|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation 'Operation Iraqi Freedom': A Compilation of Statements & Reaction to the Beginning of Military Operations, March 19/23
II. International Comment & Reaction: The 'Coalition of the Willing'Note: on March 18, US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher released the following list of 30 states said to comprise a 'Coalition of the Willing' or 'Coalition for Immediate Disarmament of Iraq':
In Boucher's words, "these are countries who have all stood up and said it is time to disarm Iraq...[and] that are associating themselves in public with the effort to make sure that Iraq is disarmed and disarmed soon." Noting that "each country is contributing in the ways that it deems the most appropriate", Boucher added that a further 15 states "are in fact participating in defensive measures or other things, but just don't feel that they don't want to be publicly listed at this point... I got to say this a changing list and changing numbers." (See Boucher announces Coalition for Immediate Disarmament of Iraq, US Department of State, Washington File, March 18.) On March 20, President Bush stated that "over 40 nations now support our efforts - we are grateful for their determination, we appreciate their vision, and we welcome their support." (See Bush trumpets anti-Saddam coalition - war opponents unmoved, Agence France Presse, March 20.) However, by that date only three countries - Australia, Poland and the UK - had committed fighting forces to the American-led operation. Of a total military force reported to be in excess of 250,000, the United Kingdom contributed an estimated 45,000 personnel, Australia around 2,000, and Poland around 200. United StatesBeginning of Military Operations: Letter of Notification to the UN Security Council, March 20Letter from John Negroponte, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, to Ambassador Mamady Graore of Guinea, President of the Security Council, March 20. Coalition forces have commenced military operations in Iraq. These operations are necessary in view of Iraq's continued material breaches of its disarmament obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, including 1441 (2002). The operations are substantial and will secure compliance with those obligations. In carrying out these operations, our forces will take all reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties. The actions being taken are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991). Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq, including, most importantly, extensive disarmament obligations, that were conditions of the cease-fire established under it. It has long been recognized and understood that a material breach of these obligations removes the basis of the ceasefire and revives the authority to use force under resolution 678. This has been the basis for coalition use of force in the past and has been accepted by the Council, as evidenced, for example, by the Secretary General's public announcement in January 1993 following Iraq's material breach of resolution 687 that coalition forces had received a mandate from the Council to use force according to resolution 678. Iraq continues to be in material breach of its disarmament obligations under resolution 687, as the Council affirmed in resolution 1441. Acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council unanimously decided that Iraq has been and remained in material breach of its obligations and recalled its repeated warnings to Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. The resolution then provided Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply, but stated specifically that violations by Iraq of its obligations under resolution 1441 to present a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction programs and to comply with and cooperate fully in the resolution's implementation would constitute a further material breach. The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations. In view of Iraq's material breaches, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and use of force is authorized under resolution 678. Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its obligations to disarm and to permit full inspection of its WMD and related programs. The actions that coalition forces are undertaking are an appropriate response. They are necessary steps to defend the United States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the area. Further delay would simply allow Iraq to continue its unlawful and threatening conduct. It is the Government of Iraq that bears full responsibility for the serious consequences of its defiance of the Council's decisions. I would be grateful if you could circulate the text of this letter as a document of the Security Council. Source: Text - US Informs UN of Start of Coalition Military Operations in Iraq, US Department of State (Washington File), March 21. Beginning of Military Operations: Letter of Notification to Congress, March 21'Text of a letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, March 21, 2003'; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed US Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq. These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of US Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully. As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation. White House Report on Legal Authority for Use of Force, March 19'Report In Connection With Presidential Determination Under Public Law 107-243', The White House, March 19; report issued in accordance with United States Federal Public Law 107-243, 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq', adopted by the Senate (77-23) on October 11, 2002, and the House of Representatives (296-133) on October 10, 2002. This report summarizes diplomatic and other peaceful means pursued by the United States, working for more than a dozen years with cooperating foreign countries and international organizations such as the United Nations, in an intensive effort (1) to protect the national security of the United States, as well as the security of other countries, against the continuing threat posed by Iraqi development and use of weapons of mass destruction, and (2) to obtain Iraqi compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions regarding Iraq. Because of the intransigence and defiance of the Iraqi regime, further continuation of these efforts will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. This report also explains that a determination to use force against Iraq is fully consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Indeed, as Congress found when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), Iraq continues to harbor and aid international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the safety of United States citizens. The use of military force to remove the Iraqi regime is therefore not only consistent with, but is a vital part of, the international war on terrorism. This document is summary in form rather than a comprehensive and definitive rendition of actions taken and related factual data that would constitute a complete historical record. This document should be considered in light of the information that has been, and will be, furnished to Congress, including the periodic reports consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243). 1. The Gulf War and Conditions of the Cease-FireOn August 2, 1990, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq initiated the brutal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United States and many foreign governments, working together and through the UN, sought by diplomatic and other peaceful means to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to establish international peace and security in the region. President George H.W. Bush's letter transmitted to Congress on January 16, 1991, was accompanied by a report that catalogued the extensive diplomatic, economic, and other peaceful means pursued by the United States to achieve US and UNSC objectives. It details adoption by the UNSC of a dozen resolutions, from Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, to Resolution 678 on November 29, 1990, authorizing member states to use all necessary means to "implement Resolution 660," to implement "all subsequent relevant resolutions," and "to restore international peace and security in the area." Despite extraordinary and concerted efforts by the United States, other countries, and international organizations through diplomacy, multilateral economic sanctions, and other peaceful means to bring about Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions, and even after the UN and the United States explicitly informed Iraq that its failure to comply with UNSC resolutions would result in the use of armed force to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's regime remained intransigent. The President ordered the US armed forces, working in a coalition with the armed forces of other cooperating countries, to liberate Kuwait. The coalition forces promptly drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, set Kuwait free, and moved into southern Iraq. On April 3, 1991, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687, which established conditions for a cease-fire to suspend hostilities. Among other requirements, UNSCR 687 required Iraq to (1) destroy its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; (3) submit to international inspections to verify compliance; and (4) not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. On April 6, 1991, Iraq communicated to the UNSC its acceptance of the conditions for the cease-fire. 2. Iraq's Breach of the Cease-Fire Conditions: Threats to Peace and SecuritySince almost the moment it agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire, Iraq has committed repeated and escalating breaches of those conditions. Throughout the first seven years that Iraq accepted inspections, it repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On two occasions, in 1993 and 1998, Iraq's refusal to comply with its international obligations under the cease-fire led to military action by coalition forces. In 1998, under threat of "severest consequences," Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding pledging full cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA and "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access for their inspections. In a matter of months, however, the Iraqi regime suspended cooperation, in part as an effort to condition compliance on the lifting of oil sanctions; it ultimately ceased all cooperation, causing the inspectors to leave the country. On December 17, 1999, after a year with no inspections in Iraq, the UNSC established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to UNSCOM, to address unresolved disarmament issues and verify Iraqi compliance with the disarmament required by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions. Iraq refused to allow inspectors to return for yet another three years. 3. Recent Diplomatic and Other Peaceful Means Rejected by IraqOn September 12, 2002, the President addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Iraq. He challenged the United Nations to act decisively to deal with Iraq's systematic twelve-year defiance and to compel Iraq's disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems that continue to threaten international peace and security. The White House background paper, "A Decade of Deception and Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations" (September 12, 2002), summarizes Iraq's actions as of the time the President initiated intensified efforts to enforce all relevant UN Resolutions and demonstrates the failure of diplomacy to affect Iraq's conduct: "For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions." The President also summarized Iraq's response to a decade of diplomatic efforts and its breach of the cease-fire conditions on October 7, 2002, in an address in Cincinnati, Ohio: "Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith." In response to the President's challenge of September 12, 2002, and after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002. The UNSC declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach" of its disarmament obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one "final opportunity" to comply. The UNSC again placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to try to find what Iraq is concealing. The UNSC made clear that any false statements or omissions in declarations and any failure by Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Rather than seizing this final opportunity for a peaceful solution by giving full and immediate cooperation, the Hussein regime responded with renewed defiance and deception. For example, while UNSCR 1441 required that Iraq provide a "currently accurate, full and complete" declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction ("WMD") and delivery programs, Iraq's Declaration of December 7, 2002, failed to comply with that requirement. The 12,000-page document that Iraq provided was little more than a restatement of old and discredited material. It was incomplete, inaccurate, and composed mostly of recycled information that failed to address any of the outstanding disarmament questions inspectors had previously identified. In addition, since the passage of UNSCR 1441, Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with inspectors. It delayed until two-and-a-half months after the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC's use of aerial surveillance flights; failed to provide private access to officials for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats; undertook massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly 30 sites; failed to provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; repeatedly provided incomplete or outdated listings of its WMD personnel; and hid documents in homes, including over 2000 pages of Iraqi documents regarding past uranium enrichment programs. In a report dated March 6, 2003, UNMOVIC described over 600 instances in which Iraq had failed to declare fully activities related to its chemical, biological, or missile procurements. Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, reported to the UNSC on January 27, 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that Iraq's declaration of December 7 "did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998." Both demonstrated that there was no evidence that Iraq had decided to comply with disarmament obligations. Diplomatic efforts have not affected Iraq's conduct positively. Any temporary changes in Iraq's approach that have occurred over the years have been in response to the threat of use of force. On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State delivered a comprehensive presentation to the UNSC using declassified information, including human intelligence reports, communications intercepts and overhead imagery, which demonstrated Iraq's ongoing efforts to pursue WMD programs and conceal them from UN inspectors. The Secretary of State updated that presentation one month later by detailing intelligence reports on continuing efforts by Iraq to maintain and conceal proscribed materials. Despite the continued resistance by Iraq, the United States has continued to use diplomatic and other peaceful means to achieve complete and total disarmament that would adequately protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq and which is required by all relevant UNSC resolutions. On March 7, 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to cooperate fully with disarmament demands. Since the adoption of UNSCR 1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq. On March 13, 2003, the US Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with the pertinent UN resolutions. On March 16, 2003, the President traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. Despite these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other countries. Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly after, as the President observed on March 17, "some permanent members of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq." The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that the appearance of progress on process is meaningless - what is necessary is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete disarmament of Iraq's prohibited weapons. As a result of its repeated failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, Iraq has retained weapons of mass destruction that it agreed, as an essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or possess. The Secretary of State's February 5, 2003, presentation cited examples, such as Iraq's biological weapons based on anthrax and botulinum toxin, chemical weapons based on mustard and nerve agents, proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of mass destruction, and mobile biological weapons factories. The Secretary of State also discussed with the Security Council Saddam Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles are clear. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons, repeatedly. He used them against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He used ballistic missiles against civilians during the Gulf War, firing Scud missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. He used chemical weapons against the Iraqi people in Northern Iraq. As Congress stated in 1998 in Public Law 105-235, "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security." Congress concluded in Public Law 105-338 that "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." In addition, Congress stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that: "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." Nothing that has occurred in the past twelve years, the past twelve months, the past twelve weeks, or the past twelve days provides any basis for concluding that further diplomatic or other peaceful means will adequately protect the national security of the United States from the continuing threat posed by Iraq or are likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq and the restoration of peace and security in the area. As the President stated on March 17, "[t]he Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage." Further delay in taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's regime additional time to further develop WMD to use against the United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm, and cooperate with inspections to verify such disarmament, if the US and the UN employ only diplomacy and other peaceful means. 4. Use of Force Against Iraq is Consistent with the War on TerrorIn Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings concerning Iraq's support for international terrorism. Among other things, Congress determined that:
In addition, the Secretary of State's address to the UN on February 5, 2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in document forgery and explosives to al Qaida. Other terrorist groups have been supported by Iraq over past years. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States and our allies. These actions violate Iraq's obligations under the UNSCR 687 cease-fire not to commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. Iraq has also failed to comply with its cease-fire obligations to disarm and submit to international inspections to verify compliance. In light of these Iraqi activities, the use of force by the United States and other countries against the current Iraqi regime is fully consistent with - indeed, it is an integral part of - the war against international terrorists and terrorist organizations. Both because Iraq harbors terrorists and because Iraq could share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists who seek them for use against the United States, the use of force to bring Iraq into compliance with its obligations under UNSC resolutions would be a significant contribution to the war on terrorists of global reach. A change in the current Iraqi regime would eliminate an important source of support for international terrorist activities. It would likely also assist efforts to disrupt terrorist networks and capture terrorists around the globe. United States Government personnel operating in Iraq may discover information through Iraqi government documents and interviews with detained Iraqi officials that would identify individuals currently in the United States and abroad who are linked to terrorist organizations. The use of force against Iraq will directly advance the war on terror, and will be consistent with continuing efforts against international terrorists residing and operating elsewhere in the world. The US armed forces remain engaged in key areas around the world in the prosecution of the war on terrorism. The necessary preparations for and conduct of military operations in Iraq have not diminished the resolve, capability, or activities of the United States to pursue international terrorists to protect our homeland. Nor will the use of military force against Iraq distract civilian departments and agencies of the United States Government from continuing aggressive efforts in combating terrorism, or divert resources from the overall world-wide counter-terrorism effort. Current counter-terrorism investigations and activities will continue during any military conflict, and winning the war on terrorism will remain the top priority for our Government. Indeed, the United States has made significant progress on other fronts in the war on terror even while Iraq and its threat to the United States and other countries have been a focus of concern. Since November 2002, when deployments of forces to the Gulf were substantially increased, the United States, in cooperation with our allies, has arrested or captured several terrorists and frustrated several terrorist plots. For example, on March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani authorities, with US cooperation. The capture of Sheikh Mohammed, the al Qaida "mastermind" of the September 11th attacks and Usama Bin Laden's senior terrorist attack planner, is a severe blow to al Qaida that will destabilize the terrorist network worldwide. This and other successes make clear that the United States Government remains focused on the war on terror, and that use of force in Iraq is fully consistent with continuing to take necessary actions against terrorists and terrorist organizations. 5. ConclusionIn the circumstances described above, the President of the United States has the authority - indeed, given the dangers involved, the duty - to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions. The President has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under the US Constitution, including his authority as Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243). In addition, US action is consistent with the UN Charter. The UNSC, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, provided that member states, including the United States, have the right to use force in Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Council authorized the use of force in UNSCR 678 with respect to Iraq in 1990. This resolution - on which the United States has relied continuously and with the full knowledge of the UNSC to use force in 1993, 1996, and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones - remains in effect today. In UNSCR 1441, the UNSC unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts, including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Accordingly, the United States has clear authority to use military force against Iraq to assure its national security and to compel Iraq's compliance with applicable UNSC resolutions. Source: Text - US Has Clear Authority to Use Force Against Iraq, US Department of State (Washington File), March 19. US Senate Resolution in Support of the War, March 20'Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America', Senate Resolution 95, March 20. Note: the resolution was adopted by 99 votes to 0, with one absentee due to illness. The text was introduced by Majority Leader William Frist (Republican), Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (Democrat), Armed Services Committee Chair John Warner (Republican) and Carl Levin, the Ranking democrat on the Armed Services Committee. A similar resolution in the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 104) was adopted in the early hours of March 21 by 392 votes to 11, with 10 Representatives absent. The 11 opposing votes were all from the Democratic side. ResolutionWhereas Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441; Whereas the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, which passed the Senate on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133; Whereas more than 225,000 men and women of the United States Armed Forces are now involved in conflict against Iraq; Whereas over 200,000 members of the Reserves and National Guard have been called to active duty for the conflict against Iraq and other purposes; and Whereas the Congress and the American people have the greatest pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, and strongly support them in their efforts; Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress - (1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq; (2) commends, and expenses the gratitude of the Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations in the Persian Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery; (3) commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loved ones; (4) expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave Americans who have lost their lives in this noble undertaking, over many years, against Iraq; (5) joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War in Terrorism; and (6) expresses sincere gratitude to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government for their courageous and steadfast support, as well as gratitude to other allied nations for their military support, logistical support, and other assistance in the campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime. Source: Text - Senate Resolution backs US Armed Forces and Commander-in-Chief, US Department of State (Washington File), March 21. Congressional CommentSenate Majority Leader William Frist (Republican): "The president has ordered the first salvos in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now our mission is clear: to use the full might of the American military to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people from his oppressive rule. Let there be no mistake, we are defending our own liberty. We have already seen what terrorists can do with the combined power of only three jet aircraft." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Republican Senator John McCain: "Critics who deem war against Saddam Hussein's regime to be an unprecedented departure from our proud tradition of American internationalism disregard our history of meeting threats to our security with both military force and a commitment to revolutionary democratic change. The union of our interests and values requires us to stay true to that commitment in Iraq. Liberating Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny is necessary but not sufficient. The true test of our power, and much of the moral basis for its use, lies not simply in ending dictatorship but in helping the Iraqi people construct a democratic future. This is what sets us apart from empire builders: the use of our power for moral purpose. We seek to liberate, not subjugate." (A Fight for Freedom, The Washington Post, March 23.) Republican Senator Arlen Specter: "I respect those who have disagreed with the action of the Congress and with the action of the President. However, once the nation moves forward under our constitutional process, where in a representative democracy the Congress votes and authorizes the President as Commander in Chief to move ahead, we should support this action." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Republican Senator John Warner, Chair of the Armed Services Committee: "We took our constitutional responsibility seriously [when we adopted our resolution on Iraq last October]... We thoroughly examined the circumstances and voted overwhelmingly, 77 to 23, to authorise the Commander in Chief to use military force if, and only if, he determined that all diplomatic efforts to peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein had been fulfilled. ... [The President] expended extraordinary efforts to bring this clear and growing threat to the attention of the United Nations and try to build that consensus for a unified way to proceed... [In the President's view, Saddam Hussein,] armed with weapons of mass destruction, is an imminent threat to the security of the people of this nation and, indeed, other nations..." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat): "Prior to the announcement by President Bush on Monday that he had determined to begin a military action this week, many of us expressed our disagreement with the policy and action of the President. But at this point...our focus needs to be on prevailing in this conflict..." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Democratic Senator Robert Byrd: "I do not agree with every word of this resolution [see above]. I have strong reservations that's that the new doctrine of pre-emption does not meet the test of international law. ... [I also have] questions about our long-term strategy for the reconstruction of Iraq...[and] the plans to democratise the Middle East... But I have no question about the ability of our military to deliver a crushing blow to whatever army might stand in their way in Iraq. I have no question that our Armed Forces will carry out their mission with honor and resolve. I have no question that our nation has the obligation to finish the job and destroy whatever chemical, biological, and radiological weapons that Saddam Hussein possesses." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (Democrat): "We may have differences of opinion about what brought us to this point, but the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and today we unite behind him... Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Senator Daschle, March 17: "I'm saddened, saddened that this President failed so miserably at diplomacy that now we're forced to war - saddened that we have to give up one life because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." (Daschle - Bush diplomacy fails 'miserably', Associated Press, March 17.) Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy: "Many Americans, including many of us in Congress, opposed this war. But today, and throughout this conflict, we are united in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces..." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Democratic Member of the Armed Services Committee: "We stand here together, shoulder to shoulder, whichever side of that particular issue we voted on [last October], to support the men and women who are now in harm's way." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Democratic Senator Harry Reid, Minority Whip: "Now that the military effort to disarm Saddam Hussein and remove his brutal regime from power has started, it is important that we, the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, express our unified support for our troops." (Senate expresses support for US troops as war with Iraq begins, US Department of State, Washington File, March 21.) Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis Hastert (Republican): "Yes, we are fighting to preserve our national security. But we are also fighting to preserve the universal ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Reaction from lawmakers to Iraq strikes, Associated Press, March 20.) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Republican): "We will never know how many faceless victims have screamed out their last words to the uncaring ears of Saddam's torturers. ... The liberation of Iraq has begun." (Reaction from lawmakers to Iraq strikes, Associated Press, March 20.) Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich: "Tonight, President Bush has commanded US forces to go to war in violation of American traditions of defensive war that have lasted since George Washington. This war is wrong - it violates the constitution and international law." (Reaction from lawmakers to Iraq strikes, Associated Press, March 20.) House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi: "Americans stand united behind our men and women in uniform. We pray for the swift and successful disarmament of Iraq with the least possible loss of life among our forces and the civilians of Iraq." (Reaction from lawmakers to Iraq strikes, Associated Press, March 20.) United Kingdom'Britain Has Never Been A Nation To Hide At The Back': Statement by Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 20'Prime Minister's Address to the Nation, March 20, 2003'; website of the Prime Minister, http://www.pm.gov.uk. On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq. Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I know this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country. But I know also the British people will now be united in sending our armed forces our thoughts and prayers. They are the finest in the world and their families and all of Britain can have great pride in them. The threat to Britain today is not that of my father's generation. War between the big powers is unlikely. Europe is at peace. The Cold War already a memory. But this new world faces a new threat: of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy. My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see, is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and world. These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life. The terrorists delight in destroying it. Some say if we act, we become a target. The truth is, all nations are targets. Bali was never in the front line of action against terrorism. America didn't attack Al Qaida. They attacked America. Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back. But even if we were, it wouldn't avail us. Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded round the world, the carnage they could inflict to our economies, our security, to world peace, would be beyond our most vivid imagination. My judgement, as Prime Minister, is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before. For 12 years, the world tried to disarm Saddam; after his wars in which hundreds of thousands died. UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons, such as anthrax, VX nerve agent, and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq. So our choice is clear: back down and leave Saddam hugely strengthened; or proceed to disarm him by force. Retreat might give us a moment of respite but years of repentance at our weakness would I believe follow. It is true Saddam is not the only threat. But it is true also - as we British know - that the best way to deal with future threats peacefully, is to deal with present threats with resolve. Removing Saddam will be a blessing to the Iraqi people. Four million Iraqis are in exile. 60% of the population dependent on food aid. Thousands of children die every year through malnutrition and disease. Hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes or murdered. I hope the Iraqi people hear this message. We are with you. Our enemy is not you, but your barbarous rulers. Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total. We shall help Iraq move towards democracy. And put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so that it benefits Iraq and no-one else. Neither should Iraq be our only concern. President Bush and I have committed ourselves to peace in the Middle East based on a secure state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We will strive to see it done. But these challenges and others that confront us - poverty, the environment, the ravages of disease require a world of order and stability. Dictators like Saddam, terrorist groups like Al Qaida threaten the very existence of such a world. That is why I have asked our troops to go into action tonight. As so often before, on the courage and determination of British men and women, serving our country, the fate of many nations rests. 'We Have Been Left With No Option': Statement by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, March 20'Edited transcript of a press conference by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, London, Thursday 20 March 2003'; UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FC) website, http://www.fco.gov.uk. For many months we have sought to persuade Saddam Hussein to disarm peacefully with a strategy of diplomacy, backed by the credible threat of force. But we have stressed all the way through that for this threat to be credible, we had to be prepared to use force if the threat itself was not sufficient. The international community has spent 12 years passing a series of Security Council resolutions and showing very great patience in pursuing the disarmament of Iraq which was demanded by the Security Council should be completed by 1991. Over 4 months ago the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his 'final opportunity' to disarm through cooperation. He has rejected that opportunity by once again responding with the familiar pattern of concealment, deceit and delay. There was a further meeting of the Security Council yesterday to receive a further report from Dr Blix. I quote directly and verbatim from his report. He said three and a half months of work, carried out in Iraq by UNMOVIC, have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction and other proscribed items in Iraq. And he went on to say, may I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since that last report, which was 7 March, 'Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues.' And he goes on, our exports have so far found that in substance these letters contain only limited new information that will help to resolve remaining questions. And those of you who are familiar with the reports and Security Council resolutions contained here, and republished by me to the British House of Commons, will know that in report, after report, after report by UNMOVIC there is laid bare there all the unresolved disarmament issues and chapter and verse about how Saddam has failed to meet his disarmament obligations. And the result of that is that since we are absolutely clear that Saddam Hussein took a long time ago, and has continued with it, a strategic decision to defy the international community, in accordance with Resolution 1441 and its thirteenth operative paragraph, we have been left with no option but to use force. ... Now some members of the Security Council at yesterday's meeting continued to argue that we should disarm Iraq by maintaining the leisurely pace of the work programme laid down under a previous resolution passed in 1999, Resolution 1284. Let's be clear about 1284. 1284 was a British initiative. It took months to negotiate. In the course of those negotiations, in order to try and reach a consensus we had to water down the powers of the inspectors. We finally got support, but three key members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - refused to support 1284, and 1284 failed. It was seeking disarmament by exhortation of Saddam, he refused even to allow the inspectors into Iraq, still less to do their work. 1441 was there to replace 1284. 1441 backs inspections with a credible threat of force. And everybody in the Security Council signed up for 1441. When they were signing up for 1441 they were not saying this is disarmament by peace, as is now suggested; what they were saying to Saddam was either you disarm peacefully, or you have to accept that the international community will disarm you by force. It was never the case that 1441 implied the automatic use of force, and neither have we ever suggested it, but it is the case that 1441 required that force should be used unconditionally if Saddam Hussein failed to comply by peaceful means, and he has now triggered those conditions. Now at this time of the beginning of conflict, I want to say this in terms of our message to the people of Iraq. Our message to the people of Iraq is that we are with you, we support you in your plain wish to rid yourselves of the terrible leadership of Saddam Hussein which has terrorised the Iraqi people for the past two decades, and we want to see your suffering come to an end. Earlier this week we published a paper called 'A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People' and this commits us to working for the relief and reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam. We will be discussing these issues with our partners at the European Council, the summit meeting in Brussels tonight and tomorrow. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will be going to Brussels. Part of the agenda of the Brussels Summit represents the important internal work for the European Union, particularly taking forward the Lisbon Agenda of economic reform. But of course the summit will also be dominated by Iraq, and what we shall be arguing for is for the European community to come together and recognise that we have a common agenda working for the humanitarian relief of Iraq and its reconstruction. Towards that our own Department for International Development has committed £20 million to immediate preparations for humanitarian relief, and has earmarked a further £60 million for humanitarian operations. The United Kingdom forces themselves will have £30 million for humanitarian purposes available to them to use in the first months. It is a mark of the appalling record of Saddam Hussein that Iraq is a prosperous country which has been reduced to penury, not least by the huge sums wasted on wars and on the development of weapons of mass destruction, and it is a measure of Saddam's indifference to human suffering that more than half the population in rural areas do not have access to safe drinking water and that more Iraqi children die before reaching the age of 5 than in a number of impoverished sub-Saharan countries. And all this whilst more than $2 billion of Oil for Food programme funds remains untouched, but available, by the Iraqi regime. Our pledge is to work with the international community to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to support an international reconstruction programme. And to this end, as the conclusions of the Azores Summit committed us, we shall be working very hard to secure a new United Nations Security Council resolution. Message to the Armed Forces from Queen Elizabeth II, March 20May your mission be swift and decisive, your courage steady and true, and your conduct in the highest traditions of your service both in waging war and bringing peace. Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. Summary of Military Campaign Objectives, March 20'Iraq: the Military Campaign Objectives', issued by the Prime Minister's Office, March 20; website of the Prime Minister. 1. Our policy objectives were set out in Parliament on 7 January 2003. The prime objective remains to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles, as set out in relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). 2. In UNSCR 1441, the Security Council decided that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations under UNSCR 687 and other relevant resolutions. The Council gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply by co-operating with the enhanced inspection regime established by UNSCR 1441, but warned of the serious consequences of failing to do so. The evidence shows that Iraq has failed to comply with the terms of UNSCR 1441 and is now in further material breach of its obligations. In these circumstances, UNSCR 678 authorises the use of force to enforce Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations. 3. The obstacle to Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations under relevant UNSCRs is the current Iraqi regime, supported by the security forces under its control. The British Government has therefore concluded that military action is necessary to enforce Iraqi compliance and that it is therefore necessary that the current Iraqi regime be removed from power. All military action must be limited to what is necessary to achieve that end. The UK is contributing maritime, land and air forces as part of a US-led coalition. 4. The UK's overall objective for the military campaign is to create the conditions in which Iraq disarms in accordance with its obligations under UNSCRs and remains so disarmed in the long term. Tasks which flow from this objective are set out below. 5. In aiming to achieve this objective as swiftly as possible, every effort will be made to minimise civilian casualties and damage to essential economic infrastructure, and to minimise and address adverse humanitarian consequences. The main tasks of the coalition are to: a. overcome the resistance of Iraqi security forces; b. deny the Iraqi regime the use of weapons of mass destruction now and in the future; c. remove the Iraqi regime, given its clear and unyielding refusal to comply with the UN Security Council's demands; d. identify and secure the sites where weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery are located; e. secure essential economic infrastructure, including for utilities and transport, from sabotage and wilful destruction by Iraq; and f. deter wider conflict both inside Iraq and in the region. Military action will be conducted in conformity with international law, including the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. 6. Our wider political objectives in support of the military campaign are to: a. demonstrate to the Iraqi people that our quarrel is not with them and that their security and well-being is our concern; b. work with the United Nations to lift sanctions affecting the supply of humanitarian and reconstruction goods, and to enable Iraq's own resources, including oil, to be available to meet the needs of the Iraqi people; c. sustain the widest possible international and regional coalition in support of military action; d. preserve wider regional security, including by maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and mitigating the humanitarian and other consequences of conflict for Iraq's neighbours; e. help create conditions for a future, stable and law-abiding government of Iraq; and f. further our policy of eliminating terrorism as a force in international affairs. 7. In the wake of hostilities, the immediate military priorities for the coalition are to: a. provide for the security of friendly forces; b. contribute to the creation of a secure environment so that normal life can be restored; c. work in support of humanitarian organisations to mitigate the consequences of hostilities and, in the absence of such civilian humanitarian capacity, provide relief where it is needed; d. work with UNMOVIC/IAEA to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery; e. facilitate remedial action where environmental damage has occurred; f. enable the reconstruction and recommissioning of essential infrastructure for the political and economic development of Iraq, and the immediate benefit of the Iraqi people; and g. lay plans for the reform of Iraq's security forces. Wherever possible, these tasks will be carried out in co-operation with the United Nations. 8. British military forces will withdraw as soon as practicable. We hope to see the early establishment of a transitional civilian administration. We will work with the international community to build the widest possible international and regional support for the reconstruction of Iraq and the move to representative government. 9. It remains our wish to see Iraq become a stable, united and law abiding state, within its present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective representative government for its own people. 'A Fundamental Principle Of Labour's Foreign Policy Has Been Violated': Resignation Speech by Cabinet Member Robin Cook, March 17Labour MP Robin Cook, former Foreign Secretary, statement to Parliament explaining his decision to resign from the Cabinet and his post as Leader of the House of Commons, March 17; 'Cook's Resignation Speech', BBC News Online transcript, http://news.bbc.co.uk. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support. The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him. I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance. France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired. I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement. The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to Middle East peace, but Britain's positive role in the Middle East does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops. The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government. Note: on March 18, Robin Cook was one of 139 Labour backbench MPs, and 217 MPs in all, to vote in favour of an amendment opposing the government's Iraq policy. 396 MPs voted to defeat the amendment. The government, strongly supported by the Official Opposition Conservative Party, then won a motion authorising the use of UK armed forces in Iraq by 412 votes to 149. Australia'Action Must Be Taken': Statement by Prime Minister John Howard, March 20'The Prime Minister's Address to the Nation, March 20, 2003'; website of the Prime Minister, http://www.pm.gov.au. The Government has decided to commit Australian forces to action to disarm Iraq because we believe it is right, it is lawful and it's in Australia's national interest. We are determined to join other countries to deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, its chemical and biological weapons, which even in minute quantities are capable of causing death and destruction on a mammoth scale. Iraq has been an aggressor in the past against its neighbours and even its own people. If Iraq is allowed to keep these weapons not only might she use them again but moreover other rogue countries will copy Iraq knowing that the world will do nothing to stop them. And the more countries that have these weapons - countries run by despotic regimes - the greater becomes the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. If that happens can anyone doubt that the terrorists will use them, whatever the cost might be? The attacks on the 11th of September and in Bali showed that international terrorists have no regard for human life no matter what the nationality of their victims may be. Iraq has long supported international terrorism. Saddam Hussein pays $25,000 to each family of Palestinian suicide bombers who wreak such murderous havoc in Israel. He has sheltered and sponsored many terrorist groups. International terrorism knows no borders. We have learnt that to our cost. Australia and Australians anywhere in the world are as much targets as any other western country and its people. Therefore the possession of chemical, biological, or even worse still, nuclear weapons by a terrorist network would be a direct undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people. That is the reason above all others why I passionately believe that action must be taken to disarm Iraq. Not only will it take dangerous weapons from that country but it will send a clear signal to other rogue states and terrorists groups like Al Qaeda which clearly want such weapons that the world is prepared to take a stand. There's also another reason and that is our close security alliance with the United States. The Americans have helped us in the past and the United States is very important to Australia's long-term security. It is critical that we maintain the involvement of the United States in our own region where at present there are real concerns about the dangerous behaviour of North Korea. The relationship between our two countries will grow more rather than less important as the years go by. A key element of our close friendship with the United States and indeed with the British is our full and intimate sharing of intelligence material. In the difficult fight against the new menace of international terrorism there is nothing more crucial than timely and accurate intelligence. This is a priceless component of our relationship with our two very close allies. There is nothing comparable to be found in any other relationship - nothing more relevant indeed to the challenges of the contemporary world. I know that some people are saying that what we have done makes it more likely that terrorists will attack Australia. Australia has been a terrorist target at least since the 11th of September 2001. Australia is a western country with western values. Nothing will or should change that. That is why we are a target. Remember that bin Laden specifically targeted Australia because of our intervention to save the people of East Timor. Does any Australian seriously suggest that if bin Laden's warning had come before the East Timor action we should have caved in and changed our policy? That will never be the Australian way. We believe that so far from our action in Iraq increasing the terrorist threat it will, by stopping the spread of chemical and biological weapons, make it less likely that a devastating terrorist attack will be carried out against Australia. I want to assure all of you that the action we are taking is fully legal under international law. Back in the early 1990s resolutions were passed by the Security Council authorising military action against Iraq. That action was only suspended on condition that Iraq gave up its weapons of mass destruction. Clearly we all know this has not happened. As a result the authority to take military action under those earlier resolutions has revived. America's critics both here and abroad have been both opportunistic and inconsistent. They know and admit that weapons inspectors only returned to Iraq because of the pressure of the American military build-up. Yet they have persistently criticised American policy. Apparently they believe that a quarter of a million American, British and indeed Australian troops should stay in the desert doing nothing indefinitely. We all know that if the troops had been withdrawn Iraq would have immediately stopped its minimal co-operation with the inspectors. Another point I'd make to you very strongly is that we're not dealing here with a regime of ordinary brutality. There are many dictatorships in the world. But this is a dictatorship of a particularly horrific kind. His is an appalling regime: its torture, its use of rape as an instrument of intimidation, the cruelty to children to extract confessions from parents. It is a terrible catalogue of inflicting human misery on a people who deserve much better. This week, the Times of London detailed the use of a human shredding machine as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein. This is the man, this is the apparatus of terror we are dealing with. The removal of Saddam Hussein will lift this immense burden of terror from the Iraqi people. Our argument is with Saddam Hussein's regime. It is certainly not with Islam. Australians of an Arab background or of the Islamic faith are a treasured part of our community. Over the weeks ahead and beyond we should all extend to them the hand of Australian mateship. To those in the community who may not agree with me, please vent your anger against me and towards the government. Remember that our forces are on duty in the Gulf in our name and doing their job in the best traditions of Australia's defence forces. Can I say something that I know will find an echo from all of you whether or not you agree with the Government? And that is to say to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force in the Gulf - we admire you, we are thinking of you, we want all of you come to back home safe and sound. We care for and we anguish with your loved ones back here in Australia. Our prayers and our hopes are with all of you. We now live in a world made very different by the scourge of international terrorism. This has been a very difficult decision for the Government but a decision which is good for Australia's long term security and the cause of a safer world. Albania'America Is The Only Country In The World That Exports Freedom': Remarks by Prime Minister Fatos Nano, March 20America is the only country in the world that exports freedom. It brought freedom and democracy to Japan and Germany after defeating both in World War II. It rebuilt their societies and taught them about liberty. It helped bring down the Berlin Wall. That is why we wholeheartedly support the American-led effort to free the people of Iraq." Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. Czech Republic'A Measure of Last Resort': Statement by the Government, March 19'Statement of the Government of the Czech Republic on the Situation Concerning Iraq, Prague, March 19, 2003' Embassy of the Czech Republic in Washington, D.C., http://www.czechembassy.org. The Government of the Czech Republic notes with regret the long-running failure of the Iraqi leadership to honour the obligations imposed on them by the United Nations Security Council since 1990. Resolution 1441(2002) offered Iraq the last chance to disarm by peaceful means and stated that Iraq would face serious consequences in case of non-compliance. The Government of the Czech Republic always prefers a peaceful settlement of international conflicts and regards the use of force as an extreme possibility. The Government of the Czech Republic considers the coalition operation a measure of last resort to achieve the fulfilment of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, but regrets that a new United Nations mandate has not been obtained for this step. The Government of the Czech Republic continues to regard the Euro-Atlantic cooperation framework and collective security policy as the basis of global stability and our security. In this situation, the Government of the Czech Republic reaffirms that the nuclear, biological and chemical protection battalion of the Czech Army deployed in the operation Enduring Freedom is ready to participate in rescue and humanitarian operations in case of use, or reasonable suspicion of use of weapons of mass destruction against the civilian population or coalition forces, and in dealing with the consequences of disasters in the area of its deployment. The Government of the Czech Republic is ready to provide humanitarian assistance to Iraq and to take part in its subsequent reconstruction, in the interest of improving living and economic conditions of the Iraqi people and with the aim to restore security and stability in the region. DenmarkRemarks by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, March 20Sometimes war is necessary to secure freedom and peace. Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. Remarks by Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller, March 21We will take responsibility and lead an active foreign policy. We will take the consequences of our principles." Source: Danish lawmakers narrowly approve decision to deploy sub, ship in Iraq war, Associated Press, March 21. Estonia'We Understand The Need For Disarming Iraq': Statement by the Government, March 20'Estonian government discussed war in Iraq, March 20, 2003'; Estonian Foreign Ministry,http://www.vm.ee. This morning, the Estonian Government met for an extraordinary session to exchange information about the war in Iraq, that had started early in the morning. Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland, Defence Minister Sven Mikser, and Interior Minister Toomas Varek gave the Government an overview of the situation in connection with the war. ... The Government approved the following position concerning the war in Iraq: We understand the need for disarming Iraq. The world needs to be convinced that there are no weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi territory. This is important for world security. It is deeply regrettable that Iraq did not make use of the opportunity, which existed, to solve the problem peacefully. We hope that only a minimal and short-term use of force will be necessary. We hope that a humanitarian catastrophe can be avoided, and that the war will not bring about a huge refugee exodus/crisis. Military intervention must, along with the disarmament of Iraq, relieve the situation of the Iraqi people. A primary task will be the supplying of the Iraqi people with food. All Iraqi resources must be used in the interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people must, as soon as possible, have the right to participate in the formulating of the destiny of their country. The central role of the United Nations in post-conflict reconstruction must be guaranteed. The UN must give a legal and moral base to the whole activity. As many states as possible have to be engaged in this process. Estonia is ready, based upon the needs of the situation and its own capabilities, to help regulate the post-conflict situation and participate in the reconstruction of Iraq. Italy'Now It Is Time For Choices': Statement by Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, March 19'Reply by Minister Frattini following Government's communication to the Chamber of Deputies on developments in the Iraq crisis, Rome, March 19, 2003'; Foreign Ministry of Italy, http://www.esteri.it. Our feelings today are, in the first place, those of regret for the fact that Iraq's dictator has, once again, not respected the United Nations and its resolutions and has not, in the end, eliminated his weapons of mass destruction, which represent a real and present danger to the entire world. We were seeking a peaceful solution, and up until the last minute Saddam Hussein had the chance to respond positively to the request to leave the country. We held out until the last minute but, unfortunately, as you know, Saddam Hussein has already said clearly that he will not comply. As many of you know, the Prime Minister has personally made a series of attempts at convincing many of the Arab countries who are our sincere friends to intervene with the Iraqi dictator with a direct request that he destroy the weapons once and for all, that he proclaim free elections, that he allow the free press to operate in his country and that he recognise human rights and the rights of the opposition. All this, as you know, has been met with a clearly negative response. Now it is time for choices. We have no doubts: between the great democracies of the world and the dictator of Iraq, we choose those democracies, we choose to confirm the European and Atlantic policies that have been guiding Italy over the past fifty years. We are not belligerent, but we know what side to be on and are bound by duty to make a choice. We will continue working to rediscover what it is that unites us in Europe and not what divides us. I believe that precisely in the coming weeks, in the coming months, Italy will be able to make a significant contribution to that political pilaster that is the construction of a European action, its role on the international scene and the indispensable re-launching of a Euro/Atlantic cohesion. Italy - and I say this to my colleagues of the opposition, who have spoken on this point - is seen as a country who, being sincerely Europe-oriented and, at the same time, a strong friend of the United States of America, can help in the recovery of that harmony among the fifteen and with the new ten Members of the European Union, starting with the essential theme of European institutional reform. Japan'The Situation Has Come To A Point Where Force Cannot But Be Used': Statement by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, March 20'Press Conference by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, March 20, 2003'; Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mofa.go.jp. About one hour ago, I received a report that the US, UK and other members of the coalition commenced military action against Iraq. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the position of the Government of Japan and to call upon the people of Japan for their understanding and cooperation. The original cause of the current problem of Iraq, I believe, stems from the Gulf War where Iraq invaded Kuwait 13 years ago. In the case of this Gulf War, Iraq accepted the conduct of ceasefire negotiations. At that time, the United States and other members of the multinational coalition forces liberated Kuwait and imposed on Iraq as a condition for the ceasefire, that it dispose of its weapons of mass destruction. During the 12 years that have ensued, Iraq has not abided by this ceasefire resolution. It has not sufficiently cooperated. It was in that context that in November 2002, the international community united to adopt a United Nations resolution giving Iraq a final opportunity to demonstrate its sincerity to cooperate immediately, unconditionally and without limit, with inspections of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons and biological weapons. The Government of Japan has consistently stressed to Iraq, as well as to countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and France, that a peaceful solution was the solution most desirable and that efforts should continue until the last moment. The way things have elapsed since then, however, during this period Iraq has unfortunately ignored, or has not taken seriously, or even ridiculed the United Nations resolutions. I do not believe that Iraq has acted with sufficient sincerity. Now, at this juncture, based on such thoughts, I understand and support the engagement in the military action by the United States. The Resolution 1441 adopted at the UN last year, as well as the incidents such as the terrorist attacks that occurred in New York on September 11, 2001, lead many people in the world, not only the people of Japan and of the United States, to strongly recognize the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Perception towards war, so to speak, has also come to change. How to eliminate the threat posed by such weapons of mass destruction has been an important objective for the international community. It will continue to be so. The terrorist incidents that took place in New York and against the Department of Defense at the Pentagon last year did not involve the use of weapons of mass destruction. These were terrorist incidents that made use of civilian aircrafts as weapons, something impossible to have been conceived before. As a result, thousands of innocent citizens who had nothing to do with the terrorists were sacrificed. They were not only citizens of the United States; there were Japanese citizens as well. People around the world in different nationalities should have questioned in indignation why so many had to be sacrificed or why so much damage were inflicted upon by such an immoral act. What would be the consequences were dangerous weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of a dangerous dictator? Any consequences would certainly not be limited to the people of the United States. This is not a matter without implications for Japan. I believe that all people are now aware that we would all be facing grave danger should dangerous weapons fall into the hands of dangerous dictators. How to prevent this is a matter of concern to the entire world. Against that background, I have continued to believe that peaceful efforts must be maintained until the very end. Unfortunately, however, that aim was not achieved. Iraq has not cooperated without the pressure of military presence. Even with the continuous pressure, it has failed to fully cooperate. President Bush stated this time that the actions being taken were aimed to disarm Iraq and that this was not an attack against the people of Iraq. Rather, this was a strategy designed to give freedom to the people of Iraq and to build prosperous lives for them in the future. I concur with that view. Japan will support the policy of United States President Bush. The most important basic policy that has underpinned Japan's postwar development to date has been our adhering to the Japan-US alliance and to the international coordination. Deeply reflecting on the defeat of the Second World War, Japan must never again allow itself to be isolated from the international community. Based on such thoughts, Japan has pursued its development while working on an international coordination system. At the same time, in order to ensure its security, Japan formed an alliance with the United States based on the recognition that it was insufficient for Japan on its own to protect itself. Given that Japan cannot ensure its own security alone, Japan concluded the Japan-US Security Treaty and has firmly maintained the Japan-US alliance as a means of ensuring the security of our nation. There will be no change in our firmly maintaining an international coordination system in order to ensure the security of the people of Japan and to strive for the prosperity and development of our nation. Unfortunately, the situation has come to a point where force cannot but be used. Japan will continue to deal with the problem of Iraq while making efforts so that the use of force can end as promptly as possible with smallest sacrifice. The United States and the United Kingdom have commenced military action. Although Japan supports the position of the United States, it will not use force in any way. Nor will it participate in any military campaign. Hoping for an end to war as soon as possible, Japan must fulfill its responsibility as a member of the international community, through coordination with the international community to see what can be done for the people of Iraq, what is necessary for the reconstruction of Iraq and to see how we can promote friendly relations with Iraq's neighbours and Arab nations, and to see how we can deepen understanding of and cooperation with Islamic countries. We can never be sure when the threat will fall upon Japan. In the event that Japan's own responses are inadequate, we must make full efforts to ensure the security of the Japanese nationals based on the strong relationship of trust under the Japan-US Security Treaty and Japan-US alliance. The United States has clearly stated that an attack on Japan would be an attack on the United States. The United States is the only country which clearly states that an attack on Japan would be considered as an attack on the United States. The people of Japan should not forget that the fact that the United States deems the attack to Japan as an attack to itself is serving as a great deterrence against any country attempting to attack on Japan. With the solid trust under the Japan-US alliance, Japan has to date worked to ensure the security of its people and to attain economic development. Even if an international coordination system to deal with the Iraqi problem failed to be formed for now, I am convinced that the time will come when many countries keenly realize the necessity of international collaboration for world peace, stability and prosperity. Japan's policy of holding firm the importance of the Japan-US alliance and of the international coordination to attain this will not change. From my heart, I would like to ask the people of Japan for their understanding and support for the position of the Government of Japan. South KoreaRemarks by National Security Adviser Ra Jong-yil, March 19We have not yet decided on specifics, such as the dispatching of non-combat troops. But one is clear, that we support what the United States is doing." Source: S. Korea voices support for US war in Iraq, Reuters, March 19. Latvia'Diplomatic Resources Have Been Exhausted': Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry of Latvia, http://www.am.gov.lv. On March 20, the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime by military means has begun. Twelve years of prolonged effort by the international community to disarm the Hussein regime by peaceful means have ended in failure; diplomatic resources have been exhausted. Since 1990, the Un Security Council has adopted 17 resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq and its cooperation with the United Nations. On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, offering Saddam Hussein the final opportunity to finish his twelve-year long confrontation with the international community and willingly and unconditionally comply with the demands of the UN Security Council to fully disarm. The Iraqi regime is solely and exclusively responsible for the consequences of its actions. It is the responsibility of the international community to eliminate the threat posed by the uncontrolled proliferation of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the danger that they could fall into the hands of international terrorists, to be used against the peaceful inhabitants of any nation in the world. The flouting of UN Security Council resolutions, which undermines the authority of the United Nations and the international order, cannot be allowed to occur. The Parliament of the Republic of Latvia has taken the decision "On the Support of the Implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1441", pledging support to and readiness to join the international coalition aiming at disarmament of Iraq. We support the military forces of our coalition partners who, in risking their lives, are averting threats to peace and international security. Latvia stresses that the utmost possible must be done to avoid civilian casualties in the course of the military operation. The people of Iraq have already suffered heavily as a result of the crimes of the Hussein regime. Latvia will offer humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, take part in the rebuilding of the country and work to eliminate the legacy of totalitarianism. Latvia regrets that Saddam Hussein has managed to split the international community, making any further diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation impossible. Latvia will support the involvement of the UN in the post-conflict rebuilding and establishment of a democratic Iraq. We are convinced that active involvement by the UN following the conclusion of military action in Iraq will secure the authority of the UN in the international community. Lithuania'The Operation...Is The Last-Step Resort': Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Lithuania's position on military conflict in Iraq', Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20; Foreign Ministry of Lithuania, http://www.urm.lt. Lithuania has always spoken out for peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, we have also stood by the opinion that the UN inspections in Iraq could not go on for indefinite time, if Iraq would not cooperate fully Lithuania expresses its regret that Saddam Hussein's regime did not take the last opportunity made available for it. In our belief, the operation launched by the coalition is the last-resort step aimed at Iraq's disarmament, which was envisaged by the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. We assure [the international community] of Lithuania's readiness to contribute by political and other limited measures to the actions of the international coalition in order to disarm Iraq. We hope that the military action in Iraq will last as short as possible, which would allow avoiding negative consequences both for the stability in the Middle East and for the economy of the entire world. In addressing the issue of its contribution to the further settlement of the crisis in Iraq, Lithuania will first of all follow the general principles of humanism. Lithuania is prepared to contribute to the normalisation of the humanitarian situation, closely coordinating its actions with the relevant international institutions. In our view, during this demanding time it is especially important for the US and Europe to maintain unity, to secure the Euro-Atlantic link, and to jointly seek solutions to the strategic issues. Netherlands'What We Have Tried So Long And So Hard To Avoid Has Become A Reality': Statement by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, March 20'Government hopes for quick end to the conflict,' radio and television address by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, March 20; excerpts provided by the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, http://www.minbuza.nl. What we have tried so long and so hard to avoid has become a reality. ... [Saddam Hussein is clearly a threat to international security.] He has twice invaded neighbouring countries. He has used chemical weapons against his neighbours and against the Kurds in his own country. Many hundreds of thousands of people have become victims of his terror. ... [H]e has still not explained what has happened to his large stocks of chemical and biological weapons. ... [The aim of this action is] freedom and security - including for the people of Iraq. ... I sincerely hope that the conflict will quickly come to an end. That innocent lives will be spared. That the suffering will be limited. That peace and security will be achieved, and will usher in a better future for us all. NicaraguaRemarks by Government Spokesperson Joel Gutierrez, March 20Nicaragua supports the right of the United States and its allies to defend themselves against countries that have harboured and helped terrorist activities, and that have used international organizations to maintain their weapons of mass destruction. Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. PolandRemarks by President Aleksander Kwasniewski, March 20The threat of terrorism is a fact. The world bears the joint responsibility and should show solidarity in fighting terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. Slovakia'The Slovak Republic Stands On The Side Of Democracy': Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic on situation in Iraq, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry of Slovakia, http://www.foreign.gov.sk. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic notes with regret that tremendous efforts of the international community to disarm Iraq by peaceful means did not bring the expected results. The regime of Saddam Hussein has failed to take the last chance offered by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The Iraqi regime has failed to co-operate adequately and to dispel justified suspicions of possessing and intending to use the weapons of mass destruction. Thus, not even in the face of international pressure, did the Iraqi regime stop acting against the interests of its own people, and continues to represent a threat for the stability in the Near and Middle East, and for global security. The threat of terrorism and of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq concerns all the countries without exception. In this grave moment, the Slovak Republic stands on the side of democracy and of the forces enforcing stability in the world. The UN mandate to take action against Iraq has been implemented through almost two dozen resolutions over the last 12 years. It was articulated, in particular, in the conclusions of UN SC resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, which were not respected. These resolutions were adopted under chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes the use of force as may be necessary to restore international peace and security. The aforesaid UN documents, adopted with a view to helping resolve the situation in the country by peaceful means, were seriously breached by Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Iraq has failed to disarm, has failed to admit to the possession of dangerous chemical substances and of the weapons of mass destruction. It must, therefore, be fully aware of the serious consequences it faces for thus acting. The Slovak Republic is convinced that the new Iraq shall no longer be the source for spreading terrorism and for the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. The attainment of these high goals calls for international cooperation, unity and common approach of international organisations under the UN auspices. The Slovak Republic regrets that the chance for a peaceful resolution of the situation in Iraq has not been seized. However, being aware of the real danger represented by the Iraqi regime, it supports the actions taken to enforce order and stability, and to build a new, prosperous and unified Iraq. Democracy and prosperity in the region would contribute to defusing tensions and to a lasting and just resolution of the long-standing conflicts in the Near and Middle East. SpainStatement by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, March 20There were more comfortable options [than war]... [But] we don't want to postpone until the future the risks that we have to face now... The government of this nation supports the re-establishment of international law so that conditions for peace and security prevail... Sources: World condemns Iraq war, fears for civilian lives, Agence France Presse, March 20; Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. TurkeyRemarks by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, March 20I don't find the United States' unilateral behaviour right before the UN process is completed. Source: Turkey grants US warplanes right to use airspace for Iraq war, Associated Press, March 20. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |