Text of U.N. Addresses By Powell, Straw, Douri
Following are the addresses to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Mohammed Al-Douri, Iraq's permanent representative to the United Nations. Provided by the Associated Press and Federal News Service (www.fns.com).
POWELL: In his report this morning, Dr. Blix remarked on the paucity of information on Iraq's programs since 1998. We've all been working hard to fill that gap. But Iraq is the one who could fill that gap if it was truly complying with 1441. It would be inundating the inspectors with new information, not holding it back begrudgingly.
The draft we reviewed today in preparation for this meeting was 167 pages long. If Iraq were genuinely committed to disarmament, Dr. Blix's document would not be 167 pages of issues and questions, it would be thousands upon thousands of pages of answers about anthrax, about VX, about sarin, about unmanned aerial vehicles. It would set out in detail all of Iraq's prohibited programs. Then and only then could the inspectors really do the credible job they need to do of verification, destruction and monitoring.
We've been down this road before. March 1998, Saddam Hussein was also faced with the threat of military action. He responded with promises--promises to provide inspectors at that time with immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
The then chief inspector reported to this council a new spirit of cooperation, along with his hope that the inspectors could move very quickly to verify Iraq's disarmament. We know what happened to that hope. There was no progress and disarmament. And nine months later, the inspectors found it necessary to withdraw.
I regret that not much has changed. Iraq's current behavior, like the behavior chronicled in Dr. Blix's document, reveals its strategic decision to continue to delay, to deceive, to try to throw us off the trail, make it more difficult, to hope that the will of the international community will be fractured, that we will go off in different directions, that we will get bored with the task, that we will remove the pressure, we will remove the force. And we know what has happened when that has been done in the past.
We know that the Iraqis still are not volunteering information. Then when they do, what they are giving is often partial and misleading. We know that when confronted with facts, the Iraqis still are changing their story to explain those facts, but not enough to give us the truth.
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. And this is now the reality we, the council, must deal with.
Security Council membership carries heavy responsibility, responsibility to the community of nations to take the hard decisions on tough issues, such as the one we are facing today. Last November, this council stepped up to it responsibilities. We must not walk away. We must not find ourselves here this coming November with the pressure removed and with Iraq once again marching down the merry path to weapons of mass destruction, threatening the region, threatening the world.
If we fail to meet our responsibilities, the credibility of this council and its ability to deal with all the critical challenges we face will suffer. As we sit here, let us not forget the horrors still going on in Iraq with a spare moment to remember the suffering Iraqi people whose treasure is spent on these kinds of programs and not for their own benefit, people who are being beaten, brutalized and robbed by Saddam and his regime.
Colleagues, now is the time for the council to send a clear message to Saddam that we have not been taken in by his transparent tactics. Nobody wants war, but it is clear that the limited progress we have seen, the process changes we have seen, the slight substantive changes we have seen come from the presence of a large military force, nations who are willing to put their young men and women in harm's way in order to rid the world of these dangerous weapons.
It doesn't come simply from resolutions, it doesn't come simply from inspectors. It comes from the will of this council, the unified political will of this council and the willingness to use force if it comes to that, to make sure that we achieve the disarmament of Iraq.
Now is the time for the council to tell Saddam that the clock has not been stopped by his stratagems and his machinations. We believe that the resolution that has been put forward for action by this council is appropriate. And in the very near future, we should bring it before this council for a vote.
The clock continues to tick, and the consequences of Saddam Hussein continued refusal to disarm will be very, very real.
Thank you.
* * *
STRAW: Mr. President, I'd like to begin by congratulating you on your assumption of the presidency, by wishing you well at a very important moment, and also to echo and underline the thanks which you so generously gave to Vice Chancellor Joschka Fischer and Ambassador Gunter Pleuger for the excellent way in which they chaired the Security Council during the month of February.
I would also like to thank Dr. ElBaradei and Dr. Blix for their reports, and to place on record my government's appreciation for their work and the work in very difficult circumstances of all the staff of the IAEA and of UNMOVIC.
Mr. President, I've listened with very great care to what my colleagues speaking before me have said. We are all agreed that Iraq must be fully disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq's failure to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the inspectors has to be dealt with.
As we negotiated 1441, the evidence was there for all of us to see that Iraq had been and remained in material breach. And we, all 15 members, voted to give the Iraqi regime a final opportunity to comply with its obligations. And the first question, therefore, before this council is: Has Iraq taken this final opportunity to disarm?
And I've been very struck, listened with care to all the speeches, and of course people have different points of view, but nobody, not one minister before this council, in my hearing, has said that Iraq is now fully, actively and immediately in compliance with 1441. They have not so far taken this final opportunity.
If anybody in this chamber, or outside, has any doubt about that conclusion, then I do commend to members this so-called "cluster report," the Outstanding Issues Concerning Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Program, which as a member of the commission behind UNMOVIC, I've already had the privilege of reading, and I have read, Dr. Blix knows, all 167 pages of that report in every particular. It's a very painstaking piece of work. I thank Dr. Blix for publishing it. But it's also a chilling read about the failure of Iraq to comply with successive resolutions of this council over each day of the past 12 years.
And there's not been active cooperation in the areas which matter. UNMOVIC, because of that, have not been able to resolve any substantive issues outstanding from 1998. As we all know, a point to which I shall return shortly, Iraq refused to admit inspectors for three years after Resolution 1284 was passed, only agreeing to them under the threat of enforcement action and in an attempt to frustrate 1441. And Iraq has dragged its feet on as many elements of procedural and substantive cooperation as possible.
Could I, Mr. President, just draw attention to just one aspect, which is often overlooked? Dr. Blix referred to the fact that Iraq has recently informed us that following the adoption of a presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from engaging in work related to weapons of mass destruction, further legislation on this subject is to be enacted. No one should be taken in by this as a concession. Iraq was ordered -- I have the instruction here from this council -- on the 2nd of October 1991 to enact legislation which, in conformity with international law, shall do precisely what they are now saying they intend to do. And what is more, what they have so far done does not cover the operations of the state, only private individuals and mixed companies. So 12 years on, 12 years after the world saw that Iraq had developed, under the world's noses, weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, nuclear systems, biological systems, chemical systems, Iraq is still refusing to pass a law saying that such activity by members of state government authorities is illegal. This is not something for which they needed to search. It's not something for which they needed the assistance of inspectors or ground-penetrating radar. It's something they could and should have done back in October 1991, and notwithstanding all the pressure, they are still refusing to do.
And then we come on to the issue of interviews. As Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei have reported, Iraq has done everything possible to prevent unrestricted, unrecorded interviews. There have now been 12 private interviews between UNSCOM (sic) and the IAEA, against -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA, against an UNSCOM list of 3,500 people previously associated with weapons of mass destruction programs.
And we know for a fact that all of these 12 and all prospective interviewees have been threatened and intimidated by the Iraqi regime beforehand and told that their exchanges were being recorded. If they weren't being recorded by bugs and tape recorders the interviewees were told to take into the meetings, they were told that they were going to be recorded in any event by bugs placed in the walls of the recording halls.
And I understand that scientists most likely to have the most incriminating evidence have been locked away by the Iraqi security services. There have been interviews in the safe havens outside Iraq; not one. And the restrictions placed on the interviewees is itself the most incriminating evidence that Saddam has something to hide.
The Al-Samoud 2 episode further confirms Iraq's familiar tactics. Iraq under-declared the number of missile engines it illegally imported. It declared 131 engines but imported 380. Iraq also falsely declared that the missile had a maximum range of 150 kilometers, when it was designed to fly -- it is not an accident -- it was designed to fly considerably in excess of that.
And we know that Iraq's agreement to the destruction process, necessary as it is, is a calculation that it can satisfy the council with a partial response in one, only, of the 29 categories of unresolved disarmament questions.
I have to say, Mr. President, and with all respect to good colleagues, that it defies experience that to continue inspections with no firm end date, as I believe has been suggested in the French, German and Russian memorandum, will achieve complete disarmament, unless -- unless -- as the memorandum acknowledges, Iraq's full and active cooperation is immediately forthcoming.
And the memorandum is not even a formula for containment, given Iraq's proven ability to exploit the existing sanctions regime to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction. We knew nothing about the missile engines, we knew nothing about the rest of this, imported under our noses in breach of the sanctions regime, until we passed 1441.
And to find a peaceful solution to the current crisis, Mr. President, the council must not retreat from the demands it set out clearly in 1441. What we need is an irreversible and strategic decision by Iraq to disarm, a strategic decision by Iraq to yield to the inspectors all of its weapons of mass destruction and all relevant information which it could and should have provided at any time in the last 12 years, a strategic decision like that taken by South Africa when it decided freely to abandon its secret nuclear program.
Mr. President, I greatly welcome the progress which the inspectors have today reported. My honest wish, and that of my government, has all along been to achieve the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if humanly possible, by peaceful means. But to achieve that, we have to recognize that the progress which has been reported represents only the tip of a very large iceberg of huge unfinished business required of Iraq.
And just as I welcome the progress which we have heard, I say to the council that there are very serious lessons for us from what has been reported. Let us consider what has changed. Why has there been this sudden bout of activity when there was no progress at all for weeks before that, where for months and for years before that, Saddam Hussein was rearming under our noses? Now, it isn't our policy which has changed. It's not international law which has changed. There has been, from the beginning, the clearest instructions to Saddam to disarm. No. What has changed is one thing and one thing only: the pressure on the regime.
Dr. Blix said in his opening remarks that this -- what's changed may well be due to strong outside pressure. That's absolutely right. In his remarks, Dominique de Villepin said that -- and described a lot of diplomatic pressure by the non-aligned movement, by the European Union, by the Arab League and by many others. And I greatly welcome all of that diplomatic pressure. Dominique went on to say, "and the United States and United Kingdom forces lend support to that pressure" With respect to my good friend, I think it's the other way around. (Laughter.) I really do. What has happened? All that pressure was there for every day of 12 years. In Dr. Blix's carefully chosen words, the "strong outside pressure" is -- and let us be blunt about this -- the presence of over 200,000 United States and United Kingdom young men and young women willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of this body, the United Nations.
And Dominique also said the choice before us was disarmament by peace or disarmament by war. Dominique, that's a false choice. I wish that it were that easy, because we wouldn't be having to have this discussion. We could all put up our hands for disarmament by peace and go home.
The paradox we face is that the only way we are going to achieve disarmament by peace of a rogue regime which all of us know has been in defiance of this council for the past 12 years, the only way we can achieve their disarmament of their weapons of mass destruction, which this council has said poses a threat to international peace and security, is by backing our diplomacy with the credible threat of force. I wish we lived in a different world, where this was not necessary, but sadly, we live in that world.
And the choice -- the choice, Dominique, is not ours as to how this disarmament takes place. The choice is Saddam Hussein's. It's his choice. It's his choice. Would that it were ours, because it would be so easy. But sadly, it is not.
And there is only one possible sensible conclusion that we can draw. We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We have to put this man to the test. He's shown this week he doesn't need more time to comply. He can act with astonishing speed when he chooses to. What's more, he knows exactly what has to be done. He knows this because he's the originator of all this, of the information. The Iraqis don't need a Dr. Hans Blix and all his staff to produce 167 pages of forensic questions. They have the answer book already. Look how fast they acted to produce 13,000 pages of a declaration, albeit much of that was irrelevant. Mr. President, it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell.
And I just want to make this clear, on this issue of automaticity, which again my good friend Dominique raised. This is -- there's nothing ever been automatic about the threat of force or the use of force. It has always been conditional. It would be utterly irresponsible and in defiance of our solemn duties to this council for us to walk into a situation where force was used automatically. And although there's been that canard around -- that some of us were in the business of using force automatically -- the truth is that it's not being used automatically, it should not be used automatically, it will not be used automatically. And nothing to which my government has ever put its name ever suggests that that would be the case.
What we seek is compliance by Saddam Hussein of 1441.
And I make this point. We are not suggesting, we're not suggesting that in a matter of days Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei would be able to complete all their work, they'd be able to verify the disarmament of Iraq. No one is suggesting that.
But what we are suggesting is that it is perfectly possible, perfectly possible, achievable and necessary for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime to bring themselves into compliance so that instead of us all, either by our words or by our silence, as we have today admitted that Saddam is not in full compliance, that he has not taken the further opportunity and the final opportunity, we can say the reverse and we can celebrate the achievement of the fine ideals of the United Nations and of one of the central points of the work program of the U.N., that we back, if necessary, our diplomacy by the credible threat of force.
And we remain, as founding members of this United Nations and as permanent members of this Security Council, committed to exploring every reasonable option for a peaceful outcome and every prospect of a council consensus.
And in the light of that, and in the light of what I have said, I should tell the council that I'm asking on behalf of the cosponsors of our draft resolution -- the Kingdom of Spain, the government of the United States, and the government of the United Kingdom -- I'm asking the secretariat to circulate an amendment which we are tabling which will specify a further period beyond the adoption of a resolution for Iraq to take the final opportunity to disarm and to bring themselves into compliance.
But, Mr. President, the council must send Iraq the clear message that we will resolve this crisis on the United Nations' terms, the terms which the council established four months ago, when we unanimously adopted Resolution 1441.
Thank you very much indeed. (Applause.)
* * *
DOURI (through interpreter): Thank you, Mr. President. In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, my delegation would like to extend its congratulations to you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council this month. We are confident that your African wisdom will be the best guarantor for the success of its work this month.
I should also like to thank Germany for its presidency of the Security Council last month, and for all the efforts made towards the success of its deliberations.
I should like to thank both Doctors Blix and ElBaradei for their efforts and for their briefings. Let me stress our pledge on continuing proactive cooperation with them.
Mr. President, Iraq proceeds from a deep sense of responsibility, from a clarity of vision in regard of the nature of the very difficult international circumstances that are an inauspicious omen not only for Iraq and its people, but for the entire region and the world, which includes this organization, the United Nations organization. The entire world, with the exception of a handful of states, remain desirous to see the United Nations continuing to fulfill the tasks entrusted it, in keeping international peace and security.
Mr. President, it seems that the possibility of a war of aggression being launched on Iraq has become imminent, regardless of what the Security Council decides, and regardless of the international position, both official and public, strongly rejecting aggression and war, and demanding a peaceful solution.
The French-German-Russian-Chinese position clearly expresses the fact that there is no need for a second resolution to be adopted in the Security Council. It demands that the work of the inspectors continue and that enough time is given them to complete their tasks by peaceful means.
The position of the Arab countries was also clear, particularly the one taken by the last Arab summit, which unanimously expressed the rejection of an attack against Iraq as constituting a threat to Arab national security. The summit called on a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi crisis within international legitimacy. The summit reaffirmed the responsibility of the Security Council to preserve the independence, security and territorial integrity of Iraq. The summit also stated that time has come to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq.
The latest summit of the Non-aligned Movement, a movement of 114 countries, held in Kuala Lumpur, condemned military action and the threat of the use of military action, considering such action as aggression and a flagrant violation of the principle of non- interference.
The heads of states and governments, and the representatives of 57 Islamic countries, who just met recently at the Al-Doha summit, also declared their absolute rejection of any aggression on Iraq, considering it a threat to the security of any Islamic state.
Furthermore, I should like to express my appreciation for the efforts being made by all churches in stressing the importance of peace, as well as the efforts in particular made by His Holiness, the pope, in underscoring peace and denouncing war, considering such war void from any moral or legitimate foundation.
On behalf of the people of Iraq, I should like to salute all the peoples in the world, and in particular the people of the United States of America and the British people, the people of Spain, who took to the streets in their millions in demonstrations expressing their attachment to peace and their rejection of war.
Mr. President, the U.S. administration, with Britain, have in the past, and continue to attempt to trump up facts and evidence pointing to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, they have come short in convincing the international community. The inspectors have proved that there are no such weapons and that such allegations are false.
Secretary Powell spoke of a lack of a strategic and political decision in Iraq confirming a commitment to the resolutions of international legitimacy and a commitment to ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Let me affirm that Iraq's strategic decision to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction was indeed taken in 1991. UNSCOM worked for eight years. Iraq handed over many of those weapons to UNSCOM for destruction in the period from 1991 to 1994. Indeed, UNSCOM did undertake the destruction of those weapons; that, in addition to the weapons unilaterally destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991. These include all proscribed material in the biological area. This, Mr. President, is the central fact of the matter. Since then, nothing has been unearthed to contradict that central fact.
Any weapons that are proscribed will be found in either of those two categories: declared, or unilaterally destroyed. All the declaration that Iraq was repeatedly asked to present connected with details and verification of unilateral destruction, and nothing else. I repeat: nothing else. It is for the accusers to prove otherwise if they have any evidence in hand.
Let me also point to what Secretary Powell stated, arguing regarding Iraq's VX program. The fact of the matter is that Iraq had no weapons -- no VX weapons to declare. No VX agents remained to be declared by Iraq. Iraq never produced stable VX and never weaponized VX.
No one has any evidence whatsoever to prove the contrary.
Mr. Powell ought not to jump into such hasty conclusions as he has in the past concerning aluminum tubes and the claims on importing uranium. We heard directly from Mr. ElBaradei today to the exact opposite.
Regarding statements on Iraq's cooperation that I heard this morning from many distinguished members of the council, allow me just to point out what was stated by Dr. Blix, not today; however, what he stated two days ago in a press conference. In that press conference, he stated that Iraq is cooperating proactively. I would underline the word "proactively." He stated that a real disarmament is taking place on the ground -- real disarmament. He stated that the efforts exerted by Iraq and the inspectors represent steps towards actual verification -- verification -- of Iraq's unilateral destruction of its previous proscribed programs.
When asked if Iraq represents a threat now, he replied that all agree that Iraq possesses very limited military capacities in comparison with 1991 and that Iraq is being monitored and very closely guarded by the inspectors.
On the issue of interviews, Dr. Blix stated that his experts have clarified that those interviews are yielding important and beneficial results regarding data. He pointed out, in this regard, the importance of Iraq's submission of names of participants in destroying proscribed programs, an issue that surely will facilitate verification of such destruction. He added that he does not agree with those who say that Resolution 1441 is a disarmament resolution and not an inspection resolution.
Mr. President, the U.S.-U.K. statements, in addition with some others today, show a state of confusion, because officials in the United States and the U.K. and those standing on their side are unable to provide any evidence proving the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
They have also not been able to mask their own private agenda in the region and the world.
So it all started with the issue of Iraq possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction. Then they demanded that Iraq accept the return of inspectors. Then they moved on to proactive cooperation with the inspectors. Then they demanded the submission of evidence, proof that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction. Then, at the last meeting, they concentrated on the need to destroy the Al Samoud 2 missiles. Then talk moved on to the alleged link that Iraq is destroying on the one hand and manufacturing on the other. Then talk began of an alleged link with terrorism and regime change. And finally, here we are, hearing about Iraq being a threat to U.S. national security, stated by President Bush, having previously heard that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors.
This is an attempt to mix the issues. It is an attempt to mask the real agenda of the United States of America and the United Kingdom in Iraq. It's a very simple agenda. The objective is the complete takeover of Iraq's oil, domination of the entire Arab region, politically and economically. It is the implementation of what is being called the neo-Sykes-Picot on the Middle East, the redrawing of the region one more time.
Mr. President, when Iraq accepted Security Council resolutions, it was and continues to look for justice from this esteemed council. However, the tabling of the draft resolution and its latest amendment do not relate to disarmament. The aim is to drag the Security Council to detrimental consequences, not only for Iraq, but for the very credibility of this international organization where we're meeting today.
I should like at this point to express Iraq's gratitude to all those opposing the draft. Let me reiterate to them that Iraq will not waver in its continuing proactive and rapid cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. We call on this august Security Council to shoulder these historical responsibilities, especially today's responsibility in thwarting aggression against Iraq. Let the Security Council not allow in any way for a new crime to be committed in its name, which will in its impact, will by far surpass any crimes in the past century.
Let me add, Mr. President, that war against Iraq will not unearth any weapons of mass destruction, but it will reap destruction for a very simple reason: there are no such weapons, except in the imagination of some. And therefore, all those who abetted in the commission of that crime without a direct interest will be sorry indeed.
I thank you, sir.
Updated March 7, 2003 4:34 p.m. EST
online.wsj.com |
