this is reflected both in the spirit and the letter of Mr Laschet’s report. Nevertheless, an honest and objective observer has to acknowledge that the United Nations has proved weak on a number of occasions. There has been a whole series of wrongdoing, genocide and crimes against humanity where the United Nations has been ineffective. Some people see this as a justification for pushing the United Nations to one side – and often these are the very people who have used their veto to prevent the United Nations from taking rapid action, as in the case of the situation in the Middle East. I believe, however, that the United Nations needs to be strengthened, to become more efficient, and to be given the opportunity to intervene promptly. Let me make it clear that I believe this includes the possibility of taking preventative action where necessary, because if anyone is able and suited to act as the world’s policeman, then it is undoubtedly the United Nations. I am very pleased that Mr Laschet has taken up one of my ideas, which was drafted in conjunction with my group, namely that we need to create a regulatory framework that allows the United Nations to intervene promptly in cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It should not be left to the discretion of individual countries, states or governments to identify such cases and then intervene. It should be international institutions that identify impending danger. In that way, the United Nations ought to be able to intervene promptly and, if necessary, to take preventative action. The United Nations would not need its own army for this. Reference has been made to NATO, and, although I do not want to overestimate its capacities, NATO could become involved if the United Nations gave the green light, taking action to uphold law and order and seeking to prevent crimes against humanity. Reforming the Security Council along these lines is certainly essential. The changes would need to include a seat for the European Union, but at the same time we must ensure that we do not end up multiplying vetoes and blocking tactics. Let me say once more: we have had enough of this world where individuals, individual governments and individual states think they can police the world. If there is one role the United Nations was made for, it is the role of upholding law and order throughout the world, and doing so with the full support of the European Union. Frahm (GUE/NGL ). Mr President, the EU must have a common foreign policy and common Foreign Minister and be a legal person. The issue is whether this is at all necessary. Looking at the statistics, it emerges that the Member States are in agreement. In the UN, there is consensus on well over 90% of matters, so I wonder if the issue right now is not so much a shortage of new institutions but, rather, our feeling unable to use the power we do in actual fact have. Perhaps it is also necessary to consider how we use the UN. For one thing, we expect things from the UN and anticipate its being able to carry out tasks successfully. Are we too, however, in a position to comply with our obligations, namely to support the UN system when required: as when, for example, the weapons inspectorate told us that there was probably no imminent threat from Iraq in the form of weapons of mass destruction; or when Hans Blix told us that there was probably no threat and that, if these weapons of mass destruction were in fact there, he was certain that he and his colleagues would be in a position to find them. If, on that occasion, we had paid attention to the UN system, we should perhaps have avoided a situation in which the international terrorism expert, Gareth Evans, in Davos was obliged to say that the terrorist threat is greater now than it was before the war against Iraq. Perhaps the weaknesses and problems of the UN also have to do, then, with our inability to rely upon the system’s in actual fact being able to undertake anything sensible. I should like to recommend that we be very sincere in our support of the UN and that we also be more active in the battle to reform it. We need to reform the Security Council. We need to have a system that operates as an alternative to anarchy so that we can safeguard international law through, for example, the UN. Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE ). Mr President, today we are awarding the Sakharov prize to Mr Kofi Annan as a sign of our total support of the UN. This rare occasion also gives me the opportunity to draw attention to neglected issues or lost causes. One of these lost causes is respect for international law, in defence of which Mr Annan has, despite the American bulldozer, brought all his personal qualities and the full dignity of his position to bear. The war took place, admittedly, but, from the outset, it was tainted with illegitimacy and discredited by its motives. The subsequent, after-the-event revelations as to the bogus and false nature of the charges against Iraq must give solace to those who more readily denounce the environmental dangers to our planet than arms stocks conspicuous by their apparent absence. Another voice that has been continually hushed and drowned out is that of indigenous peoples who, although being the last survivors of ancient civilisations attach fundamental importance to environmental values and have a better understanding than ourselves of interdependency. In this world of ours that has become materialistic and superficial, people who have nothing left to defend but their fundamental rights are virtuous and authentic out of all proportion.Let us refute this marginalisation of indigenous peoples’ rights and let us make the Union and the UN promise to maintain the working group on indigenous peoples in the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Dell'Alba (NI ). Mr President, we are glad that this report comes precisely at a time when Kofi Annan is due to speak to us in a few hours. I believe that, in the report we have before us, it is important to stress the significance, and the role, that we want to see accorded to the United Nations. So that the exit from Iraq does not turn into a nightmare of the kind we have sometimes seen in the past, everyone is now calling upon the UN to intervene in Iraq by launching an initiative and by playing an active role there of the kind that, for months, has been blocked by two countries which, to some extent, had a lot to fear from a UN role and which thought that this was in danger of being less effective that it should be. We are particularly pleased that the report mentions an important initiative that could be headed by the EU. I am referring to the idea of democratic countries in the UN being able to assemble and meet within the organisation to draw up joint measures to promote democracy. That is an initiative in connection with which the European Union could play an important role within the United Nations, whose difficulties and inertia we took note of when, last year, someone from a country like Libya, which is certainly not at the forefront of human rights, was elected as head of the Human Rights Commission. This initiative is, in any case, what the Italian radical Members are advocating. They are urging Commissioner Patten and the Member States to make it possible for there to be a specific and symbolic initial meeting of the Community of Democracies before the next Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva. Tannock (PPE-DE ). Mr President, first of all let me congratulate my good friend Mr Laschet on his brave attempt to reform the structures of the UN, which were shown to be sadly lacking during the recent Gulf War. The report also looks at the role that the EU should play within the UN. Clearly, the UN was designed for the Cold War period in which permanent membership status and veto rights were necessary for the nuclear powers to ensure global security. Not enough has changed yet in the world to justify changing that. The responsibility of security often conflicts with the additional mandate of the UN to protect human rights, as many of the UN Member States are undemocratic dictatorships – resulting in the perverse decision to appoint Libya as Chair of its Human Rights Committee. Furthermore, in the past, the UN was powerless to stop the brutal invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan as a result of the Soviet veto. China is still not a democracy or a respecter of human rights, making security the main responsibility of the UN and it has a vital role to play in the world. I believe there is a case to be made for India and Japan to be given permanent membership status as a result of their size and democratic status. Similarly, Nigeria or Brazil could be candidates. Unfortunately, this report conflicts with a number of stated positions of my party, the British Conservatives, as it attempts to dilute UK veto powers with a double veto and suggests an EU seat on the Security Council, which would undermine British and French membership. We are also opposed to an EU foreign minister and to a legal personality for the EU, and therefore, no matter how well intentioned the report is, I cannot support it as it stands. With my party, however, I will of course be monitoring closely any attempt to reform the UN. We welcome very warmly today the presence in the Chamber of Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Lalumière (PSE ). Mr President, this debate on the excellent report by Mr Laschet and the conferral of the Sakharov prize on the United Nations Secretary-General shows the European Parliament’s ever clearer desire to reaffirm the unique and irreplaceable role of the UN in international relations, in line with the Millennium Declaration and the Commission Communication. Furthermore, the resolution that we are going to vote on in a short while also shows in a clear and detailed manner the direction that relations between the Union and the UN should take. A very large number of proposals, which I support, have been tabled, both as regards reinforcing the role of the European Union within a stronger United Nations through, for example, a seat on the Security Council, and as regards reinforcing cooperation between the Union institutions and the United Nations system. These are ambitious proposals for reform, since the European Union would eventually see itself as having the roles of secular arm of the UN or of the UN’s elder daughter, in the same way that a country that I know well was once spoken of as the Church’s elder daughter. It is even envisaged, in Article 17, that the European Union must play a pioneering role in defining UN policy. Excellent! In the background to these encouraging and dynamic projects, however, some issues remain, which are worrying while they remain unresolved, in particular the issue of the position and role of the UN’s most important member, the United States. What can the UN/European Union alliance do faced with the US’s unilateralism, its opposition to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol and its desire to use, on its own and quite freely, its military force, as soon as it considers its security threatened? The UN and the European Union must, together, continue to make a huge effort to ensure that the UN really can exercise this credible multilateral international authority that the whole world really needs. Modrow (GUE/NGL ). – Mr President, this report definitely belongs in the list of top-quality Parliamentary topics. If only there were not such a great gulf between theory and practice, between the words and reality, we could vote to approve it. The report refers to a European Constitution that does not yet exist, and unfortunately the draft Constitution text is more focused on increased defence activities and greater ability to intervene in situations around the world than on disarmament and civil conflict resolution. The report takes up the cause of multilateralism and strengthening the role of the UN, which is right and good. It refrains, though, from criticising the aggressive unilateralism of the US, which opens the door to violence and arbitrary action. As the war on Iraq has shown, no lie is too risky for use in justifying a preventative war. Those who support the war are called yes-men; those who do not are called obstructive. This is how people seek to divide what will soon be a Union of 25 Member States. The United States’ high-handed decision to override the UN has proven a miscalculation for which the national economy is having to pay, as we are now seeing. With its calls for reform, the EU is the only constant in an ever-changing world. The EU would be well-advised to develop its relationship with the UN rather than to strengthen its ties with NATO. The report highlights the importance of development and cooperation, but should be even more specific. Instead of spending huge sums on the arms race and military operations, money should be spent on education, healthcare, economic development and the fight to eradicate poverty. If we are to weed out violence and terrorism, we need as much money as possible and more effort. Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI ). Mr President, in 1945 the Charter of the United Nations stood for equal rights for all nations, large and small, as the best guarantee to maintain international peace and security. Its first Article proclaimed the principle of self-determination of peoples. 20 years later, in 1966, the first Article of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political rights reaffirmed that all peoples have the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, the draft Constitutional Treaty of the European Union contains no recognition whatsoever of the right to self-determination for the peoples of the stateless nations of Europe. I should like to remind you that under Article 103 of the United Nations Charter, in the event of a conflict between the obligations of countries as members of the United Nations and their obligations under any other international agreement, the Charter shall prevail. Let me finish by quoting you an enlightening statement given by Mr Annan as he presented his Millennium report in April 2000: 'the best way to prevent conflict is to promote political arrangements in which all groups are fairly represented'. Liese (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me thank Mr Laschet, the rapporteur, for his excellent report, which should receive the support of the vast majority of people in plenary today. Many speakers have emphasised how important it is that the global community should take joint action, failing which many problems will remain insuperable. I would like to remind you of the importance of environmental pollution and the fight to eradicate poverty in particular. These are subjects that can only be tackled together, and Amendment No 7, which has been submitted by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Party of European Socialists, stresses the importance of the water supply. I would, however, like to mention one subject that has not, so far, been discussed in very great detail, and one to which I urge Commissioner Patten to give his particular attention. This subject is a common approach to human rights in the field of modern medicine and biotechnology. A few months ago, Parliament approved a very good report produced by Robert Evans of the Socialist Group, on combating illegal trade in human organs. Yet when we look at developing countries and newly industrialising countries, there is a great deal to be done in this area, and I think this is another task on which the EU and the UN must cooperate. What is more, Parliament has often underlined its opposition to human cloning and its desire that the UN should intervene in this area too. We are following the debate in the UN Committees with great interest – and let me emphasise once again, Commissioner Patten, that the European Parliament supports the Costa Rican initiative, which also has the backing of over 60 other members of the UN. This is expressly stated once again in Amendment No 8. While Kofi Annan is with us, I think we should reiterate the importance of this new task for the UN, for
{'language': 'en'}