|
Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Ministers,
Ambassadors,
I would like to begin by telling you
how pleased France is, that on this
decisive day, the Security Council is being presided over by Guinea,
by an African.
I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr.
ElBaradei for the presentation they have just given us. Their reports
testify to regular progress in the disarmament of Iraq.
What have the inspectors told us? That
for a month, Iraq has been actively cooperating with them. That
substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the
progressive destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles and their equipment.
That new prospects are opening up with the recent questioning of
several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now
been observed. And that indeed is the key to resolution 1441.
With solemnity, therefore, before this
body, I would like to ask a question—the very same question being
asked by people all over the world: Why should we today engage in a
war with Iraq?
And I would also like to ask: Why smash
the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose
division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of
its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed, at any
price, by force when we can succeed peacefully?
War is always an acknowledgement of
failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable.
Before making our choice, let us weigh
the consequences, let us measure the effects of our decision.
*
1.We all see it: In Iraq, we are
resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of
mass destruction.
The method that we have chosen works:
The information supplied by Baghdad has been verified by the
inspectors, and is leading to the elimination of banned ballistic
equipment.
We are proceeding the same way with all
the other programs: with information, verification, destruction.
We already have useful information in
the biological and chemical domains. In response to questions by the
inspectors, Iraq must give us further information in a timely fashion,
so that we may obtain the most precise possible knowledge about any
existing inventories or programs. On the basis of this information, we
will destroy all the components that are discovered, as we are doing
for the missiles, and will determine what the truth is.
With regard to nuclear weapons, Mr.
ElBaradei’s statements confirm that we are approaching the time when
the IAEA will be able to certify the dismantlement of the Iraq program.
What conclusions can we draw? That
Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents
less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991. That we can achieve
our objective of effectively disarming that country.
*
2. Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad.
The adoption of resolution 1441, the
assumption of converging positions by the vast majority of the world’s
nations, diplomatic actions by the Organization of African Unity, the
League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and
the Non-Aligned Movement—all of these common efforts are bearing
fruit.
The American and British military
presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve.
We all recognize the effectiveness of
this pressure on the part of the international community. We must use
it to go through with our objective of disarmament through
inspections. As the European Union noted, these inspections cannot
continue indefinitely. The pace must therefore be stepped up.
*
- That is why France wants to make
three proposals today:
- First, let us ask the inspectors to
establish a hierarchy of tasks for disarmament and, on that basis,
to present us as quickly as possible with the work program
provided for by resolution 1284. We need to know immediately what
the priority issues are that could constitute key disarmament
tasks to be carried out by Iraq.
- Second, we propose that the
inspectors give us a progress report every three weeks. That will
make the Iraqi authorities understand that in no case may they
interrupt their efforts.
- Finally, let us establish a schedule
for assessing the implementation of the work program. Resolution
1284 provides for a time frame of 120 days. We are willing to
shorten it, if the inspectors consider it feasible.
The military agenda must not dictate
the calendar of inspections. We agree to timetables and to an
accelerated calendar. But we cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the
inspectors are reporting cooperation. That would mean war. It would
lead the Security Council to relinquish its responsibilities. By
imposing a deadline of a few days, would we be reduced to seeking a
pretext for war?
As a permanent member of the Security
Council, I will say it again: France will not allow a resolution to
pass that authorizes the automatic use of force.
Let us consider the anguish and the
waiting of people all around the world, in all our countries, from
Cairo to Rio, from Algiers to Pretoria, from Rome to Jakarta.
*
4. Indeed, the stakes transcend the
case of Iraq alone.
Let us look at things lucidly: We are
defining a method to resolve crises. We are choosing to define the
world we want our children to live in.
That is true in the case of North Korea,
in the case of Southern Asia, where we have not yet found the path
toward a lasting resolution of disputes. It is true in the case of the
Mideast: Can we continue to wait while acts of violence multiply?
These crises have many roots: They are
political, religious, economic. Their origins lie in the tumult of
centuries. There may be some who believe that these problems can be
resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. That is not France’s
conviction. On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can
arouse rancor and hatred, fuel a clash of identities, of cultures—something
that our generation has, precisely, a prime responsibility to avoid.
To those who believe that war would be
the quickest way to disarm Iraq, I say it will establish gulfs and
create wounds that are long in healing. And how many victims will it
bring, how many grieving families?
*
- We do not subscribe to what may be
the other objectives of a war.
- Is it a matter of regime change in
Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship
and the need to do everything possible to promote human rights.
That is not the objective of resolution 1441. And force is
certainly not the best way to bring about democracy. It would
encourage dangerous instability, there and elsewhere
- Is it a matter of fighting terrorism?
War would only increase it, and we could then be faced with a new
wave of violence. Let us beware of playing into the hands of those
who want a clash of civilizations, a clash of religions.
- Or is it, finally, a matter of
remolding the political landscape of the Middle East? In that
case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already
marked by great instability. Not to mention that in Iraq itself,
the large number of communities and religions already represents
the danger of a potential break-up.
*
6. We all have the same demands: more
security, more democracy.
But there is another logic beside that
of force, another path, other solutions.
We understand the profound sense of
insecurity with which the American people have been living since the
tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of
New York and of America, struck in the heart. I say this in the name
of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common
values: freedom, justice, tolerance.
But there is nothing today that
indicates a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the
world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want
to tell you what my country’s conviction is: No.
Four months ago, we unanimously adopted
a system of inspections to eliminate the threat of potential weapons
of mass destruction and guarantee our security. Today we cannot accept,
without contradicting ourselves, a conflict that might well weaken it.
Yes, we too want more democracy in the
world. But we will achieve this objective only within the framework of
a true global democracy based on respect, sharing, the awareness of a
true community of values and a common destiny. And its heart is here
at the
United Nations.
*
7. Let us make no mistake: In the face
of multiple and complex threats there is no one response, but a single
necessity: We must remain united.
Today we must invent, together, a new
future for the Middle East. Let us not forget the immense hope created
by the efforts of the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Agreement. Let us
not forget that the Mideast crisis represents our greatest challenge
in terms of security and justice. For us, the Mideast, like Iraq,
represents a priority commitment.
This calls for great ambition and even
greater boldness: We should envision a region transformed through
peace; civilizations that, through the courage of the outstretched
hand, rediscover their self-confidence and an international prestige
equal to their long history and their aspirations.
In a few days, we must solemnly fulfill
our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential
choice: Disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial
choice implies others: It implies the international community’s
ability to resolve current or future crises. It implies a vision of
the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations.
France believes that to make this
choice, to make it in good conscience in this forum of international
democracy, before their people and before the world, the heads of
state and government must meet again here in New York, at the Security
Council.
It is in everyone’s interest. We must
rediscover the fundamental vocation of the United Nations: to allow
each of its members to assume its responsibilities in the face of the
Iraqi crisis but also to seize, together, the destiny of a world in
crisis and thus re-create the conditions for our future unity.
|