|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation UN General Assembly General Debate, September 12-20: Excerpts on Disarmament, Non-Proliferation & International SecurityUnited Nations General Assembly, 57th Session, General Debate, September 12-20. Notes: the President of the 57th Session of the United Nations General Assembly is Ambassador Jan Kavan of the Czech Republic. Unless otherwise indicated, the extracts reproduce UN summaries of statements made in the General Debate, rather than verbatim remarks. Index
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, September 12'When force is considered, there is no substitute for legitimacy provided by United Nations, Secretary-General says in General Assembly address', UN Press Release SG/SM/8378, September 12. We cannot begin today without reflecting on yesterday's anniversary - and on the criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces on 11 September 2001. The terrorist attacks of that day were not an isolated event. They were an extreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained and global response. Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite against it. Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, or overnight. It requires patience and persistence. And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors. Mr. President, I believe that such a response can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions. I stand before you today as a multilateralist - by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty. I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. And all States have a clear interest, as well as clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order. Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression. They recognized that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities - like land, oil or gold - which one State can acquire at another's expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbours are likely to have. And they recognized that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately. If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalization? On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims. Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all. Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease. Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming; from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings. That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism. Individual States may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and at the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying the terrorists their opportunities. On all these matters, for any one State - large or small - choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context. When countries work together in multilateral institutions - developing, respecting, and when necessary enforcing international law - they also develop mutual trust, and more effective cooperation on other issues. The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions - thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values - the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership. And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organization has a special place. Any State, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when States decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations. Member States attach importance, great importance in fact, to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law. They have shown - notably in the action to liberate Kuwait, 12 years ago - that they are willing to take actions under the authority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing to take without it. The existence of an effective international security system depends on the Council's authority - and therefore on the Council having the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive at the outset. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council's agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace. Let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadership and effective action are badly needed. First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recently, many of us have been struggling to reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs. But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. We must return to the search for a just and comprehensive solution, which alone can bring security and prosperity to both peoples, and indeed to the whole region. ... Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, including the need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. Efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the Council's resolutions must continue. I appeal to all those who have influence with Iraq's leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is the indispensable first step towards assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and - let me stress - towards the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so many hardships for the Iraqi people. I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations - for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities. Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the international community, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan. ... And finally, in South Asia the world has recently come closer than for many years past to a direct conflict between two countries with nuclear capability. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remains perilous. The underlying cause must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupts, the international community might have a role to play; though I gladly acknowledge - and indeed, strongly welcome - the efforts made by well-placed Member States to help the two leaders find a solution. Excellencies, let me conclude by reminding you of your pledge two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, "to make the United Nations a more effective instrument" in the service of the peoples of the world. Today I ask all of you to honour that pledge. Let us all recognize, from now on - in each capital, in every nation, large and small - that the global interest is our national interest. Afghanistan: President Hamid Karzai, September 12[N]ot very far from the United Nations, two towers had once stood as symbols of freedom, prosperity and progress. Halfway around the globe, two magnificent Buddhas had represented a culture of tolerance and a nation with a rich history. Those symbols - gone now through heinous acts of global terrorism -- had been forever linked. But while terror might have demolished those physical structures, it had also strengthened the willpower of the international community never to allow the diminution of the spirit in which those icons had been built. Terrorism and violence were against the teachings of Islam and the Taliban who had destroyed Afghanistan and its cultural heritage did not represent Afghans. The Government of Afghanistan did not consider Al Qaeda to represent the Arab world and neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda represented Islam. ... While agreeing that Afghanistan still faced a humanitarian crisis, he requested the international community to focus more on reconstruction, to support long-term recovery efforts and to treat the causes of poverty, not the symptoms. Building highways and repairing the road networks was an important undertaking with a significant economic, political and social impact for the people. It would create jobs, help with security and provide better connectivity. Sadly, the donor community had been slow to respond to that urgent need. Source: UN Press Release GA/10046, September 12. Argentina: Foreign Minister Carlos F. Ruckauf, September 17[I]t was too bad that there were Member States that did not abide by United Nations resolutions. It was intolerable that those resolutions remained unfulfilled when issues affecting the existence of humanity were involved, including the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. ... [Argentina,] along with the rest of the international community, had consistently called on the Iraqi Government to accept immediately, and without conditions, the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. There was no reason to refuse inspectors if there was nothing to hide. Therefore...[Argentina] welcomed Iraq's announcement that it would finally agree to let the inspectors in without conditions, and hoped that Iraq would fulfil its promise in good faith. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Australia: Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, September 13.'Making a difference: what the United Nations can and should deliver', statement by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, September 13; Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (http://www.dfat.gov.au). The coalition in the war against terrorism - led by the United States and joined by others, including Australia - has accomplished a great deal. The Al-Qaida network in Afghanistan has been disabled. The Taliban regime has been defeated. But terrorism cannot be stamped out by military effort alone. Together we must choke off support - financial and otherwise - for terrorism. ... We face another grave threat to international peace and security - and one that tests the very authority of the United Nations. For over a decade Iraq has flouted legally binding obligations to disclose and eradicate its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq has defied UN resolutions, UN inspections and UN sanctions, and has ignored some 23 of the 27 UN obligations imposed on it under sixteen resolutions of the Security Council. The Secretary General has been patient, flexible and assiduous in his efforts to get Iraq to comply with Security Council resolutions. But Iraq has refused to work with the UN in efforts to dismantle its WMD programs. Until this occurs, Iraq is a grave threat to its neighbours, and to the world. Iraq's well documented aggression towards its neighbours, and its past use of chemical weapons, underline the potency of the threat it poses. Grave concerns remain about Iraq's present capabilities. Up until 1998 UN weapons inspectors did much good work in finding and destroying Iraq's WMD program. But UNSCOM's work was never finished, because in 1998 they were effectively thrown out of Iraq. Four years later, there is little doubt that Iraq has been working hard to rebuild its chemical and biological weapons programs. Moreover, serious questions also remain about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This state of affairs cannot be left unresolved. Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to inspectors to all areas, facilities, equipment, records and Iraqi officials. In short, Iraq must fulfil the requirements of all relevant Security Council resolutions. If Iraq has nothing to hide, then it has nothing to fear. Indeed, by meeting these demands, Iraq and its people have everything to gain. Let us also be very clear: Iraq's flagrant and persistent defiance is a direct challenge to the United Nations, to the authority of the Security Council, to international law, and to the will of the international community. We cannot stand by and allow ourselves to be ignored. Nor must protracted negotiations be allowed to weaken and eventually paralyse efforts to allay fears about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We all must demonstrate a clear, collective determination to uphold the authority of the Security Council, and to ensure its resolutions on Iraq are implemented in full. Otherwise, if Iraq's pursuit of these abhorrent weapons is allowed to continue, we may shortly be asking ourselves why we failed to act. The terrorist threat has given new urgency to our disarmament and non-proliferation goals, and demands a renewed effort to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction - both to non-state and state actors. We have to be alive to the willingness of terrorist groups to develop and use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Australia, for its part, intends to pursue practical and effective measures through international non-proliferation treaty regimes and export control arrangements. These regimes and arrangements have delivered tangible security benefits, and should be supported strongly. Austria: Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner, September 14The Middle East had also attracted the attention of the international community in the context of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction owing to Iraq's continued non-compliance with Security Council resolutions... The potential perils of such policies would not be tolerated, and, for that reason, Austria supported the Secretary-General's efforts to bring about the speedy, unfettered and unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq and that country's full compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions. ... [Austria welcomed] United States President George W. Bush's statement seeking broad international support and cooperation with the Security Council on dealing with regimes that supported terror or sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction... [O]nly the Security Council could provide the necessary legitimacy. At the same time, it was evident that the Council itself had to take responsibility for ensuring full compliance with its resolutions in order to maintain world peace. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. Bahrain: Foreign Minister Mohamed bin Mubarak al-Khalifa, September 15Of particular concern to Bahrain was the security situation in the Middle East...especially the situation affecting the Palestinian people. ... Bahrain also urged Iraq to complete the implementation of Security Council resolutions, in order to avoid any confrontation that might threaten the States and people of the region. ... [T]he Arab Summit of March 2002 had provided a clear vision for peace in the region, one that found favour with the President and Secretary of State of the United States. But, Israel, unwilling to honour the international conventions it had signed, had not put forward a similar vision for peace. Further, the Middle East should be a zone of peace free of weapons of mass destruction, in particular, nuclear weapons. Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. Bangladesh: Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan, September 18In South Asia...the volatility of the situation between two nuclear-capable countries was deeply worrisome. ... [Bangladesh] encouraged all concerned in the region to exercise restraint and seek solution to their differences through dialogue and meaningful engagement. ... [Bangladesh] welcomed the decision in Baghdad to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors as a significant step towards that country's fulfilling of its obligations under Security Council resolutions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10061, September 18. Barbados: Foreign Minister Billie Miller, September 19As the doctrine of non-intervention was of paramount importance for the survival of small States, the possibility of unilateral preemptive action was alarming. The preeminent role of the United Nations in seeking to impose responsible behaviour through dialogue rather than through force should be reaffirmed. Source: UN Press Release GA/10062, September 19. Belarus: Foreign Minister Mikhail Khvostov, September 17Concerning Iraq...[Belarus] welcomed the decision to allow the immediate and unconditional return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to that country. ... [Belarus, however, was] convinced that any actions or attempts on the part of Iraq to evade the authority of the United Nations Security Council undermined international relations and jeopardized the international legal order. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Belgium: Foreign Minister Louis Michel, September 15The issue of Iraq was a challenge to all because it involved questions such as the need to eliminate the threat to the international community and ensuring the credibility of the Organization. It also entailed determining whether a country had weapons of mass destruction, whether a country with legal obligations to the United Nations was going to apply them and whether the use of military action was a problem under international law. ... [Belgium] "solemnly and formally" appealed to Iraq to implement unconditionally the resolutions adopted by the United Nations. It was the only way to avoid recourse to force. Source: UN Press Release GA/10052, September 15. Brazil: Foreign Minister Celso Lafer, September 12Regarding Iraq, Brazil believed that it was incumbent on the Security Council to determine the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the relevant resolutions... The exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities was the way to reduce tensions and to avoid the unpredictable consequences of wider instability. Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12. Bulgaria: President Georgi Parvanov, September 12[Bulgaria] identified as urgent the implementation of Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. Firm action had to be undertaken to win compliance. As a member of the Security Council and a party to all universal conventions against terrorism, Bulgaria commended the work being done to counteract the phenomenon. But..."the fight against terrorism should not lead to persecution on religious or ethnic grounds or infringe on human rights". Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12. Burkina Faso: Foreign Minister Youssouf Ouedraogo, September 19[Burkina Faso] was pleased that reason had prevailed concerning the situation in Iraq...[and] was convinced that any unilateral action would have a detrimental effect on international peace and security. It was hoped that the recent Iraqi decision would lead to a final resolution of the crisis. Source: UN Press Release GA/10063, September 19. Cambodia: Foreign Minister Hor Namhong, September 18Cambodia believed that Iraq's agreement to the return of United Nations weapons inspectors was an important step which would contribute to diffuse the situation in the region. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. Canada: Foreign Minister Bill Graham, September 12'Notes for an address by the Honourable Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the 57th UN General Assembly, United Nations, New York, September 12, 2002'; Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (http://www dfait-maeci.gc.ca). Multilateralism has definitely proven its worth over the past year. For example, dozens of countries have offered their resources and experience to Afghanistan's new leaders, as members of the coalition against terrorism or of the Afghanistan Support Group. They have also contributed to the various UN programs seeking to establish political stability and representative government. The G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, concluded at Kananaskis in June, is another concrete example of our joint commitment to battle terrorism and other threats to peace. Canada, as Chair of the G8, was a strong advocate of this major effort designed to strengthen international security and strategic stability. Canada will continue to work to make this initiative a success. ... We...meet here today in an atmosphere of deepening tensions caused by Iraq's continued flouting the will of the international community and the differing opinions that prevail around us on how to address this situation and bring this crisis to an end. Let there be no doubt, at the origin of today's tensions is the persistent refusal of the Iraqi government to comply with its obligations to us all under United Nations Security Council resolutions. For the past 11 years, Iraq has refused to demonstrate that it has abandoned its chemical, biological and nuclear weapon research and development programs, and even today it remains unwilling to do so. But let there also be no doubt: bringing Iraq into conformity with its international obligations must be the work of us all - together. We believe that our ability to find a solution to this challenge - one that is consistent with and, indeed, that reinforces the international framework that we have so painstakingly constructed since the last devastating world war - will define this generation and create precedents that may determine the future direction of our world. It is with this in mind that Canada welcomes the powerful messages delivered here today by President Bush affirming his country's commitment to work with the Security Council of the United Nations in resolving this serious threat to our collective peace and security. We therefore urge Iraq to seize this opportunity without delay, and to grant immediate and unconditional access to UN weapons inspection teams in compliance with its UN Security Council obligations. The onus is clearly on the Government of Iraq to take this step now. The onus is equally on us to ensure that our international institutions emerge from this crisis reinforced and strengthened. ... Part of our shared responsibility to raise the credibility of multilateral institutions is to address their shortcomings, including the United Nations itself. We are greatly encouraged that the Secretary-General and his Deputy Louise Fréchette are proposing far-reaching organizational reforms. They can count on Canada's support. We also support reform in other areas, notably the near moribund Disarmament Commission and its glacial progress of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, where recent gains such as the UN Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons and the negotiations on an International Code of Conduct on missiles are being overshadowed by myriad compliance problems. China: Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, September 13China was actively committed to international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. It also supported the consolidation and strengthening of relevant international regimes and mechanisms. The international community should make every effort to prevent the dangerous trend of weaponization in outer space, he added. ... [China] called for political dialogue to address burning issues on the international agenda, namely, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the situation between India and Pakistan, and the matter of Iraq, in which the United Nations should play an important role. Source: UN Press Release GA/10048, September 13. Côte d'Ivoire: Foreign Minister Abou Drahamane Sangare, September 18Peace and the security of goods and persons were the alpha and omega of all development...and the recent evolution of contemporary history in this area was not satisfactory. Within the field of disarmament, the destruction of light weapons had not gone far enough, as their suppliers continued to prosper. In addition, the abandonment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was alarming. However, Côte d'Ivoire had been glad to see the United States and the Russian Federation conclude a new disarmament accord and continued to agree with the non-aligned countries' position that the denuclearized zones needed to be respected. Source: UN Press Release GA/10061, September 18. Cuba: Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, September 14[F]ollowing the ruthless crime committed on 11 September 2001, the stage was set for the creation of a genuine international alliance under the auspices and leadership of the United Nations. Nearly all countries, beyond ideological, political, cultural and religious differences, had expressed their willingness to cooperate actively in that endeavour of unmistakable common interest. But, another vision had prevailed. It was stated by one country that whoever did not support the war against terrorism would be on the side of terrorism. One country on the Security Council had reserved the right to launch future attacks on its own against other nations. ... [A] unilateral war was then unleashed. The death toll was still unknown, and the most tangible consequence was probably the striking blow to the credibility of the United Nations and to multilateralism as a means to cope with the complex challenges ahead. Cuba had been a victim of terrorist acts for more than four decades; had signed and ratified the 12 international conventions to combat terrorism; and had adopted a national law against that scourge. Cuba had not developed nuclear weapons, nor had it had any intention to do so; but it had not joined the NPT since that was an insufficient and discriminatory instrument allowing for the creation of a "club" of nuclear Powers without any concrete disarmament-oriented commitments... Cuba would ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)...despite the fact that the only nuclear power in the Americas pursued a policy of hostility towards Cuba. ... A new war against Iraq already seemed inevitable... The buzzword was "pre-emptive war", which was in open violation of the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter. Cuba opposed a new military action against Iraq. The international community was increasingly concerned about the announcement of a new war on the basis of unconfirmed allegations and disregard for the obvious reality that Iraq could not pose a danger to the United States. If the United States unleashed a new war against Iraq, the world would bear witness to the emergence of a century of unilateralism and the forced retirement of the United Nations. Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. Czech Republic: Deputy Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, September 20[T]he international community needed to move from a policy of containment to one of active struggle against international terrorism. Participating in the fight against terror and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of its top priorities. In that context, all the Security Council resolutions on Iraq should be unconditionally implemented. Iraq's failure to comply with the will of the international community and its efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction showed that the Iraqi regime represented an enormous risk to the security and stability of the whole world. Although it advocated the pacific resolution of international disputes, its own history reminded the Czech Republic that peace must sometimes be defended by force. ... On other important components of the United Nations agenda - disarmament, arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - the Czech Republic supported a gradual process of nuclear arms reduction within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as the coming into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Source: UN Press Release GA/10065, September 20. Djibouti: Foreign Minister Ali Abdi Farah, September 19[Djibouti ] welcomed President Bush's clearly stated commitment to work with the Security Council to explore peaceful resolutions with Iraq and welcomed Iraq's agreement to receive weapons inspectors. Source: UN Press Release GA/10063, September 19. Egypt: Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher El Sayed, September 13Combating terrorism was not meant to be the lens through which the world viewed every issue and problem. A viable remedy for terrorism could only be found if the tributaries of hopelessness, anger and frustration that fed the propensity for evil were drained. The international community should not confuse terrorism with the legitimate right to defend against aggression, occupation, the usurpation of rights or attempts to erase cultural identities. ... [T]he Palestinian people continued to suffer under an oppressive occupation that adhered to policies reminiscent of the ages of darkness and chaos. ... The discussion on peace and security in the Middle East also related to the situation in Iraq, which must be dealt with in the context of the United Nations resolutions. ... [Egypt reaffirms its] rejection of inflicting military strikes against Iraq, which must, for its part, respect the legitimate international will. ... The persistence of volatile conflicts and the dangers of weapons of mass destruction from States, organizations or individuals made it incumbent upon all to address disarmament issues with more diligence. ... [Egypt] had repeatedly called for ridding the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction, with nuclear weapons at their forefront, and to place all nuclear facilities in the region, without exception, under international supervision. The stability of the region would be achieved only when Israel acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as it was the only State in the region that had not done so. Source: UN Press Release GA/10048, September 13. Equatorial Guinea: President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, September 12[C]ombating terrorism, organized crime and violence were of the utmost importance to the countries of Central Africa. But even more disturbing were manifestations of covert terrorism carried out under the pretext of defending human rights. The international community hould ensure that States did not presume to combat terrorism in some situations and then carry it out in others. Equatorial Guinea and other countries like it were suffering from that very practice. The war on terrorism should not be a pretext for encouraging intolerance or political extremism. Source: UN Press Release GA/10046, September 12. Estonia: Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland, September 20Cooperation to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was of particular importance...as sooner or later terrorists would gain access to them. It was essential that the United Nations react effectively and decisively when confronted with real and formidable dangers. Therefore, Iraq's full and unconditional compliance with Security Council resolutions was necessary. The return of weapons inspectors was a positive signal, but further acts of compliance by Iraq would have to follow. It was important to remember the lessons of the League of Nations - inaction was often much more disastrous than action. Source: UN Press Release GA/10064, September 20. European Union: Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, September 12The Millennium Declaration...had given the United Nations renewed impetus to deal globally with conflict prevention, crisis management, humanitarian assistance, post-conflict rehabilitation and development, and disarmament and arms control. ... Iraq remained a major source of concern...with regard to weapons of mass destruction... Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General's statement that if Iraq's defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities. Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12 Finland: Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, September 14[A]t some stage, the international community would reach the limits of what could be done through military force and police action to stop terrorism. Even where the use of military force was clearly necessary and justified, as it was against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it was never a sufficient answer. ... Terrorism was only one of the many new threats to security that was no longer linked to the threat of traditional war between nation States. It was not only that military power had become partly impotent to deliver security, but it was also evident...that the threats could not be contained through isolation or unilateral acts. "Human lives are equally valuable all over the world... Actions need true commitment to multilateralism, which must exceed national interests and unilateralism. Multilateralism cannot be exercised a la carte whenever convenient. Global interest require global action." ... Without progress in the Middle East peace process, any military action in the region could have dangerous and unforeseen consequences. It was imperative that efforts to get Iraq to abide unconditionally with Council resolutions remain the responsibility of the United Nations. Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. France: Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, September 12'Statement by French Foreign Minister de Villepin at the 57th session of the General Assembly of the United nations, September 12, 2002'; French Foreign Ministry (http://www.france.diplomatie.fr). A year ago, to consternation and horror, New York and Washington were struck in unprecedented attacks. No one, now, can disregard the dark side of the world: international terrorism combining archaism with technology; shifting underground criminal networks coupled with a growing risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These formidable opponents insinuate themselves into the heart of the world's complexity. They play on frustrations and resentment, hatred and fears. They foil plans, know how to find weak spots and turn against those who wield them their own weapons. No, the world is definitely not suffering from an excess of power. On the contrary, it is suddenly discovering its extreme vulnerability. Faced with these threats, the temptation may exist to forge blindly ahead. That would be a serious mistake. Force cannot be the sole response to these elusive adversaries that are constantly transforming. The example of Afghanistan suffices to show this. The mobilization of the international community made it possible to overthrow a backward, totalitarian regime which sheltered and supported the Al Qaeda network. It dealt a severe blow to terrorist infrastructures. That was necessary, but it is not enough. It is important now to rebuild and help the Afghan people; to maintain our efforts in the long term; to continue the work for stability and democracy, but also to dismantle the drug economy and the trafficking it fuels. That force alone is often futile is one of the characteristics of our age. We live in a world that is interdependent, where cause and effect may be distant, indirect and unpredictable. Let us take care that our interventions do not give rise to new frustrations, do not produce new imbalances and spark fires which we cannot put out. The case of Iraq is typical of this new situation. Here is a country that has defied the authority of the Security Council and flouted international law for several years. Here is a regime that is a grave threat to security, especially the security of the peoples in the region because of the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and whose conduct is the direct cause of the great suffering endured by its people. Is the international community concerned? Of course. Can it continue to tolerate this situation? Definitely not. Should it act? Obviously, the status quo cannot go on. France's determination to obtain compliance with the law is absolute. We must act, but do so effectively. We must act but without risking the opposite results of those we seek. Care must be taken not to exacerbate a situation that is already very disturbing. We must act, but there are many traps: intervention that is politically or legally ill-defined or poorly mounted would not garner the broad support necessary; it might mobilize public opinions in the region against itself, and the regime in Baghdad - currently isolated - might benefit from it; lastly, it might aggravate tensions in the Middle East and beyond at a time when we must, on the contrary, redouble our efforts to return to the path of dialogue and peace. How are these traps to be avoided? How are we to succeed? There is only one way. The path, a demanding one, of collective responsibility. The world now is one of interdependence. Its stability concerns us all. We have each to contribute to it. The necessary measures must be ordered by the international community after an in-depth and transparent examination. Any temptation to engage in unilateral preventive action would be dangerous. We must take care to avoid any suspicion of bias or injustice. This is the only way to ensure that eventual actions to enforce law and restore security do not add to insecurity. That is the best guarantee of being effective. That is why, in the case of Iraq, France advocates a démarche made completely legitimate through collective deliberation. It requires two successive steps. First, we must reaffirm together the need for UN inspectors to return and demand that Iraq comply at last with its obligations under the Security Council decisions taken since 1991, and do so according to a definite timetable. That is the objective of the international community. It is also Iraq's interest. If Baghdad persists in its refusal to allow the inspectors to return unconditionally, then we should draw the consequences. The Security Council should then decide measures to be taken without excluding any option. Responsibilities would be clarified. The world must be capable of acting. But it also needs to be coherent and effective in a sustained way. That is where the real challenge lies today to our values, our democracies. ... Attention to regional crises must not divert us from the responsibility we also have to meet world challenges. The United Nations is playing its full role in the fight against terrorism. Let us make sure that the same is true in the other main challenges of our age. Let us keep up our action against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The President of the Republic of France has proposed that the Security Council meet at the highest level in 2003, on the sidelines of the General Assembly, for two purposes: to review non-proliferation policy and give it new impetus. Gabon: Foreign Minister Jean Ping, September 15[J]ust when the international community seemed to be moving forward on the path to a better world for all, the attacks of 11 September 2001 occurred, eclipsing its dreams and reminding all of the "monster" within. The progress made thus far in fighting terrorism needed to be strengthened through the rapid adoption of a general convention on international terrorism and the development of a convention on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. Germany: Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, September 14Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, perpetuating a rule detrimental to the Iraqi people and the entire region... The United Nations needed to maintain and intensify the pressure on Iraq to comply with binding Security Council resolutions. Welcoming President Bush's turn towards the Security Council...[Germany] urged that everything possible should be done to find a diplomatic solution. While it needed to be made obvious to Iraq that the readmission of the weapons inspectors was the only means of preventing a great tragedy for itself and the region...[Germany] urged that the automatic recourse to a military solution be avoided. Perhaps a comprehensive peace solution would do more to establish regional stability, and a Middle East in which Iraq would be isolated, thus generating political pressure for change. Achieving by 2005 the vision of two recognized and independent States - Israel and Palestine - espoused by President Bush, required that the international community pull together. Along with its European Union partners, Germany was ready to contribute considerably to that process... Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. Ghana: President John Agyekum Kufuor, September 13[Ghana] condemned the attack on the United States on 11 September 2001 as an affront to civilization and urged Member States to join in the early implementation of the Programme of Action that was adopted to stop the trade in small arms and light weapons. Source: UN Press Release GA/10047, September 13. Greece: Foreign Minister George Papandreou, September 15The situation in Iraq...challenged respect for the principles of international law and international organizations. Those principles must be safeguarded but actions on Iraq must be embedded in respect for the Iraqi people. All political avenues for resolving the situation must be explored. Source: UN Press Release GA/10052, September 15. Guinea: Foreign Minister Francois Lonseny Fall, September 18Guinea reaffirmed its support for the Palestinian people and their leader, Yasser Arafat, and urged the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions. The situation in Iraq was also of grave concern; in order to prevent further suffering of the Iraqi people, it was essential for the parties to show greater restraint - and, in that respect, Iraq's decision to readmit the United Nations weapons inspectors was encouraging. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. Guinea-Bissau: Foreign Minister Filomena Mascarenhas Tipote, September 20The instrument best designed to bring about peace was dialogue... For that reason Guinea-Bissau encouraged the actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to find global solutions for security and prosperity for both peoples...[and] urged the leaders of Iraq to abide by Security Council resolutions in order to avoid an eventual action under Chapter VII of the Charter. Source: UN Press Release GA/10065, September 20. Guyana: Foreign Minister Samuel Insanally, September 14Poverty and underdevelopment were easily exploited by some elements of society to undermine the authority of democratically elected governments and to exacerbate ethnic and other tensions. That instability was further compounded by the rampant trade in illegal drugs, arms and ammunition with its attendant corruption and violence, which daily tested the legal, financial, security and governance capabilities of most small States. Emphasizing that tensions between India and Pakistan could not be allowed to persist given the risk of a calamitous nuclear conflict...[Guyana was] committed to the pacific settlement of disputes and a friend of those two important Asian countries from which the ancestors of many Guyanese had originated... Guyana wished to encourage them to continue their search for a definitive solution. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. Hungary: Foreign Minister Laszlo Kovacs, September 15On Iraq's non-compliance with Security Council resolutions...it was regrettable that the country's regime refused to cooperate with the United Nations. The international community could not disregard the threat that posed to the Middle East region and the world at large. Hungary would work with its allies and partners to ensure that Council resolutions were implemented and that a broad coalition was built to prevent the Iraqi regime from producing and using weapons of mass destruction. ... [I]n order to deal with threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, the next logical step following the 2002 review cycle of the [NPT]...was the early commencement of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. ... [C]hallenges posed by "deliberate diseases" such as anthrax required reinforcement of national public health and civilian defence capabilities. International cooperation and complementary preventive measures for such bio-hazards were also critical. Source: UN Press Release GA/10052, September 15. Iceland: Foreign Minister Halldor Asgrimsson, September 17In regard to Iraq, it was imperative that all relevant Security Council resolutions be fully implemented. The decision of Iraq's Government, announced yesterday, to cooperate with the Organization and to give weapons inspectors unconditional access was encouraging. However, real action needed to follow. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Indonesia: Foreign Minister N. Hassan Wirajuda, September 17[M]ultilateralism was essential in dealing with the threat of international terrorism, bringing about disarmament and solving the problems in the Middle East. Advocating a Palestinian State living alongside a secure Israel, he also called on Iraq to comply fully with the relevant Security Council resolutions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. India: Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, September 13'Address by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India, at the 57th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, September 13, 2002', Indian Ministry of External Affairs (http://www.mea.gov.in). In our South Asian region, nuclear blackmail has emerged over the last few months as a new arrow in the quiver of State-sponsored terrorism. Dark threats were held out that actions by India to stamp out cross-border terrorism could provoke a nuclear war. To succumb to such blatant nuclear terrorism would mean forgetting the bitter lessons of the September 11 tragedy. As far as India is concerned, we have repeatedly clarified that no one in our country wants a war - conventional or otherwise. Nor are we seeking any territory. But absolutely everyone in India wants an end to the cross-border terrorism which has claimed thousands of innocent lives and denied entire generations their right to a peaceful existence with normal economic and social activity. We are determined to end it with all the means at our command. Let there be no doubt about it in any quarter. Yesterday we heard the extraordinary claim in this Assembly that the brutal murder of innocent civilians in Jammu & Kashmir is actually a "freedom struggle". And that the forthcoming elections in that state are a "farce", since they cannot be a substitute for a plebiscite demanded over 50 years ago. It requires an effort of logical acrobatics to believe that carnage of innocents is an instrument for freedom and elections are a symbol of deception and repression! If the elections are a mere fraud, why are terrorists being trained and infiltrated into India at the command of the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency of Pakistan to kill election candidates and to intimidate voters? If Pakistan claims to be a crucial partner in the international coalition against terrorism, how can it continue to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy against India? How can the international coalition condone Pakistan-directed killings of thousands of innocent civilians - women and children included - to promote a bizarre version of "self-determination"? Those who speak of "underlying" or "root" causes of terrorism, offer alibis to the terrorists and absolve them of responsibility for their heinous actions - such as the September 11 attacks on the United States or the December 13 attack on our Parliament. General Musharraf has himself admitted that rigging was responsible for his winning the referendum by a dubious margin of 90 per cent in April this year. As for the "true" democracy he intends to establish in Pakistan, he has rendered it impotent even before the elections are held next month. ... Yesterday we heard yet another patently false and self-serving claim that in India, Muslims and other minorities are the target of "Hindu extremists". With 150 million, India has the second largest Muslim population in the world, more than in Pakistan. We are proud of the multi-religious character of our society. Equal respect for all faiths, and non-discrimination on the basis of religion, is not just our Constitutional obligation. As the whole world knows, it is the signature tune of India's civilisation and culture. Iran: Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, September 15Iran remained dedicated to the cause of promoting international solidarity, peace and security, and observed the current trend of international disarmament negotiations with great concern. Iran was particularly concerned that the Conference on Disarmament had been stuck for five years in a discussion of its organization of work. It was also concerned by the behaviour of one permanent member of the Security Council - holder of the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons - and its rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The only way to address that State's persistent unilateralism was to strengthen international disarmament and arms control instruments through multilateral negotiations. ... Iran believed that respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, compliance by Iraq with Security Council resolutions, and the subsequent lifting of international sanctions against that country was the only way to address the current situation there. Iran was against any unilateral action or military intervention in Iraq, and the United Nations must play the leading role in that regard. Source: UN Press Release GA/10052, September 15. Iraq: Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, September 19[I]n response to several appeals by the Secretary-General, peace-loving States and regional organizations, his Government had decided to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors without conditions - a first step towards a comprehensive solution that included the lifting of sanctions and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991). ... [The Foreign Minister] then read excerpts from a letter from President Saddam Hussein addressed to the Assembly. It was a good sign...[the letter read] that the United States had resorted to the Assembly, for the first time since the end of the cold war, to put forward one of its problems, after years of disregard for the weight, effect and opinion of others. The American President had talked about the importance of applying democracy in Iraq. He pretended to care for the people of Iraq after he and other presidents before him had killed, by the use of weapons and the blockade, more than 1,700,000 innocent Iraqis. In targeting Iraq, he said, the United States was acting on behalf of Zionism. The United States Administration wanted to destroy Iraq in order to control Middle East oil, and, consequently, control the politics and economics of the whole world. If it succeeded, it would dictate what each country needed for its economic development, the quantities of oil it was allowed to buy, and at what prices, along with other conditions. ... Iraq was clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If anyone had doubts about that...Iraq was ready to receive anyone who might want to see for themselves the facts as they were. The United States had concocted the problem with Iraq in order to derail the application of Paragraph 14 of resolution 687, and thus prevent the Council from lifting sanctions against Iraq. The reason lay in the fact that the counter-obligations under the relevant resolutions contained a clear provision requiring that the Middle East be made a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the United States did not want to embarrass the "Zionist entity" or deprive it of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons it possessed. Source: UN Press Release GA/10062, September 19. Ireland: Foreign Minister Brian Cowen, September 13[Ireland considered] conflict prevention [to be] the central challenge facing the United Nations and agreed with the Secretary General's identification of situations pertaining to Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and India/Pakistan as the most serious threats to world peace. ... [Ireland] urged Iraq to respect its obligations and implement in full and without preconditions all the Security Council resolutions addressed to it. In addition, international instruments and regimes to control the spread, and bring about the elimination, of weapons of mass destruction should be strengthened and fully implemented. Source: UN Press Release GA/10048, September 13. Israel: Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, September 18'Statement by H.E. Mr. Shimon Peres, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel, at the General Debate of the 57th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, September 18, 2002'; Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.israel-mfa.gov). September 11th exposed a new world. We find ourselves facing a new confrontation: borderless, merciless, indiscriminate and inhumane. ... We cannot allow dark forces to possess weapons of mass destruction, aware of their whim to destroy the life of innocent people. We shall not turn our lives to sleepless nights and nightmare days. We don't have the right to ignore the danger. We don't have the option to postpone its imminence. ... Science and technology made economy global. Science and technology globalised terror as well: because ballistic missiles replaced geographic distances; because non-conventional warheads replaced measurable explosives; because terrorism transcends frontiers and fronts. Italy: Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, September 13The main challenge facing the United Nations today...was Iraq's continued defiance of the international community's will. The international community needed to make use of all available diplomatic and peaceful means to resolve the problem. But, if there was no substantial change, it would be necessary to act within the framework of the United Nations to safeguard global security from a real threat. Source: UN Press Release GA/10047, September 13. Jamaica: Stafford Neil, September 18With regard to Iraq...[the] situation was now in the hands of the Security Council, which should adopt the appropriate measures to ensure compliance with its resolutions. It should do so in a manner broadly acceptable to the international community and preclude unilateral actions that could lead to unpredictable consequences and wider instability in the region. ... Linked to the question of terrorism were security problems arising from continuing growth of the illicit drug trade and trafficking in guns and other weapons that had become inseparable elements of transnational crime. That was particularly true in the Caribbean where the phenomenon had assumed alarming new proportions in the era of globalization. A growing trade in illicit drugs and weapons was subverting the internal security of the Caribbean States and threatening social stability. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. Japan: Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, September 13'Statement by H.E. Mr. Junichiro Koizumi Prime Minister of Japan at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, New York, September 13, 2002'; Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mofa.go.jp). The Peace Bell in the garden of United Nations headquarters was presented to the United Nations in 1954 by Japanese people with a prayer for world peace. It has been rung every year for world peace. The beautiful sound of the bell, which was made from coins collected from all over the world, reminds us of what the United Nations represents. In order to ensure world peace and prosperity, we need to harmonize a range of efforts which encompass not only military measures but also initiatives for the solution of poverty problems and the establishment of social infrastructures that will put an end to human rights violations. The United Nations should be a forum where the contributions of each and every state are consolidated and implemented in the most efficient manner. No single state or organization can accomplish this. Only the United Nations is capable of carrying out such a lofty task. In this connection, I would like to refer to the issue of Iraq, which is of grave concern to the international community. Iraq must comply with all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. In particular, Iraq must allow immediate and unconditional inspections and dispose of all weapons of mass destruction. It is important for the international community to continue to work together, and to engage more strenuously in diplomatic efforts through the United Nations. In doing so, we must pursue the adoption of necessary and appropriate Security Council resolutions as soon as possible. ... The first challenge is the fight against terrorism. Just after the terrorist attacks on September 11, I visited Ground Zero. Seeing with my own eyes the magnitude of the destruction, I was speechless at the enormity of the terrorist attack. September 11 is a challenge not only to the United States but also to all humankind. The prevention and eradication of terrorism is an important task for the United Nations and, indeed, for all Member States. Japan calls upon all States to conclude international conventions related to terrorism. It is important to develop international norms in this area, such as the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. ... Japan will respond to threats where weapons of mass destruction might be used in acts of terrorism by actively joining the efforts of the international community to prevent the proliferation of these weapons. The second challenge is the consolidation of peace and nation-building. ... The third challenge is the simultaneous achievement of environmental protection and development. In the fourth place, I would like to touch upon the nuclear disarmament issue. I believe that Japan, as the only country in human history to have suffered nuclear devastation, has a significant role to play in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Japan will continue its efforts to realize a peaceful and safe world free of nuclear weapons as early as possible. Toward that end, we will propose a draft resolution titled 'A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons' at this session of the General Assembly, and will redouble our efforts to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Jordan: Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher, September 15The most appropriate means of resolving outstanding matters between the United Nations and Iraq was to ensure the immediate and full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions, he said. If conditions were met, the people of Iraq would be saved from military action, which would further aggravate their suffering. Source: UN Press Release GA/10052, September 15. Kazakhstan: Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart K. Tokaev, September 14The community of nations faced a pressing task - to create a new architecture of global security based on a multipolar world and to set up effective mechanisms to overcome the antagonisms of modern economic and political development. The role, therefore, of the United Nations had become significantly greater. The grounds for the use of force against Member States should be irrefutable evidence, as corroborated by international institutions, of their illegal actions to disrupt world order and undermine global and regional security. It was becoming more evident that terrorists must be prevented from getting hold of weapons of mass destruction... As one of the few States in the world that had voluntarily relinquished its nuclear heritage, Kazakhstan believed that a prerequisite for an atmosphere of trust was the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. ... [Kazakhstan] was also interested in the signing, as soon as possible, of a treaty creating a nuclear weapons free zone in Central Asia. The excessive accumulation of and illegal trafficking in small arms was no less important. It was impossible to ignore the fact that 55 per cent of the known small arms stocks were now already in private hands. ... [Kazakhstan is offering] to host, in 2003, an international conference on the subject. Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. North Korea: Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon, September 17For Korea to reunite, the United States had to abandon its hostile policy towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea because it espoused different values and ideals. The United Nations also had to play its part for the peace and security of the peninsula. In contrast with the United States...relations with the Russian Federation and Japan [have improved]... In fact, Japan's Prime Minister had met with General Kim Jong Il on 17 September. The DPRK was determined to defend its system of socialism, and demanded equal respect for the sovereignty and equality of all countries. Source: UN Press Release GA/10059, September 17. South Korea: Foreign Minister Choi Sung-Hong, September 13[South Korea] was fully committed to multilateral collaboration in disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Universal compliance with non-proliferation regimes was essential... [South Korea] also hoped for an early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and an expeditious conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. ... The Korean Peninsula...was still volatile, but the "engagement policy" was a strategy for peace designed to lead to eventual unification. After some ups and downs, inter-Korean meetings had finally resumed, and ground would be broken next week for the reconnection of railways and roads between North and South, with tremendous symbolic significance. The risk of war was at an all-time low, but challenges remained, in particular, regarding the light water reactor project, for which safeguards must be implemented. Source: UN Press Release GA/10048, September 13. Latvia: President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, September 12[Latvia] noted that Iraq continued to ignore repeated calls to allow United Nations weapons inspectors on its territory, which reinforced credible suspicions that it had sought to produce nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction. Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12. Liechtenstein: Foreign Minister Ernst Walch, September 19In fighting terrorism, States had the obligation to observe basic standards of the rule of law and to treat suspects accordingly. The United Nations had to be the guardian of the rule of law. Its actions, especially when it came to armed interventions, also had to be consistent with the rule of law. Source: UN Press Release GA/10062, September 19. Lithuania: President Valdas Adamkus, September 12The tragedy of 11 September reinforced and strengthened the common resolve to combat and counter terrorism, he said. That should motivate the international community to work together to address the roots of terrorism; respond decisively to non-compliance with Security Council resolutions and gross violations of internationally recognized norms of behaviour; and fight terror worldwide and keep the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Regrettably, a Member of the United Nations did not uphold its commitments and the underlying principles of the Organization. The Iraqi regime must allow unrestricted access for the United Nations inspectors to resume their work. All pressure should be exerted to ensure that objective. Indeed, that was a test case of the international community's solidarity and unity. Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12. Luxembourg: Foreign Minister Lydie Polfer, September 14[T]he international community must pursue any action against Iraq through the United Nations. Iraq must provide unconditional and unimpeded access to the weapons inspectors and immediately fulfil its obligations. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. Malaysia: Deputy Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad, September 14[T]argeting Iraq outside the United Nations framework would not only be wrong but would also result in a more volatile world order. ... [Malaysia welcomed] the decision of the United States to work with the United Nations on that issue rather than pursuing a unilateral policy of military intervention... [E]ngaging the international community through the United Nations must not merely be an exercise in public diplomacy. The international community could not be made to assume that military intervention against Iraq was inevitable and that the United Nations was only being engaged as a matter of course... The international community must be presented with incontrovertible evidence of the perceived threat posed by Iraq. At the same time, efforts should be made to urge Iraq to cooperate with the United Nations. A preemptive attack against Iraq without credible evidence would draw imaginary battle lines between the Muslim world and the West, especially in view of the continued oppression of the Palestinians. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. Maldives: Foreign Minister Fathulla Jameel, September 19Disarmament and arms control measures were a high priority for the Maldives...[which] supported the idea of nuclear-weapon-free zones, zones of peace, and bilateral, regional and multilateral approaches to destroying biological and chemical weapons. Source:UN Press Release GA/10063, September 19. Mauritania: Foreign Minister Dah Ould Abdi, September 17[Mauritania was opposed] to the use of force against Iraq. The independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait and Iraq must be respected, and the embargo against the Iraqi people lifted. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Mauritius: Prime Minister Anerood Jugnauth, September 13The threats posed by international terrorism had heightened the need for collective action to preserve world peace and security. While efforts were combined to wage a war on terrorism, the international community should continue to work towards global disarmament and the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction within a specified time frame... [Mauritius] reiterated [its] appeal for the early convening of a conference on nuclear disarmament. ... Iraqi authorities should comply fully and unconditionally with Security Council resolutions and allow arms inspectors to fulfil their mandate. Source: UN Press Release GA/10047, September 13. Mexico: Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda Gutman, September 13[R]esponding to the challenges of the world today required more imagination and vision than ever. The complexity of many issues, namely, the fight against terrorism, deepening poverty and ending protracted conflicts could only be accomplished through a multilateral approach. ... States should not turn away from broad cooperation. That was particularly true in the case of Iraq. ... [Mexico] welcomed the statement made yesterday by the United States, which had affirmed the leading role to be played by the Security Council in ensuring that Iraq adhered to its international obligations. Still, Mexico cautioned against unilateral action and supported the position of France, which had outlined a time frame for Iraq's compliance with Council resolutions. ... [I]t was important to give Iraq time to meet its obligations, as had been done in other contexts, other times and at different latitudes. The international community should determine clear evaluation of Iraq's weapons capability, as well as its will or ability to use those weapons. Source: UN Press Release GA/10048, September 13. Moldova: Ion Botnaru, September 20[Moldova] shared the concerns expressed about Iraq and called on the country to comply fully and promptly with all Security Council resolutions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10064, September 20. Mongolia: Foreign Minister Luvsan Erdenechuluun, September 15[E]very effort should be made to impress Iraq with the need to comply with Council resolutions and, as a first step, to unconditionally accept weapons inspections. Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. Morocco: Foreign Minister Mohammed Benaissa, September 14[T]he Iraq issue must be resolved in accordance with the United Nations Charter, in a way that preserved the region's stability and security, but did not inflict further suffering on the Iraqi people. ... [Morocco] expressed concern about Kuwaiti prisoners and missing persons and the need to preserve the integrity of both Kuwait and Iraq. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. Nauru: President Rene Harris, September 12[Nauru] expressed concern over transshipment of nuclear waste through Pacific waters, and supported the United Nations action to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12. Nepal: Foreign Minister Arjun Jung Bahadur, September 19Iraq should comply with relevant Security Council resolutions, and the global community should respect the sanctity and integrity of the United Nations Charter not to set the region on fire... Source: UN Press Release GA/10063, September 19. The Netherlands: Foreign Minister J.G. De Hoop Scheffer, September 15In the Middle East...[the Netherlands] saw the need for the return of the inspectors to Iraq and its compliance with Security Council resolutions, the creation of conditions that would allow for peaceful Israeli-Palestinian co-existence and the end to terrorism. Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. New Zealand: Foreign Minister Phil Goff, September 15Statement by Foreign Minister Phil Goff, September 15; New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (http://www.mft.gov.nz). Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, people smuggling, drug-trafficking, diseases such as HIV/Aids and the unsustainable depletion of our natural resources, are all global problems which require a collective response. We can be proud that a year ago the response by the United Nations to a new and unprecedented level of terrorism was immediate, united and effective. The primary victims of the attack, the United States, sought and secured international cooperation which achieved the incapacitation of the Al Qaeda terrorist organisation and the removal of the Taliban regime which hosted it. It was a model for international unity of purpose and multilateral action. It was a lesson which should not be forgotten as this organisation tackles other problems confronting humanity. ... The failure to resolve differences between Israeli and Palestinian people in the Middle East continues to be a catalyst for recruitment into terrorism. The Secretary-General in opening this session spelled out the basis for resolving the dispute. ... We fully endorse the Secretary-General's renewed call for an international peace conference. Progress on this issue is now more vital than ever. The situation in Iraq is also a threat to world peace but we must look for solutions which resolve and do not exacerbate that threat. No nation can be exempt from the requirement to comply with the resolutions passed by this organisation. That is necessary if the rule of law is to apply internationally. No nation can be allowed to commit aggression or to use weapons of mass destruction against its own people. The requirement to comply with UN resolutions is not the instruction of one country to Iraq - it is the collective instruction which should have the unanimous endorsement of all member countries. Iraq's non-compliance with Security Council resolutions is a challenge to the entire United Nations membership. The UN must meet this challenge. How this situation is resolved matters to us all, not least the countries of the region itself. Those who can exercise influence over Iraq should do so to avoid the need for resort to other actions. The response chosen by the Security Council must, however, take into account the need not to impose further costs on ordinary Iraqi people innocent of any wrong doing. The response should not involve actions which undermine rather than strengthen the war against terrorism. ... A further issue on which greater progress must be made is that of disarmament. The fact that humanity survived the nightmare of potential nuclear destruction during the Cold War cannot be allowed to make us complacent about on-going threats from weapons of mass destruction. We welcome the Treaty of Moscow and agreement by Russia and the United States to cut the number of strategic nuclear weapons each country deploys. These reductions however are not a substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, these weapons. In some respects even greater danger is posed by short-range tactical nuclear weapons. There is a real risk that these could be launched by accident or in confusion, with no time available for communication between opposing sides. Over the last year, two significant events have made our world a more dangerous place. The first is the emergence of international terrorist groups who have shown their willingness to use weapons of mass destruction - biological, chemical or nuclear - should they gain access to them. The second is the situation in South Asia where the world recently came close to direct conflict between two countries with nuclear capability. The international community has not done enough to reduce these risks. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not been brought into effect. Progress towards the implementation of undertakings made by the nuclear weapon states in the Non-Proliferation [Treaty] Review Conference has stalled. Nations have not taken sufficient steps to stop the production of fissile material and to reduce stocks. Nicaragua: Foreign Minister Norman Caldera Cardenal, September 18Iraq [is] "a challenge and a test case for the entire multilateral system we have been constructing"... [W]hile it was true that everyone was in favour of multilateral action, it was also undeniable that inertia and inaction undermined confidence in Member States' collective will. The multilateral system had to demonstrate its dynamism, and its very raison d'être, by taking joint, concerted and timely action to resolve conflicts. " We want a system capable of reacting with specific, timely and effective measures to the dangers that threaten international peace and security, a system that is not overtaken by circumstances." For that reason, Nicaragua considered that the immediate and unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq could only be considered an important part of a greater effort aimed at the elimination of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, within the context of the global interests of the international community and in compliance with all pertinent Security Council resolutions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10061, September 18. Niger: Foreign Minister Aichatou Mindaoudou, September 18Part of Niger's contribution to peace and security in Africa was its effort to monitor and control the trade of small arms in the region. ... [S]mall arms threatened the peace and stability of many African countries. Since 1994, Niger had established a commission which was involved in the collection of small arms. Source: UN Press Release GA/10061, September 18. Nigeria: President Olusegun Obasanjo, September 15The international community also had a responsibility to design strategies for measured and early responses to conflicts, and to address their root causes, as well. For that purpose, a legally binding instrument to control small arms and light weapons should also be considered. ... Noting with concern the threat that the situation in Iraq posed to international peace and security...[Nigeria] urged the parties concerned to exercise caution and restraint and resolve the matter in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. Norway: Prime Minister Kjell-Magne Bondevik, September 12[T]oday the world stood united in unwavering determination in the struggle against international terrorism and in the fight for the values, ideals and human rights upon which the United Nations had been founded. To succeed in the fight, three crucial priorities must be met: the response must be global and comprehensive, with a strengthened global coalition capable of denying the terrorists the access to weapons of mass destruction; common efforts to maintain peace and security must be strengthened, which required effective multilateralism with a strong United Nations and effective regional organizations; and there must be a focus on root causes. ... [Iraq] must comply immediately with United Nations demands. While the responsibility for non-compliance lay with Iraq alone, further action by the international community must be rooted in the United Nations. Source: UN Press Release GA/10046, September 12. Oman: Foreign Minister Yousef bin Alawi bin Abdullah, September 14The humanitarian situation in Iraq remained tragic due to the ongoing economic sanctions of August 1990... The Council should review its international sanction policy and consider events on the ground. The Council must put an end to the human suffering in Iraq. In that regard...[Oman] called for the continuation of dialogue between Iraq and the United Nations aimed at fulfilling Iraq's remaining international commitments; the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) should start its work from the point where the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had left off in 1998. Also, the Council should put in place a clear and focused mechanism, specifying to Iraq what needed to be accomplished by the Iraqi Government to end the tragic suffering and arrive at the final lifting of economic sanctions in full. Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. Pakistan: President Pervez Musharraf, September 12'President's UNGA address, September 12, 2002'; Government of Pakistan (http://www.pak.gov.pk). Pakistan is in the forefront of the fight against terrorism. We have made major sacrifices in this war. We have interdicted infiltration by Al-Qaeda into Pakistan. We have arrested and deported foreign suspects found on our territory. We are determined not to allow anyone to use our soil for terrorist acts inside or outside Pakistan. However, unfortunately, some quarters are utilizing the war against terrorism as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. Terrorism has no creed or religion. In our globalizing world, religious and cultural diversity should be a vehicle for complementary creativity and dynamism, not the rationale for a new ideological or political confrontation. ... There is a need to address the root causes of terrorism. It is not religion which impels a terrorist act; it is often a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustices. When a people's right to self-determination and freedom are brutally suppressed by foreign occupation, they be driven to put up resistance by all means. Terrorist attacks must be condemned. But acts of terrorism by individuals or groups cannot be the justification to outlaw the just struggle of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation. Nor can it justify state terrorism. Misusing the rationale of the war against terrorism, India has sought to de-legitimize the Kashmir freedom struggle, tarnish Pakistan with the brush of terrorism and drive a wedge between Pakistan and its coalition partners. Boasting of its coercive capability, India has deployed about a million troops in battle formation against Pakistan. Such threatening and aggressive posturing will not resolve disputes. We cannot be coerced or frightened into compromising our principled position on Kashmir. The conflict in occupied Kashmir is being waged by the Kashmiris themselves. No amount of external assistance could have inspired the Kashmiri people to sacrifice the lives of 80,000 of their youth and to sustain their struggle for decades against India's occupation army. India's planned elections in Kashmir will once again be rigged. Such elections, under Indian occupation, will not help peace; they may set it back, in fact. The people of Jammu & Kashmir must be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council. Despite India's provocation and threats over the past year, Pakistan has acted with restraint and responsibility. We have advanced several peace proposals. They have all been spurned by India. Let me declare from this rostrum: Pakistan will not start a conflict with India. But let me also declared if war is thrust upon us we shall exercise our right to self-defence fully and very effectively. Today, peace in South Asia is hostage to one accident, one act of terrorism, one strategic miscalculation by India. In this dangerous situation, crisis management should not be allowed to become a substitute for conflict resolution. The steps required to avoid a conflict and advance peace are clear, in South Asia. These are: mutual withdrawal of forward deployed forces by both the States; observance of a cease-fire along the Line of Control in Kashmir; cessation of India's state terrorism against the Kashmiri people. Also, simultaneously, a dialogue must be resumed between India and Pakistan. The structure for such a dialogue was agreed between Prime Minister Vajpayee and myself at Agra. The Kashmiris should be fully associated with the dialogue on Kashmir and should be allowed to travel freely to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir. To ensure sustainable peace and stability in South Asia, a Kashmir solution should be accompanied by agreed measures for nuclear restraint and a conventional arms balance between India and Pakistan. India's ongoing massive military build up reflects its own desire for domination over South Asia and the Indian Ocean. In the interest of regional and global stability, this must be discouraged. India's belligerence also reflects the chauvinistic ideology of the Hindu extremist parties and organizations. Rising fanaticism in India has targeted Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and even the scheduled caste Hindus. Last February, an estimated 2000 innocent Muslims were massacred and burnt alive in Gujarat with the complicity of BJP State leaders. There must be accountability for this massacre. The international community must act to oppose extremism in India with the same determination it displayed in combating terrorism, religious bigotry, ethnic cleansing and fascist tendencies elsewhere in the world. Palestine (Observer): Farouk Kaddoumi, September 17Why was the United States threatening the use of force against Iraq? Why did the United States not talk about eliminating the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Israel, which threatened Arab countries of the region? In its fight against terrorism...the United States had closed its eyes to the State terrorism practised by the Sharon Government. Source: UN Press Release GA/10059, September 17. Philippines: Foreign Secretary Blas F. Ople, September 17Iraq had taken a step in the right direction yesterday by agreeing to the unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors. But the immediate challenge facing the Organization and the world was the confrontation that might materialize over the need for Iraq to comply, totally and unconditionally, with the relevant Security Council resolutions. ... [The Philippines] believed, however, that a true resolution of that issue still lay in the future, and he urged vigilance and faith in the Security Council. "We believe that the Council will act in accord with the imperatives of world peace and security and will find the most expeditious and effective way to serve these imperatives"... Source: UN Press Release GA/10059, September 17. Portugal: Foreign Minister Antonio Martins Da Cruz, September 15The resolution of the Iraq issue must necessarily entail absolute respect for Council resolution and the unconditional return of United Nations inspectors... Pressure must be applied to Iraq, and not to the United Nations or one particular country, as Iraq was the one failing to comply with resolutions. The United Nations and its Members could not and should not continue to tolerate the continuous violation of Council resolutions, and the international community must know how to act effectively and must be particularly demanding on the issue. Soon, the Council must make a statement on the non-compliance with its resolutions. Should Iraq persist in not fully respecting United Nations decisions, in a time frame that would be determined, then the international community should not exclude any alternative, any option... Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. Qatar: Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser, September 17Israel, to achieve security, must comply with the relevant United Nations resolutions. Israel...was the only country in the region which had an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It must accede to the relevant treaties and submit its arsenal to inspection by the IAEA. As for the situation in Iraq...[Qatar] welcomed its decision to allow the return of weapons inspectors and the resumption of dialogue between Iraq and the United Nations. ... [Qatar] hoped that that dialogue would lead to a comprehensive solution and an end to the sanctions, which had caused so much suffering for the Iraqi people. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Romania: Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana, September 14[T]he terrorist threat called for more vigilance in controlling the use and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as conventional weapons such as landmines and small arms which could fall into the wrong hands. ... [Romania] called on Iraq to comply with existing Security Council resolutions and to allow the immediate and unconditional return of United Nations inspectors. A strong Council response to Iraq's long-term defiance was called for because of the threat to global security from weapons of mass destruction. The temptation to apply those principles to other, localized conflicts should be resisted, especially when mechanisms existed for dialogue and peaceful resolution. Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. Russia: Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, September 13'Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation I. Ivanov at the 57th UN General Assembly, New York, September 13, 2002', Russian Foreign Ministry (http://www.mid.ru). Stability and credibility of an emerging international system of the 21st century is subject to the maintenance and strengthening of strategic stability. This fundamental goal is promoted by signing by Presidents of Russia and the United States at their May meeting in Moscow of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions which has become a specific contribution by the leading nuclear powers to the nuclear disarmament process. Another most important area is ensuring non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The very risk of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or their components falling into hands of irresponsible people and terrorists multiplies the destructive potential of international terrorism. Thus, the efforts to strengthen the regimes of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles should be enhanced. Acting jointly and responsibly, we have already achieved a lot. And when we speak about the establishment of new regimes of the WMD non-proliferation and arms control we by no means renounce the existing regimes and agreements. They are our common protective mechanism - and a very reliable and time-tested one. Unjustified removal of the key elements of the international legal framework of non-proliferation can aggravate the international military and strategic situation and undermine global security. Furthermore, we should "universalize" the most important agreements on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and on [a] comprehensive nuclear test ban. The missile sphere needs a sustainable negotiating process aimed at concluding an international arrangement on a global regime of missile and missile technology non-proliferation. The prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space forms an integral part of the non-proliferation process. Together with a number of our partners we suggest that a comprehensive agreement be worked out aimed at preserving outer space as a zone free from any kind of weapons. We are confident that this proposal serves the interests of all states and expect that it will enjoy wide support. ... Experience shows that no matter how complex international crises and conflicts may be, whatever challenges and threats they may be fraught with they can be settled with the aid of United Nations instruments and at the basis of international law. This fully applies to the situation around Iraq which has long required political settlement in strict compliance with the Security Council resolutions. Samoa: Prime Minister Tuila'epa Sailele Malielegaoi, September 17[Samoa] welcomed the news of the Iraqi decision yesterday to allow United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country...[and] hoped that it would lead to the positive and final resolution of the matter. ... Iraq had remained in violation of Security Council resolutions on the issue "far too long". ... "We think there must be full compliance with obligations under Security Council resolutions without preconditions, without delay." Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Saudi Arabia: Fawzi bin Abdul Majeed Shobokshi, September 19President Bush's reference to the need to refer the matter [of Iraq] to the Security Council for appropriate resolution represented a new and positive approach. That step had paved the way for a new climate, which recently had resulted in the Iraqi Government's decision to allow the unconditional return of inspectors. The responsibility now lay with the Council to undertake serious efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. Source: UN Press Release GA/10063, September 19. Slovakia: Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan, September 19Since 11 September 2001, the Slovak Republic had adapted and strengthened its domestic legislation to combat [terrprism]... [Slovakia] was equally committed to arms control, disarmament and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Source: UN Press Release GA/10062, September 19. Solomon Islands: Prime Minister Allan Kemakeza, September 17[T]he worldwide increase in armed conflicts and the illegal trade in small arms were directly linked, and were fueled mainly by the illegal manufacture and official sale and/or supply of small arms, which had resulted in the loss of countless innocent lives. Those same arms found their way into Solomon Islands, and were used in the three-year conflict which had adversely affected the socio-cultural cohesiveness and good governance of the country. It had also crippled the economy. Source: UN Press Release GA/10059, September 17. Spain: Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, September 17[T]he great collective challenge of the twenty-first century was to ensure the pre-eminence of international law in international relations. It was clear that interdependence among countries and regions would be the core of a new international civil society. In this, the hour of law, the United Nations was the organization that should impose, through the use of force if need be, the collective decisions taken by the community of States. ... [F]or the sake of international security and stability and the welfare of the Iraqi people, Spain hoped that the announced return of United Nations weapons inspectors would be confirmed in action. Iraq needed to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, under the supervision of the international community; this was the only path to a lifting of the sanctions and normalization of Iraq's relations with the international community. If necessary, the international community needed to accept responsibility for ensuring Iraq's compliance with those resolutions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Sudan: Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail, September 18It was also essential to find a peaceful solution in relation to Iraq. That country's brave decision to allow the return of weapons inspectors should be met with a lifting of the sanctions on Iraq. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. Sweden: Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, September 19Iraq's defiance of the Security Council must come to an end. At the heart of the issue lay the question of weapons of mass destruction. It was important to ensure that Iraq fulfilled its obligations to halt all programmes for developing such weapons and to ensure that any such weapons already developed were destroyed. That was the task of the United Nations weapons inspectors. Welcoming Iraq's recent decision to cooperate fully with the United Nations...[Sweden believed] that would be the right way to go about suspending the sanctions. The credibility of the United Nations required that Iraq should be made to fulfil its obligations. ... International and national security depended on strong multilateral frameworks... That was no less true in the field of disarmament. The important international conventions banning or regulating weapons of mass destruction must be implemented and reinforced. A verification regime was necessary to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. A failure to achieve concrete progress [at the Convention's Review Conference] in November would have serious consequences. Implementing the agreements made at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was of fundamental importance, as was the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. In addition, the Conference on Disarmament must start substantive work when it resumed its session early next year. It was unacceptable that a few countries continued to block progress there. Source: UN Press Release GA/10062, September 19. Switzerland: Foreign Minister Joseph Deiss, September 13"Men, women and children must be able to live in this world without fear of death, starvation and despotism. In particular, we must protect vulnerable individuals and groups". That would involve stopping the recruitment of child soldiers, eliminating anti-personnel mines, and stopping the proliferation of small arms. ... Switzerland held the view that only the United Nations legitimized the use of force when international peace and security were threatened. Thus, action against Iraq required joint action. "There is undeniably a need to act, to act with determination, in order to ensure implementation of United Nations resolutions... But action must be taken together, within the United Nations." Source: UN Press Release GA/10047, September 13. Syria: Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara, September 15Though Arab countries had condemned the attacks on the United States, blame had been transferred to them, even though elements of the Al Qaeda organization were present in more than 60 countries, including the United States. Israel's contempt for international legitimacy had provoked anger...and the only way out of the situation was to make Israel abide by 28 relevant Security Council resolutions... Why should the world request Iraq to adhere to such resolutions if Israel was allowed to be above international law? ... [Syria] also called for urgent efforts to make the Middle East a region free of all weapons of mass destruction. All Arab countries were ready to establish such as zone, provided that Israel would also agree and place its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Opposing unilateral measures...[Syria] saw no justification for igniting a new war in the Middle East. Striking Iraq, which no longer occupied the land of others, while keeping silent about the Israeli occupation, was "blind bias" towards the real situation. Security Council resolutions must be respected, however, and dialogue should be resumed between Iraq and the Secretary-General with the objective of reaching a political solution that meets Security Council requirements and grants hope to Iraq for peace and the lifting of sanctions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10051, September 15. Thailand: Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, September 17[Thailand] took note of Iraq's decision to allow United Nations inspectors to return, but...urge[d] Iraq to implement Security Council resolutions unconditionally and unreservedly. Source: UN Press Release GA/10058, September 17. Tunisia: Foreign Minister Habib Ben Yahia, September 19To guarantee peace and stability in the Middle East, the international community needed to address the situation in both Israel-Palestine and Iraq... Israel must be prevailed upon to stop its aggression against the Palestinian people, withdraw from the occupied territories and abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions. ... The question of Iraq must also be dealt with on the basis of peaceful means and Security Council resolutions. Tunisia held firm to the Arab position, which rejected attacks against any Arab country...[and] called for an end to the suffering of the Iraqi people and maintenance of the safety, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Source: UN Press Release GA/10062, September 19. Tuvalu: Governor-General Sir Tomasi Puapua, September 14Small island developing States were particularly weary of wars. There was a need to resolve disputes by other means and to reconsider the massive arms build-ups that overshadowed efforts to redress the underlying causes of conflict. In that "common house of humanity", all countries should put down their arms, listen to each other and resolve their differences together. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. Ukraine: Foreign Minister Anatoliy Zlenko, September 14Regarding the Chernobyl nuclear disaster...for millions of Ukrainians, it remained a difficult reality of everyday life. The international community should support Ukraine's efforts within a new United Nations strategy for addressing the consequences of the catastrophe. Ukraine was willing to provide the Chernobyl nuclear plant as a testing ground for international scientific research to improve nuclear safety. Source: UN Press Release GA/10050, September 14. United Arab Emirates: Foreign Minister Rashid Abdullah al-Naomi, September 20[The UAE] noted Iraq's decision for the return of United Nations nuclear inspectors, a decision which would spare Iraq and the region from devastation. In view of that development, the international community should insist that the approach to the resolution of that problem should be through peaceful means. ... Israel should cease its violations of Security Council resolutions and it should rid itself of nuclear weapons. ... [The UAE] called on India and Pakistan to resolve their differences peacefully, as well. Source: UN Press Release GA/10064, September 20. United Kingdom: Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, September 14'Security is not an option, it is a necessity', speech by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, September 14; UK Foreign & Commonwealth office (http://www.fco.gov.uk). In an imperfect world, our citizens need the United Nations as they have never needed it before. The United Nations has not resolved all conflicts by peaceful means; nor could it. The UN's authority has to be underpinned by the force of arms. But the remarkable achievement of this body the United Nations has been to make the fine language of its Charter a force for good beyond just words; by this the UN has raised the bar against the illegitimate use of violence, by States and now by terrorists. In doing so, the United Nations has saved lives by the million, and saved millions more from fear, poverty and tyranny. Without the United Nations, there could have been no salvation for the people of East Timor, no prospect of lasting peace in Sierra Leone, no-one to help rebuild Afghanistan. Forty years ago, President John F Kennedy predicted a world where 25 states had nuclear weapon states. But the Non-Proliferation Treaty, supported by international safeguards, has ensured that this nightmare scenario has failed to materialise. All this serves to remind us of the critical role the United Nations has to play in world affairs, under its excellent Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It is the responsibility of all of us here in this assembly to ensure that the legitimacy, the authority and the capacity of the UN to preserve peace and to build prosperity is strengthened, not undermined. And today, alongside the traditional threats to global peace and security, the UN and the world community face three rising challenges; of failing states, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. ... Alongside the threats from failing states and from terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses the greatest current threat to global security. Nowhere is the case for universal support for the enforcement of the UN's law stronger than in the field of weapons of mass destruction. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention comprise one of the world's most significant bodies of international law. For the past three decades, this corpus law has ensured that - with one infamous exception - no states have resorted to these, the world's worst weapons. The exception is Iraq. For two decades, Saddam Hussein's regime has defied and frustrated every attempt to enforce the international rule of law. Iraq is the only country to be condemned by the United Nations for breaching the Geneva Convention on chemical weapons. Iraq has fought wars of aggression against two neighbours, and launched missile attacks against five countries in the region. Iraq has used poison gas against its own people. Saddam Hussein has persistently mocked the authority of the United Nations. No country has deceived every other country in the world as systematically and cynically as Iraq. And no country presents as fundamental a challenge to the UN as Iraq. Every society from the smallest village to the global community represented here in the General Assembly must have rules, and every member of that community must accept responsibility for respecting and maintaining those rules. Without it the very concept of community breaks down. So those of us who believe in an active international community cannot stand by and do nothing while Iraq continues to defy the UN. All of us who believe in the United Nations have to make our minds up now about how to deal with Iraq. For the authority of the United Nations itself is at stake. We cannot let Iraq do grave damage to this organisation and the international order it represents. We cannot let Iraq go on defying a decade of Security Council resolutions. If we do, we will find that our resolutions are dismissed by aggressors everywhere as mere words. We have spent 57 years building this organisation beyond a talking shop. We cannot let that be undone. There are times when hard choices have to be made. On Iraq, we have reached such a moment. If we fail to deal with this challenge, the UN will be seriously weakened. And that would make the world a much more dangerous place. We have to be resolute in the face of Iraq's defiance, as President Bush said in his excellent speech to the General Assembly last Thursday, and secure the will of the United Nations. We must require Iraq to re-admit inspectors with unfettered access. We have not just an interest but a responsibility to ensure that Iraq complies fully with international law. We have to be clear to Iraq and to ourselves about the consequences which will flow from a failure by Iraq to meet its obligations. ... At the end of the Cold War we had hoped that future generations would then be able to enjoy a world where co-operation rather than conflict was the hallmark of international affairs. This goal is still within reach, if we are united in tackling state failure, in the war against terrorism, and in confronting the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The tasks facing the founders of this institution were no less intimidating. Yet their combination of high values and hard-headed realism created the greatest instrument in history for the avoidance of war. Their achievement has been formidable. But this organisation faces new and emerging threats. We have to confront those threats and be ever alive to the challenges which are out there to peace and justice across the world. All of us who believe in these principles of international law and justice have a duty to ensure that they are both upheld and enforced. United States: President George W. Bush, September 12'Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Headquarters, New York, September 12, 2002'; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear. We've accomplished much in the last year - in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do - in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful. The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war - the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. ... Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place - in one regime - we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront. Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped - by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge - by his deceptions, and by his cruelties - Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities - which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the UN Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents - and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for - more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. UN inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program - weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the UN Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region. In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. In 1991, Iraq promised UN inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing UN inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last UN inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy. We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take. Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming. The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by UN Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with the international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis - a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. We can harbor no illusions - and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages. My nation will work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power. Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable - the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors. If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time. Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well. Uzbekistan: Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov, September 19Uzbekistan supported the statement made by President George Bush before the General Assembly on the situation in Iraq...[which] should be taken as the basis for the elaboration of the United Nations Security Council's position. ... [Uzbekistan] supported the United Nations-led process for disarmament, arms control and reduction... Source: UN Press Release GA/10063, September 19. Vanuatu: Foreign Minister Serge Vohor Rialuth, September 18[T]he war against terrorism should not deflect attention from critical development issues and other serious security concerns affecting the developing world, particularly the small island States. Because resources would inevitably be diverted towards the anti-terrorism campaign, there was a risk that the development agenda of the developing world would be overshadowed. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez Frias, September 13The only path to peace was through justice... The world's leaders must resolve to acknowledge that the current economic situation acted as fuel for the fires of terrorism. Unbridled neo-liberalism had led to great poverty and despair among the peoples of the earth. The condemnation of terrorism needed to go hand in hand with a decision-making process, which would make advances in the war against poverty possible. ... [Venezuela urged] the creation of an international humanitarian fund...[which] could be fed from a variety of sources: from a percentage of the military expenditure of the world's countries; from a portion of the funds annually transferred from the developing to the developed world by poor countries servicing an external debt that seemed eternally to rise; from a portion of the monies that stemmed from the drug trade; from the billions stolen from poor countries by the corrupt; or from a tax levied upon major speculative transactions. Source: UN Press Release GA/10048, September 13. Vietnam: Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien, September 18While arms races were re-escalating in many parts of the world, the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to start its substantive work for four consecutive years. A way must be found to break that deadlock. Source: UN Press Release GA/10060, September 18. Yemen: Foreign Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi, September 14The Palestinian people alone had the right to choose their leaders. The American vision for peace needed to be transformed into a timely programme that laid down guidelines and prevented Israel from circumventing them. Also, Israel needed to get rid of its nuclear arsenal and open its nuclear facilities for inspection. ... [T]he sanctions [against Iraq} - which hurt innocent civilians - needed to be lifted and the use of force rejected, so long as Iraq abided by international resolutions. The disastrous consequences which would arise if force was used took precedence over bringing back the weapons inspectors. Source: UN Press Release GA/10049, September 14. Zimbabwe: President Robert Mugabe, September 12Even as he acknowledged terrorism as a threat, he also warned, "The adoption of unilateral measures by some countries to combat terrorism is not only counterproductive but also undermines the mandate and effectiveness of the United Nations." Source: UN Press Release GA/10044, September 12. Closing Statement & Summary of Debate: Assembly President Jan Kavan (Czech Republic), September 20The opening of the general debate...followed the day of mourning in commemoration of the attacks of 11 September. Throughout the entire debate, countries had reminded themselves of the need to uphold the unprecedented unity of the anti-terrorist coalition and continue the common fight against international terrorism. ... [There had not been] a statement that had not placed the fight against terrorism and the importance of addressing related issues as a top priority. This year's debate...had had a major impact on the state of international affairs, as clearly demonstrated by the development of the situation in Iraq. Time and concrete actions would show if the Iraqi offer was credible. ... [It is to be hoped] that the call for both multilateralism and compliance with United Nations resolutions would shape future policies towards Iraq. Source: UN Press Release GA/10065, September 20. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |