| | MIN. DOMINIQUE GALOUZEAU
DE VILLEPIN: (Through interpreter.) Mr. President, Mr. Secretary- General,
distinguished ministers, distinguished ambassadors, I would like to thank Mr.
Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have given us on the continuing
inspections in Iraq. I would like to reiterate to them France's confidence
and complete support in their work.
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: 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 inspections failed and only
in that event that a second resolution could be justified.
The question
today is simple. Do we believe in good conscience that disarmament via inspections
is now leading us to a dead end, or do we believe that the possibilities regarding
inspections presented in 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In
response to this question, France believes two things. First, the option of
inspections has not been taken to the end. It can provide an effective response
to the imperative of disarming Iraq.
Secondly, the use of force would
be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability
that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.
So what have we
just learned from the reports by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? We have just learned
that the inspections are purchasing 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 purchasing results. At earlier reports to the Security Council
on 27 January, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the
IAEA identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains
have now been made on several of these fronts.
In the chemical and biological
areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They
have also announced they are reestablishing two commissions of inquiry, led by
former officials of weapons programs in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests.
In the ballistic area, the information provided by Iraq has enabled the
inspectors to make progress. We now 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
has been given to the IAEA on the most important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei
on 27 January. The acquisition of magnets that could be used to enrich uranium
and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided
it with uranium.
And so here we are at the heart of the logic of Resolution
1441, which must ensure effective inspections through precisely identifying banned
programs and then eliminating them. We all realize that success in the inspections
presupposes that we get full and complete cooperation from Iraq. France has consistently
demanded this.
Real progress is emerging. Iraq has agreed to aerial
reconnaissance over its territory; it has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned
by inspectors without witnesses; a bill barring all activities linked to weapons
of mass destruction programs is being adopted, which is in accordance with the
long-standing request from the inspectors; and Iraq is providing 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. 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
made some proposals to the council on 5 February, and since then, we detailed
them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, which was
distributed to council members. What is the spirit of those proposals? They are
practical and concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly. They are designed
to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations. They fall within the framework
of Resolution 1441, and consequently, they do not require a new resolution by
this council. They come to support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei,
who are, naturally, the best place to tell us which ones they wish to ensure maximum
effectiveness in their work. In their reports, they have already made useful
and operational comments.
France has already announced it has additional
resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with our Mirage IV
reconnaissance aircraft.
Oh, yes, I hear criticism. There are those
who think that inspections, in their very essence, cannot be effective at
all. But let me recall that that was the very foundation of Resolution
1441, and that inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate,
but the results are there.
Then there are those who believe that continuing
the inspection process is a kind of delaying tactic to prevent or avert military
intervention. That naturally raises a question of how much time is allowed Iraq.
And this brings us to the heart of the matter. What is 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, peace has to be built.
Let us not delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be
necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and to restore stability in a lasting way in
a country and a region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced
with that prospective, there is an alternative -- 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
today can claim that the path of war will be shorter than the path of inspections.
No one can claim that it would lead to a safer, more just, 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 give the United
Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed, but also let
us all be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the
council.
France, for its part, would propose another meeting on 14 March
at the ministerial level to assess the situation. We would then be able to judge
the progress made and what remains to be done. Given this context,
the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to
war: Disarming Iraq via inspections. Moreover, 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 will
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 tension and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority: 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. France has been
struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, and it is wholly mobilized
in this fight which involves all of us, which we must pursue together. That
was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on 20 January and France's
initiative.
Ten days ago, the U.S. secretary of state, Mr. Powell, reported
alleged links between al-Qaida and the Baghdad regime. Given the present state
of our research and intelligence in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us
to establish such links. But we must assess the impact that disputed military
action would have on this level. Would such intervention today not
be liable to exacerbate divisions between societies, cultures, peoples; divisions
that nurture terrorism?
All along, France has been saying we do not
exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day. If the inspectors
reports concluded it was impossible to continue inspections, the council would
then have to take a decision and its members would have to meet all of their responsibilities.
In such an eventuality, I just want to recall now the questions I stressed
at our last debate on 4 February, which we must answer. To what extent
do the nature and extent of the threat justify 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 the unity
of the international community that would ensure and guarantee its effectiveness.
It is the United Nations that, whatever happens, will still tomorrow be at the
center of the peace to be built.
To those who are anguished, wondering
when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to say that nothing at
any time in this council will be done in haste, in misunderstanding, out of suspicion
or out of 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 through peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France; from a continent
like mine, Europe, that has known war, occupation, barbarity. It is an old country
that does not forget and is very aware of all it owes to freedom fighters who
came from America and elsewhere. And yet France has always stood upright
in the face of history before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wants resolutely
to act together with all members of the international community. France
believes in our ability to build together a better world.
Thank you,
Mr. President. | |
