02/14/2007 UN : Invasion of Iraq is political error, has no justification, will turn into a disaster

The neocon US administration could not ignore this world wide public
warning. Expressed in soft diplomatic terms, it expresses clearly the
reason why the intervention in Iraq would be a useless, costly failure.
- No weapon of mass destruction found
- No uranium connection
- No link with al quaeda
- Potential destabilization of the whole Middle East.
- Useless and inefficient
- No successful exit strategy


Dominique de Villepin, then France Foreign Minister, pronounced this
speech at the UN Security Council on feb. 14. 2003. It is still of a
stunning actuality.

Here is a rough translation of this speech.

"I thank MISTERS Blix and El Baradeï for the informations which they have
just provided us about the current inspections they are making in Iraq. I
express again to them the confidence and the full support of France in
their mission.

France has the highest interest, since the origin of the Iraqi crisis, in
the unity of the Security Council. This unity relies today on two
essential elements :

We follow together the goal to effectively disarm Iraq. And we have there
an obligation of result. There shall be no question about our common
implication in this direction. We collectively assume this heavy
responsibility which should leave place neither back thinking, nor
suspicion. Let us be clear : none among us has any complacency with regard
to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqui government.

In adopting unanimously the 1441 resolution , we collectively gave our
assent with the two phase process that France suggested : first try to
disarm Iraq by the way of the inspections and, in the event of a failure,
let the Security Coucel examine all the options, including the use of
armed force coercicion. It is obviously in the case of the failure of
inspections, and in this case only, that a new resolution could be
justified. Today question is simple: do we consider in conscience that the
disarmament process is already in a dead end ? Or, do we hope that all the
possibilities of inspection offered by resolution 1441 have not been
explored yet ?

In answering this question, France has two convictions : the first, it is
that the option of the inspections was not followed to its end and that it
can bring an effective answer to the exigence Iraq disarmament ; the
second, it is that resorting to force would be so full of consequences for
the men, the area and the international stability that it should be
considered only an ultimate option. However what have we learned from Mr.
Blix and El Baradeï's report ? We have just heard that the inspections are
giving positive results. Of course, each one among us wants more and we
will continue together to make pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the
inspections are giving results. In their previous interventions at the
Security Council, January 27, the executive president of the CCVINU and
the general manager of the IAEA had precisely identified the points were
advances where expected. On several of these points, significant progress
has been achieved :

In the chemical and biological domain, the Iraqis gave new documents to
the inspectors. They also decided the creation of enquiry comissions,
directed by persons formerly in charge for the armaments programs, in
accordance with the conclusions of Mr. Blix. In the ballistic field, the
information provided by Iraq allowed also the inspectors to progress. We
know with accuracy the real capacities of missile Al-Samoud. Now, it is
advisable to carry out the dismantling of the unauthorized programs,
according Mr. Blix conclusions. In the nuclear field, useful information
were transmitted to the IAEA on the most important points evoked by Mr. El
Baradeï on January 27 : the acquisition of magnets likely to be used for
the enrichment of uranium and a list of contacts between Iraq and likely
uranium providing countries.

We are there at the core of the resolution 1441 logic, which aims at the
effectiveness of the inspections thanks to an accurate identification of
the prohibited programs, then with their elimination. We all are conscious
that the success of the inspections supposes that we achieve a
co-operation without restriction with Iraq. France had no cease requiring
it. Real advances are appearing : Iraq agreed to its territory overflight
by surveillance planes; it allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by
inspectors without witnesses ; Iraq is currently enacting a bill
prohibiting all the mass destruction weapon related activities, in
accordance with a former inspectors' request ; Iraq is due to provide a
detailed list of the experts who attended the destruction of the military
programs in 1991.

France, of course, will wait until these engagements are durably checked.
In the mean while, we must maintain a strong pressure on Iraq so that it
goes on in the road of cooperation. Theses advances comfort us in the
conviction that the inspections process can be effective. But we should
not dissimulate us the extent of the remaining work : questions must be
elucidated, checks must be led, installations or materials must
undoubtedly still be destroyed. With way, we can give to the inspections
all the chances to succeed.

On February 5, I made several proposals at the Council. Since then, we
clarified them in a written instruction addressed to Mr. Blix and El
Baradeï and communicated to the members of the Council. Which are their
purpose ? They are practical and concrete proposals, which can be
implemented quickly and which are intended to reinforce the inspection
effectiveness. They lie within the scope of the resolution 1441 and do not
require consequently any new Council Resolution. They come as a support to
the efforts carried out by Mr. Blix and El Baradeï, which are naturally
the best capable persons to say us which are those they wish to retain to
ensure the best effectiveness of their work. In their report, they gave us
useful and operational comments. France already announced that it would
provide additional means to Mr. Blix and El Baradeï, starting with its air
monitors Mirage IV. Naturally, I understand criticisms too : there are
those which think that, in their principle, the inspections cannot have
any effectiveness. But I point out that it is effectively the base of
resolution 1441 and that the inspections do give results. some can
consider them insufficient but results are there.

There are those who believe that pursuing the process of inspection would
mean undue delays in an attempt to prevent a military intervention. That
naturally raises the question of the time frame assigned in Iraq. We are
there in the centeral debate. This is our main responsibility. Let us have
the determination to day things squarely. There are two options : the
option of the war can appear fastest at firts. But let us not forget that
*after wining the war, it will be necessary to build peace*. And let not
veil our faces : that will be long and difficult, because it will be
*necessary to preserve the unity of Iraq*, to *restore* in a durable way
*stability in a country* and an area hardly hit by the intrusion of
armed force. The other other option is offered by the inspections, they
provide a way for day by day progression in the way of an effective and
peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the last analysis, isn't this choice the
surest and fastest ?

Nobody can thus affirm today that the war option will be shorter than the
inspections option. *Nobody can ascertain that it would lead to a surer,
more just and more stable world*. Because the *war is always the sanction
of a failure*. Would this be our only recourse to our current challenges?
Let us give consequently to the inspectors of the United Nations the
necessary time for the success of their mission. But let us be vigilant
together and ask Mr. Blix and El Baradeï to submit regular reports to the
Council. France, for its part, proposes a new appointment on March 14 at
the secretary of state level, to evaluate the situation. We will be able
then to consider what progresses were carried out and those that remain to
be done. In this context, the use of the armed force has no justification
now. There is an alternative to the war : to disarm Iraq by the
inspections. Moreover, resorting prematurely to the military option would
be full of consequences.

The legitimacy of our action relies today on the unity of the
international community. A premature military intervention would have a
negative impact on this unity, this would remove its legitimacy and, in
the long term, its effectiveness. It could have unpredictable consequences
for the stability of this ravaged and fragile region. It would reinforce
the feeling of injustice, would worsen the tensions and would be likely to
open the way with other conflicts. We have all the same priority : to
fight without mercy terrorism. This fight requires a total determination.
It is our main duty since the tragedy of September 11. And France, which
was hit hard on several occasions by this terrible plague, is entirely
mobilized in this fight which concerns all of us and which we must carry
out together. It is the direction of the meeting of the Security Council
which was held on January 20, at the initiative of France.

Ten days ago, Mr Powell, the American Secretary of State, evoked supposed
links between Al Quaïda and the Baghdad regime. In the current state of
our investigation in connection with our allies, nothing enables us to
establish such a link. On the other hand, we must measure the impact which
a military action would have at this respect. Wouldn't such an
intervention be likely to worsen the rift between the societies, the
cultures, between the people, fractures that feed terrorism ?

France always said : we do not exclude, even a single day, the
eventuality to resort to the armed force. If the inspectors would report
that continuing inspection is impossible, the Council should then take its
decision and its members would have to take all their responsibilities.
And, on such an assumption, I want to recall here the questions which I
underlined at the time of our last debate on February 4. and to which we
will have to answer accurately : do the nature and the extent of the
threat justify the immediate recourse to the force ? What shall be done so
that the considerable risks of such an intervention can be really
controlled ? In such an eventuality, the unity of the international
community would be the guarantee of its effectiveness. In the same way,
the United Nations will remain tomorrow, no matter what happens, the focal
point to build the peace.

Mr. President, to those which wonder with anguish when and how we will
yield to the war, I would like to say that nothing, at any time, within
this Security Council, will not be the fact of precipitation,
incomprehension, suspicion or the fear. In this temple of the United
Nations, we are responsible of an ideal, we are the guards of a
conscience. The heavy responsibility and the immense honor which are ours
must lead us to give the priority to disarmament in peace. And it is an
old country, France, an old continent like mine, Europe, which say it
today to you, which knew the wars, the Occupation, cruelty. A country
which does not forget and which knows all that it owes to the combatants
of freedom from America and other countries. And which however did not
cease stay up all the time long in front of men. Faithful to its values,
he wants to act resolutely with all the members of the international
community. He believes in our capacity to build a better world together. "

Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister (May 6, 2002 - March 30, 2004)
.

Loading