|
|
|
| SPEECH IN DEBATE
ON IRAQ AT LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY CONFERENCE IN
TORQUAY ON 15 MARCH 2003 |
|
Saturday,
15th
March 2003
Liberal Democrats in Europe place immense value on
Europe's relations with the USA. Our commitment to
shared values, our economic and cultural ties,
reflected in our military alliance, are things we
hold dear. We shared America's pain at the events of
11 September 2001, and not simply because Europeans
were killed in the terrorist attacks. Yet we do not
share the current U.S. President's view that war
against Iraq is justified at present, any more than
we share the moral certainty of the man in charge in
Downing Street.
Our question to George Bush and Tony Blair is this.
Would not the cost of continued vigilance,
resilience and patience be less, far less, than the
cost of war and reconstruction?
Tomorrow's meeting in The Azores will be the biggest
happening in Horta since Columbus was arrested there
on his way back from the new world. The pressure
will be so great it will give a new meaning to what
the weatherman calls the 'Azores High'. If our
leaders decide to go to war without the backing of
the United Nations and in the face of opposition
from the international community it will indeed be a
recipe for regime change: not just in Baghdad, but
also in London, Madrid and Washington DC.
Never has the need been greater for a common foreign
and security policy for the European Union.
The EU is a union of small states. The problem is
that while the smaller among them recognise that
they are small and therefore see the need to work
together, the others do not. Diplomacy is a
drug: its pomp is addictive, be it the private jets,
the military salutes or the engraved fountain pens.
European countries need to kick the habit.
The EU is already a super-power. We are the largest
aid donor to Palestine: the largest aid donor to
Iraq; we have the largest single market in the
world, with a currency to rival the dollar, and a
single trade policy which allows us to punch above
our weight in trade negotiations. If these
attributes were combined in a single foreign policy
and a credible defence policy our world view would
prevail - at the International Criminal Court, in
the chemical and biological weapons conventions and
over Iraq.
The battle at the UN Security Council is a struggle
about the exercise of American power. Europe's
troubled tribalism means that Washington wins.
Despite having four seats on the security council,
the EU is powerless. If we had but one vote, France,
Germany, Britain and Spain would have to agree. And
there's much we agree on: for example, that the UN
charter gives a member no right to change the regime
of another country and no right to wage war on the
basis of a possible future threat. Europe does
not need to defend the UN so much as the concept of
world order laid down in the UN Charter.
To challenge that world order at a time when the
tectonic plates of the world's monotheistic
religions are rubbing up against each other is to
play with fire among powder kegs.
back
|
|
Site
designed and updated by Paul Trollope.
Published
and promoted by Graham Watson MEP, Bagehots Foundry.
Beards Yard, Langport, Somerset, TA10 9PS and
printed
and hosted by Telenor Business Solutions, Benham
Valence, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 8LU.
|
|
|