PRESS CONFERENCE BY EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

At a Headquarters press conference today, four members of the European Parliament in New York to convey a “message of peace to the American people”, said the Parliament’s support for peace in Iraq was both about averting a war and charting an independent European foreign policy. 

Speaking first, Pernille Frahm, a national of Denmark and Vice-President of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left, claimed to represent the majority of Europeans, who were against the possible war in Iraq.  She carried with her an anti-war petition signed by over 360 parliamentarians, not only from Europe, but from other countries as well.  She stressed that she did not support Saddam Hussein; nor was she anti-American.  Nevertheless, she was “very concerned” about the present United States regime, which seemed to be acting in a unilateral fashion.

Patricia McKenna, an Irish national and member of the Greens-European Free Alliance, emphasized that a war on Iraq would not solve the problem of international terrorism.  Rather, it would increase it.  She joined Ms. Frahm in differentiating between the United States Government and the American people, many of whom were also against the war.  Comparing high military costs to the relatively low funds required for weapons inspections, she said that it only made sense to give the inspectors more time.  She acknowledged that Iraq could be more cooperative.  Nevertheless, a war on that country would undermine the United Nations and international law.  She also reminded correspondents that Iraq was not just one person.  It was 27 million people, 46 per cent of whom were children under the age of 15.

Speaking next, Proinsias de Rossa, an Irish member of Parliament from the Socialist Group, said that, like New Yorkers, the Irish people had also suffered at the hands of terrorists.  However, it was necessary to address the humiliation, despair, and poverty that led to terrorism in the first place.  He called on “the great genius of the American people for politics”, which had been demonstrated in Northern Ireland, to be applied to the Middle East.  In that context, the “road map” put forth by the Quartet, with regard to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, needed to be taken off the shelf and acted upon.

Having been to Iraq and seen the effects of sanctions there, he had come to the conclusion that they only served to keep the Iraqi people dependent on their Government for basic supplies, he continued.  They were, thus, unable to carry out regime change on their own, as was necessary for true democracy.  He, therefore, argued for the lifting of sanctions, as opposed to an invasion.  In his eyes, the European Parliament and the United States could together provide assistance to the people of Iraq, so that they could fulfil their own destiny.

Ulla Sandbaek, a Danish national and member of Europe of Democracies and Diversities, said that one could not liberate the Iraqi people by killing them.  In that regard, she insisted that sanctions were harmful and, therefore, had to be lifted.  Expressing gratitude to the United States for Europe’s liberation

after the Second World War, she contrasted that historical episode with the present one in Iraq.  Europe, unlike Iraq, had already had a democratic history.  In the Iraqi context, democracy would have to be nurtured in a manner that would not be possible in a warlike setting.

Addressing the threat of anthrax, she speculated that it was probably hidden along Iraq’s long border with Iran, where Al-Qaeda was known to operate.  Citing a scenario put forth by the Central Intelligence Agency, she said that an invasion of Iraq might only provoke Mr. Hussein into giving his anthrax supplies to that terrorist organization.  She also found it problematic that the United States would invade Iraq, but not North Korea.  That would give the message that, if a country developed nuclear weapons, it would be safe from invasion.

Asked whether she believed that United States President George W. Bush wanted to invade Iraq in order to restore democracy, she reiterated that democracy could not be restored when it had never existed in the first place.  She added that the Iraqis were aware of how international sanctions were hurting them, and would be too impoverished and demoralized to welcome invading United States troops.

Ms. McKenna added that, if this war were carried out, a dangerous precedent would be set.  In other words, who was to say which country would be the next to be invaded?  She stressed that the United Nations Charter did not advocate regime change; rather, it placed the utmost importance on national sovereignty.

Asked if French, Spanish, and British parliamentarians formed part of the current delegation, Ms. Frahm responded that there were indeed French and Spanish parliamentarians accompanying the delegation in New York.  British representatives, however, were currently doing work in Iraq.

Responding to a request for elaboration on his comments regarding Israel, Mr. de Rossa argued that the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East was not potential weapons in Iraq, but rather the current crisis in Israel.  Establishing a Palestinian State would simplify the Iraq situation, because it would lead to unity and cooperation among all Arab States.

Before concluding, Ms. Frahm said that there was a growing gap between European citizens and their governments.  Unable to explain that rift, she could only state that the majority of Europeans, in spite of many of their governments, were against the impending war.  She also expressed the sentiment that Europe should be able to take its own stand once in a while.

Mr. de Rossa added that, whereas Europe supported multilateral approaches, the United States seemed inclined to act unilaterally.  In that context, he called for a partnership of equals between the United States and Europe, as opposed to the United States desire to be “the boss”.

* *** *