首页 >> 特约撰稿 >> Statement by France to Security Council

Statement by France to Security Council

DOMINIQUE GALOUZEAU DE VILLEPIN  

2003.2.14.

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 Qaeda 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 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.