|
Mr.
President,
Mr.
Secretary-General,
Ministers
Ambassadors,
I
would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information
they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq.
I would like to express to them again France’s confidence and
complete support in their mission.
*
*
*
1. You know the value that France has placed on the unity of
the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis.
This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:
- We are pursuing together the objective of effectively
disarming Iraq. We have
an obligation to achieve results.
Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal.
We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must
leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions.
Let us be clear: Not
one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the
Iraqi regime.
- In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively
expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by
France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this
strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the
options, including the recourse to force.
It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in
that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple:
Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via
inspections is now leading us to a dead-end?
Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections
presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France has two convictions:
-The
first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end
and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of
disarming Iraq;
-The
second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for
people, for the region and for international stability that it should
only be envisioned as a last resort.
2. So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix
and Mr. ElBaradei? That
the inspections are producing results.
Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together
to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more.
But the inspections are producing results.
In
their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the
executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had
identified in detail areas in which progress was expected.
Significant gains have been made on several of these points:
- In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have
provided the inspectors with new documentation.
They have also announced the establishment of commissions of
inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance
with Mr. Blix’s requests;
- In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has
enabled the inspectors to make progress.
We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile.
The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance
with Mr. Blix’s conclusions;
- In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the
IAEA on the most important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on
January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for
enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the
country likely to have provided it with uranium.
There
we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure
the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of
banned programs then their elimination.
*
*
*
3. We all realize that the success of the inspections
presupposes that we obtain Iraq’s full and complete cooperation.
France has consistently demanded this.
Real progress is beginning to be apparent:
- Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;
- It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the
inspectors without witnesses;
-
A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction
programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a
long-standing request of the inspectors;
-
Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the
destruction of military programs in 1991.
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably
verified as facts. Beyond
that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further
in its cooperation.
4. Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that
inspections can be effective. But
we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains;
questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and
installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.
To
do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:
-
I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;
-Since then we have detailed
them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and
distributed to Council members.
What
is the spirit of these proposals?
-They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented
quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection
operations.
-They
fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not
require a new resolution.
-They
must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei:
The
latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish
to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.
-In
their report they have already made useful and operational comments.
France has already announced that it had additional resources
available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV
reconnaissance aircraft.
Now,
yes, I do hear the critics:
-There
are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot
be the least effective. But
I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that
the inspections are producing results.
One may judge them inadequate but they are there.
-There
are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort
of “delaying tactic” to prevent military intervention.
That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq.
This brings us to the core of the debates.
At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility
Let us have the courage to see things as they are.
There
are two options:
-
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest.
But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build
peace. Let us not delude
ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be
necessary to preserve Iraq’s unity and restore stability in a
lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion
of force.
-
-
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the
inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the
effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq.
In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
No
one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of
the inspections. No one
can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more
stable world. For war is
always the sanction of failure. Would
this be our sole recourse in the face of the
many challenges at this time?
So
let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for
their mission to succeed. But
let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to
report regularly to the Council.
France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at
ministerial level to assess the situation.
We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made
and what remains to be done.
*
*
*
5. Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this
time. There is an
alternative to war: disarming
Iraq via inspections. Furthermore,
premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with
risks:
- The authority of our action is based today on the unity of
the international community. Premature
military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that
would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its
effectiveness.
- Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for
the stability of this scarred and fragile region.
It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and
risk paving the way to other conflicts.
-
We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism
mercilessly. This fight
requires
total determination. Since
the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest
priorities facing our peoples. And
France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times,
is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we
must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on
January 20, at France’s initiative.
Ten
days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged
links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad.
Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in
liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.
On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed
military action would have on this plan.
Would not such intervention today be liable to exacerbate the
divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that
nurture terrorism?
France
has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may
have to be used one day if the inspectors’ reports concluded that it
was impossible to continue the inspections.
The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members
would have to meet all their responsibilities.
In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I
emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of
the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable
risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In
any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the
international community that would guarantee its effectiveness.
Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at
the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
To
those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede
to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this
Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion
or fear.
In
this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal,
the guardians of a conscience. The
onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give
priority to disarmament in peace.
This
message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a
continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and
barbarity. An old country
that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the
freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of
history and before mankind. It
wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international
community. Faithful to
its values, it believes in our ability to build together a better
world./.
|