|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation 'Operation Iraqi Freedom': A Compilation of Statements & Reaction to the Beginning of Military Operations, March 19/23
III. International Comment & Reaction: Critics, Sceptics & Non-Coalition Supporters
Austria'Bitter Reality': Statement by Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner, March 20'Ferreroner on the initiation of military action against Iraq, March 20, 2003'; Austrian Foreign Ministry, http://www.bmaa.gv.at. Just a few hours ago it has become a matter of certainty that a solution of the Iraq crisis by using only political and diplomatic means has become impossible. ... [War has now] unfortunately become bitter reality. ... Numerous states, among them Austria, have made intensive efforts to solve the crisis peacefully on the basis of the UN-weapons inspections. These efforts have unfortunately failed to attain the success we had all hoped for... In the Austrian opinion it is the exclusive competence of the UN Security Council to ascertain Iraq's non-compliance with these requirements [under resolution 1441] and to interpret the "serious consequences" [referred to in the resolution]... ArgentinaRemarks by President Eduardo Duhalde, March 20We are against this war and we are not going to support it or take part in it... Source: For much of world, war brings protests and nervousness, New York Times, March 20. Belgium'No Attempt Was Made To Follow The Path Of Peace Through To The End': Statement from Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, March 20'Message from Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt concerning Iraq, March 20, 2003'; Belgian Foreign Ministry, http://www.diplomatie.be. The military operations led against Iraq began a few hours ago. We all wished to avoid the launch of such operations. As Belgians, we know from our parents and grandparents that war is a dreadful ordeal. We are deeply disappointed at the fact that no attempt was made to follow the path of peace through to the end in order to avoid this war. Following the example of Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, the Government remains convinced that there is an alternative. A clear working programme for the continuation of inspections, linked to a timetable, could have led to the effective disarmament of Iraq. Mr Hans Blix himself presented such a programme a few days ago. The Security Council had begun examining it on Wednesday. In vain. We continue to believe that the abandonment of international law and order is too high a price to pay for the disarmament, however desirable, of the regime in place in Baghdad. The Government also deplores the fact that the dictator, Saddam Hussein, has not put the interests of the Iraqi people first by leaving Iraq. He has thus demonstrated, once again, his lack of respect for human lives. We have not forgotten the Iraqi people, caught between the devil and the deep sea. We can only hope for them that the war will be as short as possible and that the number of human victims will remain small. We are committed henceforth to providing humanitarian assistance, wherever and as rapidly as we are able. In the context of this crisis, Belgium has adopted its position in close cooperation with two of our largest neighbours, France and Germany. We have always acted in close consultation. We intend to continue along this path. Together, we have been unable to prevent war. Nonetheless, we will continue to work together to restore peace as rapidly as possible. In the interests of the Iraqi people, in the interests of international law and order, and in the interests of us all. Bosnia and Herzegovina'Deep Regret': Statement by the Government, March 20'Position of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding the war in Iraq, Sarajevo, March 20'; Bosnia and Herzegovina Foreign Ministry, http://www.mvp.gov.ba. On the occasion of the commencement of military attacks on Iraq the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina this morning has held an extraordinary session devoted to the Iraqi crisis. The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina expresses regret for the disarmament of Iraq has not been settled down and ended in a peaceful way in the framework of the United Nations. We believe that we are not entering the second crisis and that the United Nations will not lose its own initiative regarding the settlement of this situation... The Presidency...also expresses hope that the war in Iraq shall not cause suffering of civil population. Brazil'[We] Wish To Inhabit A Peaceful World, In Which The Norms Of International Law Are Fully Adhered To': Statement by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, March 20'Statement on the Iraqi conflict by the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, March 20, 2003'; Brazilian Foreign Ministry, http://www.mre.gov.br. I speak to the people of Brazil to express my feelings of regret at the onset of armed intervention in Iraq and, in particular, the recourse to force without the express authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Since I assumed the Presidency, I have embarked on a series of initiatives seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis, with the full compliance by Iraq of the Security Council's resolutions. To that end I have spoken, personally and by telephone, with various world leaders and heads of government. I have, up until the last moment, sought a negotiated settlement. With this aim in view, I repeatedly contacted the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Brazilian foreign office and I myself did everything we could to avoid this conflict. Since this war started, our concern has been for the suffering that will be borne by the innocent, whose lives should be protected. I should like to make an appeal for the norms of international humanitarian law to be observed, particularly insofar as they relate to the protection of civilian personnel and refugees. We are also troubled by the regional and international repercussions that this conflict will occasion. We don't want an increase of the instability in the Middle East, a region which is the birthplace of the forbears of many Brazilians and to which we are linked by friendship and co-operation. We all need stability and peace in order to carry out our struggle for economic development with social justice. We are adopting various measures in order that the people of Brazil should not have to suffer the consequences of war. We are taking care of supplies, of health measures, keeping watch over our borders and lending assistance to Brazilians who live in the region affected by the conflict. I am certain that, through these measures, I am acting in accordance with the feelings of the people of Brazil, who wish to inhabit a peaceful world, in which the norms of international law are fully adhered to. Canada'There is No Use Debating': Statement by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, March 20'Statement by the Prime Minister, House of Commons, Ottawa, March 20, 2003'; website of the Prime Minister, http://www.pm.gc.ca. The war has started - we hope it will be brief with a minimum of casualties on both sides. At this point, I think there is no use debating the reasons why some people think war is necessary and some people think it is not. We should not say anything that would comfort Saddam Hussein. ... We think about the safety and security of our troops who are performing indispensable tasks in the fight against international terrorism in the Gulf region. The government is already working closely with the international community at the multilateral level to start reconstructing Iraq post-war. 'Canada Would require The Approval Of The Security Council': Statement by Prime Minister Chretien, March 19Prime Minister Jean Chretien, reply to a question on Iraq during Question Period, House of Commons, Ottawa, March 19; website of the Prime Minister. I want to set out the position of the government of Canada. We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign. Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately we were not successful. If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate. We have ships in the area as part of our participation in the struggle against terrorism. Our ships will continue to perform their important mission against terrorism. ChileUN Ambassador Gabriel Valdes, March 20It is a tragedy. Another tragedy is going to begin now... Source: For much of world, war brings protests and nervousness, New York Times, March 20. China'Stop Military Actions': Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Statement of the Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China, March 20, 2003'; Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng. On 20 March, bypassing the UN Security Council, the United States and some other countries launched military operations against Iraq. The Chinese Government hereby expresses its serious concern. The Chinese Government has all along stood for a political settlement of the Iraq issue within the UN framework, urging the Iraqi Government to fully and earnestly implement the relevant Security Council resolutions and calling for respect for Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity by the international community. Security Council Resolution 1441 adopted unanimously last November is an important basis for a political settlement of the Iraq question. It is the widely-held view in the international community that the strict implementation of Resolution 1441 can deny Iraq weapons of mass destruction through peaceful means. The Chinese Government has worked tirelessly with various countries to this end. War will inevitably lead to humanitarian disasters and undermine the security, stability and development of the region and the world at large. People throughout the world detest war and want to see peace preserved. The Chinese Government is always committed to peace and stability in the world. We stand for settlement of international disputes by political means and reject the use or threat of force in international affairs. The Chinese Government strongly appeals the relevant countries to stop military actions and return to the right path of seeking a political solution to the Iraq question. Croatia'Who Will Be Next?': Remarks by President Stipe Mesic, March 20We cannot accept the establishment of a model of behaviour in international relations which would allow, to put it simply, those that possess force...to take military action against the regime of any country. For if we accept that in the case of one country, with what moral right could we turn it down in the case of another? And...who will be next? Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. Egypt'Dangerous Repercussions': Remarks by President Hosni Mubarak, March 19My hope is that the Iraqi government will realize the seriousness of the situation in which it put itself - and us - in, and that the different international forces will realize the dangerous repercussions of any military action on the safety and stability of the Middle East region as well as on the safety and stability of the world as a whole... [T]he ruling regime is an internal affair that concerns every state...without external intervention to impose a certain type or model. Source: Mubarak blames Iraq for crisis, Associated Press, March 19. France'Europe Must Realize The Need To Express Its Own Vision Of World Problems': Statement by President Jacques Chirac, March 20Televised address by Jacques Chirac, President of France, March 20; French Ministry of Foreign Affairs transcript, http://www.france.diplomatie.fr. My dear compatriots - the military operations have just begun in Iraq. France regrets this action initiated without United Nations backing. I hope these operations are as swift and cause as little bloodshed as possible, and that they do not lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Right to the end, France, with many other countries, strove to convince that the necessary disarmament of Iraq could be obtained by peaceful means. These came to nothing. Regardless of the duration of this conflict, it will be fraught with consequences for the future. But France, true to its principles - primacy of the law, fairness, dialogue between peoples and respect for others - will continue to do what it can to ensure that fair, long-term solutions are found to the crises bathing the world in blood or threatening it, through collective action, i.e. in the framework of the United Nations, the only legitimate framework for building peace, in Iraq as elsewhere. This is why, tomorrow, we shall have to meet again, with our allies, with the whole international community, to take up together the challenges awaiting us. Similarly, France will not accept Europe remaining unfinished. Europe must realize the need to express its own vision of world problems and support this vision with a credible common defense. France is calling on its partners in the European Union and those going to join it to fulfil this ambition, in the service of peace and prosperity. 'Profound Concern': French Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Paris, March 20, 2003'; French Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. At the moment when the first military operations in Iraq are beginning, the French authorities signal their profound concern. They sincerely hope that everything possible will be done to spare the civilian population from further ordeals. They call on the countries in the region to refrain from any initiative which would worsen the situation. They express the hope that the conflict which has just begun can be brought to an end as swiftly as possible. 'Another Method Was Possible': Statement by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, March 20'Reply by M. Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to a Question in the Senate, Paris, March 20, 2003'; French Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. It is with great emotion that I speak to you at the moment when the first military operations are beginning in Iraq. Throughout the past few months, with all her partners, with the vast majority of the international community, with the hope and support of the world's peoples, France has relentlessly striven for peaceful disarmament to succeed in Iraq, collective responsibility to guide our action, and the law to prevail over force. This is why France, as President Chirac said this morning, regrets this action. We regret it because it doesn't have United Nations backing. We regret it because another method was possible. The will of the majority of the Security Council members was to pursue the inspections which were producing results; it wasn't heeded. France wants to reiterate her conviction: war is not the solution. We know it will exacerbate the difficulties of an already vulnerable region; we fear it may intensify the feeling of injustice. The use of force has to be only a last resort. So, must we resign ourselves to what's happened? France can't be fatalistic, she can't reconcile herself to the division of the international community. Confronted with the threats of terrorism, proliferation, regional crises, unity must be our prime objective. This is the sine qua non we defended yesterday in New York with our Russian, German and Chinese partners at the Security Council's ministerial meeting. Together, we reaffirmed our confidence in the United Nations. Here as elsewhere, today like tomorrow, it will have a key role to play. It is now time for responsible action. France, through the voice of President Chirac, has proposed a Security Council meeting at head of State and government level. This is our collective responsibility, we must accept it, face up to the urgency of the situation. The first challenge we have to take up...is the humanitarian one. We are calling on everyone to do all they can so that human lives are spared. We must consider the suffering of civilians, all the victims, the refugees and displaced persons, and we hope that the war will be limited and brief. We welcome the mobilization, by the Secretary-General, of the relevant humanitarian agencies: including the World Food Programme, UNHCR, UNICEF and WHO. We hope they will also put forward proposals so that the Oil-for-Food Programme, established by UNSCR 986, can resume as quickly as possible, with the necessary adjustments, under the Security Council's authority. France intends to take her full place in this international action, liaising with the host countries and working in coordination with the United Nations agencies, particularly on Iraq's borders where several hundreds of thousands of refugees could soon find themselves in distress. ... The second challenge is Iraq's political and economic future. Only the United Nations has the legitimacy to see through the reconstruction, on the international community's behalf, with the prime concern of ensuring Iraq's unity, integrity and sovereignty. That country's destiny has to be solely in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. The third challenge is that of the region's stability. We must avoid anything which widens the gulf between cultures and societies. Force cannot be the main means of settling crises. ... It is urgent to open up a new political way forward to allay the Israeli people's security concerns and address the Palestinian people's need for justice. We want to bring the Quartet's roadmap into the public domain. The French proposal for an international conference for the Middle East is now more relevant than ever. Concurrently, the United Nations must retake the initiative on all the other crises. ... To combat terrorism ...political, police and judicial coordination in the intelligence sphere is more necessary than ever. On the proliferation front, the issue of North Korea is a daily reminder of the urgent need to develop a comprehensive approach. There's a need to develop or strengthen, in the United Nations framework, the indispensable tools to combat this threat. With this in mind, France has proposed a meeting of heads of State and government in the margins of the next General Assembly. She has also proposed the creation of an international disarmament body in order to take full advantage of the experience gained by the inspectors in Iraq. ... Faced with this crisis, Europe has revealed its divisions, but it remains at the heart of our vision, at the heart of our ambition for the world. Europe must pull itself together, and the European Council beginning this afternoon in Brussels offers the opportunity to reaffirm the principles and values which unite us. Everywhere, Europe must be in a position to shoulder its responsibilities, be it under the common foreign and security policy or the defence policy. Germany'Concern and Dismay': Government Statement, March 20'Statement by the German Government With Regard To Military Action Against Iraq, March 20, 2003'; German Embassy in Washington, D.C., http://www.germany-info.org. The war in Iraq has begun. In a brief speech to the American people (4:15 a.m. Central European Time) President George W. Bush announced that American and allied forces had begun their operations. This news is a source of great concern to the German government. It calls upon those involved in the war not use to weapons of mass destruction. Everything possible must be done to avoid a humanitarian disaster. The news that the war against Iraq has begun evoked a strong sense of concern and dismay in the German government. It, together with the governments of France, Russia, and other partner countries had undertaken considerable efforts in an attempt to disarm Iraq peacefully and to avert a war. Regretfully, efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully have failed. Unfortunately the road that had led to considerable success in disarming Iraq by means of UN weapons inspections was not followed to the end. Now everything possible must be done to avoid a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqi civilian population. The German government hopes that the military action will be completed as rapidly as possible. It expects those involved in the war to do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. This includes, in particular, not using weapons of mass destruction. The German government is willing to support the United Nations and its specialized agencies in providing humanitarian relief to help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. The United Nations and the UN Security Council will need to play a central role in restoring peace in Iraq. The objective now must be to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq and as soon as possible to put the Iraqi people in a position to return an Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction to its former status as a respected and prosperous member of the family of nations. Germany will make an appropriate contribution to this effort under the aegis of the United Nations. 'There Would have Been A Different Way': Statement by Chancellor Gerhard Schröeder, March 20Remarks by Chancellor Gerhard Schröeder, televised address to the nation, March 20; extracts provided by German Embassy in Washington, D.C. We have tried to prevent this war up until the last moment. ... I am convinced: There would have been a different way in disarming Iraq. ... This view is shared by the overwhelming majority of my people, the majority in the UN Security Council and of peoples worldwide. ... But this is not the time to point fingers and to contemplate past failures. We have to look ahead now. War has begun. It has to end as soon as possible. Bombs are falling, and we hope that the number of civilian casualties will be minimized. It still stands: Germany is not participating in this war. But, of course, Germany also will not stand on the sidelines when people are in need. We are prepared to offer humanitarian aid within the framework of the United Nations in providing humanitarian relief to help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. We are prepared to help refugees - with food, medicines and clothing. We are prepared to provide medical care to injured soldiers. And, of course, we remain prepared, under the leadership of the United Nations, to contribute all we can to establishing political order after the war which, we hope, will be a peace order for Iraq and the entire region. ... The differences over a war are clear differences in opinion between governments, not deep differences between nations who are friends. The substance of our relationship with the United States of America is not in jeopardy. The nations of the world desire peace. They desire the rule of law, which is the basis of every freedom. That is what we are working for. Germany is not participating in the Iraq war. But Germany will, indeed, live up to its obligations within the framework of the NATO alliance. 'There Is No Reason To Interrupt This Disarmament Process': Statement by Chancellor Schröeder, March 18'Statement by Chancellor Schröder on the Iraq crisis, March 18, 2003'; German Embassy in Washington, D.C. My fellow citizens, the world stands on the brink of a war. My question was and still is: Does the extent of the threat that emanates from the Iraqi dictator justify the use of war, something that will bring certain death to thousands of innocent men, women and children? My answer in this case was and still is: No! Iraq is now a country subject to extensive UN monitoring. What the Security Council has demanded in the way of disarmament steps is being fulfilled more and more. As such, there is no reason to interrupt this disarmament process now. My government has worked hard together with our partners for the increasing success of Hans Blix and his staff. We have always seen this as our contribution to peace in the world. This is in keeping with the basic values to which we feel committed. I am deeply touched by the fact that a very large majority of our people share this view with me, along with a majority of the countries on the Security Council and the nations of the world. I have my doubts as to whether peace is going to be given a chance in the coming hours. As desirable as it is that this dictator be removed from office, the objective of Resolution 1441 is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. My fellow citizens, whatever happens over the next few days or weeks, you may rest assured that my government will continue to avail itself of every opportunity, not matter how small, to promote peace. The United Nations continues to be the framework for this. You can also be sure that we will do everything we can to guarantee the security of our country in every conceivable way. I took an oath to promote the welfare of our people and to protect them from harm. This applies first and foremost in times of war. I will fulfill this duty and in doing so I place my confidence in your will for peace and your support. 'It Is Our Joint Task Now To Tackle The Consequences Of War': Federal President Johannes Rau, March 19Statement by Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, March 19; extracts provided by the German Embassy in Washington, D.C. It is consistent with our democratic tradition that we clearly distance ourselves from any form of anti-Americanism or anti-Islamic tendencies. This is a political responsibility for all. ... I am convinced that Europeans and Americans alike are dependent on one another. The transatlantic partnership remains a central pillar of our foreign policy. The people in the United States of America and Germany share many ties and relations. ... It is our joint task now to tackle the consequences of war, as horrible it may be. This is what we owe to the Iraqi people and all of those that have suffered under the regime of Saddam Hussein. GreeceRemarks by Costas Laliotis, Secretary of the governing Socialist party, March 20Bush is reserving for himself the role of sole ruler and world ruler. Bush and his hawks...erased every hope of a peaceful solution. Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. The Holy SeePapal Spokesperson Joacquin Navarro-Valls, March 20[The Pope regrets the fact that Iraq] did not accept the resolutions of the United nations and the appeal by the Pope himself, which asked for that country to disarm... [But the Pope also] deplores [the fact] that negotiations under international law to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq drama were interrupted. ... Sources: World condemns Iraq war, fears for civilian lives, Agence France Presse, March 20; For much of world, war brings protests and nervousness, New York Times, March 20. Papal Aide Cardinal Pio Laghi, March 20I feel a sense of frustration, fear, fright, especially thinking of the death that's looming over those people. Source: Comments from around the world on war, Associated Press, March 20. India'The Deepest Anguish': Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Statement by Official Spokesperson on the commencement of military action in Iraq, New Delhi, March 20,2003'; Indian Foreign Ministry website, http://meadev.nic.in. It is with the deepest anguish that we have seen reports of the commencement of military action in Iraq. India recognizes the full force and validity of the objective of the international community to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, which is set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, under chapter VII of the UN Charter. Recent weeks have seen serious divergence of opinion among members of the UN Security Council on action in respect of Iraq's compliance with Resolution 1441. It is a matter of grave concern that continuing differences within the Security Council prevented a harmonization of the positions of its members, resulting in seriously impairing the authority of the UN system. The military action begun today thus lacks justification. It also appears from the various pronouncements of Dr. Hans Blix and Dr. ElBaradei that military action was avoidable. We also have to pay special attention to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We sincerely hope that the Iraqi people will not be subject to further hardships, sufferings, loss of lives and damage to property from an extended military operation. The international community must already begin large-scale effort to alleviate the human suffering. India will be ready to play its part in such an effort. Indonesia'An Act Of Aggression Which Is In Contravention To International Law': Statement by President Megawati Soekarnoputri, March 20'Indonesia strongly deplores unilateral action against Iraq', statement by Megawati Soekarnoputri, President of Indonesia, Jakarta, March 20; Indonesian Foreign Ministry, http://www.dfa-deplu.go.id. 1. The Government and the people of Indonesia strongly deplores the unilateral action taken by the Government of the United States of America and its allies that have decided to go to war against Iraq. Indonesia deeply regrets that the multilateral process through the UN Security Council has been sidelined. Indonesia is of the view that the use of military force against Iraq based on the unilateral decision constitutes an act of aggression which is in contravention to international law. This unilateral military action has also threatened the world order. 2. War will not only fail to resolve the problem, but it will also cause humanitarian tragedy. The Government and the people of Indonesia are gravely concerned over the innocent civilian casualties and the immense material losses that may result from this military action. The war will bring negative economic and political impacts to the Middle East region and throughout the world, including Indonesia. 3. The Indonesian Government, through its diplomatic efforts both bilaterally and through international fora such as ASEAN, the Non Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and the United Nations, has consistently stressed the need to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis. These efforts have even been strengthened by peace missions of the Indonesian inter-faith leaders to several countries as well as by the repeated call for peace from all segments of the Indonesian nation. The Government has earlier on established "the National Team to Address the Impact of the Iraqi Crisis" in order to take precautionary measures for the protection of Indonesian nationals in the Middle East as well as to anticipate negative impacts towards Indonesia. 4. The Government of Indonesia demands the United Nations Security Council, which has the responsibility to maintain international peace and security, to immediately convene in an emergency meeting in order to urge the Government of the United States of America and its allies to immediately stop the war and for the Government of the United States of America and its allies to be responsible to overcome the humanitarian aspects resulting from the conflict situation. Should the efforts by the UN Security Council come to a dead-lock, Indonesia will urge the UN General Assembly to convene in an emergency session under the framework of the "uniting for peace" resolution. 5. The Government of Indonesia emphasizes the need to avoid the further destabilization of the Middle East region. The Indonesian Government also stresses that any solution to the question of Iraq should respect the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iraq. 6. The Government of Indonesia calls on all Indonesian nationals within the vicinity of Iraq to remain calm and report to the nearest Indonesian Missions for any necessary assistance and protection. 7. The Government of Indonesia fully shares the outpouring of anti-war calls and sympathy from the Indonesian people towards the plight of the Iraqi people. Such sympathy should be expressed in a peaceful and democratic manner as well as in a manner that should not undermine public order and our national stability - and by maintaining our national unity and integrity. Iran'A Horrible Illusion': Remarks by President Mohammad Khatami, March 21We have opposed this move from the outset and today we again clearly condemn this military attack... [This war] is a threat against humanity and global peace, since it is based on a horrible illusion of a superpower which [believes] that, since it has force, it has the right to impose its demands at will at whatever cost... Source: Iran leaders call for immediate halt to Iraq war, Reuters, March 21. Remarks by Supreme Leader Ayotollah Ali Khamenei, March 21The Islamic Republic of Iran, while calling for an immediate halt to the war, does not defend the dictatorial Ba'ath regime... It only defends the Iraqi nation and believes the future of Iraq must be decided only by the Iraqi nation." Source: Iran leaders call for immediate halt to Iraq war, Reuters, March 21. Ireland'The Credibility And Prestige Of The United Nations Has Suffered A Heavy Blow': Statement by Foreign Minister Brian Cowen, March 20'Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brian Cowen, T.D., on the situation regarding Iraq, Dáil Éireann, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry of Ireland, http://www.irlgov.ie. That we stand on the verge of military conflict is both a tragedy and a failure. A tragedy, because any conflict, no matter who its protagonists may be, and no matter how worthy or unworthy its aims, brings suffering and death to combatants and to civilians. A failure, because for twelve years, and as restated by Resolution 1441, the objective of the international community has been the complete disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means. Our failure has been a collective one, in that it is through the United Nations that the nations of the world seek to act together to maintain international peace, stability and security. The credibility and prestige of the United Nations has suffered a heavy blow through the inability of the Security Council, so impressively united in the autumn, to agree on an appropriate way forward. The permanent members of the Security Council have a particular weight and authority within the United Nations. It is deeply regrettable, therefore, that they have been unable to work together to agree a path to the disarmament of Iraq without resort to force. It would be neither useful nor appropriate to speculate as to whether, if this or that had been done differently, it would have been possible for them to agree. But the absence of a common approach among the permanent members left the Security Council without a clear compass by which to navigate. The international machinery of the United Nations is only effective when there is clear leadership from those Member States entrusted with the heaviest responsibilities. The Secretary General has played a quite outstanding role in seeking to build and encourage this consensus, but his capacity to do so is ultimately defined by the willingness of the member states to facilitate his efforts. It is a matter of the greatest regret to Ireland that the Iraqi crisis has now reached a point where military conflict has begun. This is exactly the outcome which we had worked to avoid during our time on the Security Council and since. The Government have consistently opposed the use of force, except as a last resort after all other possible means have been tried and failed. Ireland was a member of the Security Council when it unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. The Resolution states clearly that Iraq's non-compliance with Council Resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a threat to international peace and security. Nevertheless, it offered Iraq a last opportunity to bring itself into compliance. The Resolution then warned Iraq of serious consequences. Regrettably, Saddam Hussein made no genuine effort to convince the world of the seriousness of his intentions to disarm. Instead, he engaged in the games-playing and brinkmanship which have been his favoured tactics for more than a dozen years. Ireland has repeatedly stated its view that if Iraq continued in its non-compliance, a second Security Council resolution should be adopted. We believe that this is what should have been done. The United States and Britain have long held the view that earlier Security Council Resolutions already mandate the use of force, and that no further authorisation is required. They are now acting on this belief. It is clear that there is no generally accepted view on the validity of the different interpretations and it is unlikely that agreement on this point can be reached. The compelling political reality is that a second resolution would signal the unity and resolve of the international community, and the clear legitimacy of any subsequent military action. Ireland would have been prepared to support a Resolution of the Security Council to enforce its decisions, had that been agreed. I would recall that we urged the Member States of the Council to consider three questions. These were: What precisely did Iraq have to do to meet the demands of the Council? How long did it have to do it? And how would the Security Council discharge its responsibility if Iraq does not comply? Today, at the end of all these long months of debate, these three questions remained unanswered. Unfortunately, by the time the Member States were ready to address them, the dye was cast in terms of the depth of disagreement within the Council for compromise to be possible between them. This entire crisis has arisen as a result of Saddam Hussein's persistent defiance which has continued over seventeen Security Council Resolutions and a period of twelve years and follows upon two wars and one million casualties. We hope that this coming conflict will be short. The participants in the military action against Iraq must take every care to see to it that the use of force is as limited and proportional as possible. We look to those engaged in the conflict to minimise casualties, in particular among civilians. They will be well aware of their responsibility to respect international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people was a major factor in the Government's approach to the issue of Iraq during Ireland's term on the Security Council. The Government strived to bring about a situation where the Iraqi economy was normalised to the extent possible, given the need to ensure that Iraq did not rearm and that it met its disarmament obligations. That such a situation was not brought about in 2001 was primarily the fault of the Iraqi regime itself. Nonetheless, Ireland as a Council member continued to work hard, with others, on this issue, and these efforts paid off with the adoption of resolution 1409 in May of 2002, which provided that all non-military goods - not just food and medicines - could be freely imported to Iraq, with the exception of potential dual-use goods. The Government have expressed our views and used our influence on every occasion, in every forum and in all our meetings and contacts to urge the need for a peaceful outcome. We have stressed that all means short of force must be tried, and that force may be used only as a very last resort. We have repeatedly called attention to the dangers entailed in military conflict. We have pointed to the threat of large-scale loss of life, casualties and human suffering. . We have laid particular emphasis on humanitarian concerns. We have signalled the risk that conflict could destabilise an already volatile region. We have warned that extremists and terrorists would do all they could to exploit tensions between the Moslem world and Europe and the United States. We have spoken of the possible consequences for economic growth. As the Taoiseach has made clear, we have also been faced with the specific domestic question of whether or not, in the absence of a second Security Council resolution, to withdraw from the United States and its allies the right, subject to the normal conditions, to overfly our territory and to transit through Shannon airport. In 1990/1991, the then Government made clear the position that the extension of overflight and landing facilities at Shannon did not give rise to any question of Ireland's declaring war or participating in a war in the Persian Gulf. The Government have decided that they will continue to make these peripheral facilities available. This does not change our general policy of military neutrality. Ireland will not participate in this conflict and we have undertaken no commitments. ... It is clear that, in line with our traditional policy of military neutrality, Ireland could not play any direct role in military action against Iraq in the absence of a second Security Council resolution. But it is certainly not the case...that to maintain the granting of longstanding facilities represents a clear breach of our military neutrality as it has developed over time. Sixty five years ago we adopted a policy of military neutrality in the World War II. Fifty years ago we started providing the landing and overflight facilities. Since then, throughout the conduct of our military neutrality policy, these facilities have formed part of that policy. To withhold them now, is to redefine, not to maintain, the established policy position in this area. ... Neutrality does not mean, and has not meant, a complete opposition to the use of force in all cases. If it did, we could not be members of the United Nations, the Charter of which provides for the use of force in certain instances. Nor does it mean that we are incapable of forming a view of our own on the merits of a situation, and acting accordingly. Facilities identical to those now being enjoyed were granted to the United States and its allies during the Kosovo conflict, despite the absence of explicit UN authorization. This was in line with long-standing previous practice in earlier conflicts, whether UN-sanctioned or not. And historical research has made it increasingly clear that, during World War Two, despite the apparently exact and punctilious maintenance of a neutral stance in a much more widespread and ferocious conflict, Éamon de Valéra offered practical assistance to the Allies in a number of important ways. This reflected his own basic sympathies in that war: but, equally importantly, it also reflected his careful assessment of what was in Ireland's national interest. For us now to withdraw facilities from the United States would be a departure from existing arrangements, and from precedents stretching back over fifty years. Moreover, in so doing, we would be in danger of being perceived by members of the coalition as in a sense siding - at least psychologically - with Saddam. Whatever view we may take of whether the course that has led the United States, Britain and others to this point, it is surely beyond doubt that, once battle begins, we must hope for their quick and decisive victory over a brutal and savage dictatorship, with minimum loss of life. I know that other European neutrals - Sweden, Finland and Austria - are not allowing additional facilities. But none of them is in the same situation. Ireland, with its very extensive airspace lies on the direct flight path between North America and Europe and the Middle East. That is why the current arrangements have evolved. Sweden and Finland are remote from such flight paths, and Austria is easily circumnavigated. Conversely, the most severe critics of American policy, France and Germany, are continuing to make their airspace and other facilities available. They would steadfastly reject any suggestion that they are participating in the US military campaign. Let me be quite clear with everyone in this House and with the Irish people. I am profoundly saddened that we have arrived at this point. Everything I said and did over recent months had a single purpose: it was designed to promote a multilateral solution and bolster the resolve of the Security Council to face up to its responsibilities. But having arrived at this point, hard choices must be made. That is the responsibility of government - a heavy responsibility that we must discharge with the utmost seriousness. We have to weigh all the concerns: the deep attachment to neutrality that Irish people have, how to define neutrality in a very complex set of circumstances, the value of international friendships and the expectations that come with these friendships, and the implications there may be for the material well being of our people. All of these concerns are legitimate, and I accept that people of goodwill may reconcile them in different ways. But the Government has weighed all the concerns and reached a clear decision. ... Israel'Your War Is The War Of The Free World': Statement by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, March 20'Remarks by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry of Israel, http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il. Several hours ago, US and allied military forces began their attack against the Iraqi tyrant, Saddam Hussein. The goal of this attack is the overthrow of a despot who possesses weapons of mass destruction and who has sown death, ruin and destruction among his people and among the entire world. This attack is part of the international struggle being led by US President George Bush against a global axis of terror. I would like, at the outset, to send President Bush, the soldiers of the US and allied military forces, and the entire American people, my best wishes for success. Your war is the war of the free world, the world that seeks liberty and democracy, against the black forces of wickedness that act in only one way - that of terror. The State of Israel is not taking part in this war but we well understand the dangers of regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein. We well understand the dangers posed by tyrants who use terror and possess weapons of mass destruction. We recognize the threat posed by local, regional and global terror; however, we are not involved in this war. We ourselves are involved in a difficult campaign against Palestinian terror. Even so, we know from past experience that when attacked, Saddam Hussein has taken advantage of the opportunity and launched missiles at Israel's cities. Therefore, in recent weeks and months, we have utilized every means at our disposal and have taken all necessary measures in order to be prepared for every possible development. We estimate, believe and hope that we will not be involved with the war. However, if - Heaven forbid - we are dragged into it, the State of Israel is prepared to deal with any possible threat, both from a defensive and an offensive perspective. I have said in the past, and I say it again today, that if the State of Israel is attacked, we will know how to defend ourselves. No one, neither Palestinian terrorist organizations, nor Hizbullah, nor any other terrorist organization, should contemplate taking advantage of this situation. The past two years have not been easy. The terror war that has been waged against us has placed difficult challenges before each and every one of us. Daily and hourly, Israeli citizens have shown their strength and their extraordinary endurance. The citizens of Israel have shown their determination and internal quietude. I know this people. I know that they will continue thus. I call upon all Israeli citizens to continue in their daily routines. I urge you to follow and implement the instructions of the proper authorities, to send your children to kindergarten and school, and to go to work. Keep up your daily schedules as planned. I am convinced that just as we knew in the past how to stand up to our enemies and face varied threats, we will know how to deal with what comes our way. I hope and believe that the successful conclusion of the American campaign in Iraq and the uprooting of the evil terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein will mark the beginning of a new era, one that is better for our region and for the entire world! JordanRemarks by Information Minister Mohamad Adwan, March 20The situation is critical and difficult, and we are very worried about the repercussions it will have for the Iraqi people and the entire region... We want to underscore the danger of submitting the Iraqi people to more suffering..." Source: Jordan 'very worried' over Iraq situation, Agence France Presse, March 20. LebanonStatement by President Emile Lahoud, March 20We see this aggression today plunging the world into a tunnel where one cannot see the end. Source: World condemns Iraq war, fears for civilian lives, Agence France Presse, March 20. Malaysia'Such Low Morals': Remarks by Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad, March 21Maybe after the attacks on Iraq, their next target will be Iran and other nations like Sudan and Libya. These countries have been accused of being ruled with an iron fist, and the US has claimed that they want to liberate the people. ... The superpowers - including the US, Britain and Spain - have such low morals to the extent that they are supporting assassination as a weapon of national policy. This is scary as we do not know who is going to be the next victim. ... We do not believe that by killing others we can settle any dispute. Source: Report - Malaysian leader accuses US and allies of targeting Muslim countries for invasion, Associated Press, March 21. MexicoRemarks by President Vicente Fox, March 20We are against the war. Source: World condemns Iraq war, fears for civilian lives, Agence France Presse, March 20. Remarks by President Fox, March 22One of the priorities of my administration is to deal with the regrettable start of the armed conflict in Iraq, which I know worries Mexicans a lot... Source: Mexican President calls war in Iraq 'regrettable', Associated Press, March 22. New Zealand'Profound Regret': Prime Minister Helen Clark, March 20'Rt. Hon Helen Clark, Statement to the House on Military Action in Iraq, March 20, 2003'; New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, http://www.mft.govt.nz. This afternoon President Bush has announced that military action against Iraq is commencing. The government reiterates its profound regret that the diplomatic process being conducted in the Security Council and through the inspection and disarmament process was unable to run its course. New Zealand strongly backed the work of UNMOVIC, including by sending 13 military personnel to support the weapons inspection team. We continue to hold to the view that the inspection process was making good headway, and it is unfortunate that the UN Security Council was unable to agree on its continuation. We have consistently said that only through full compliance with the demands of the Security Council could Iraq have avoided the catastrophe of war. The fact that Iraq failed to take the opportunity provided to it, to co-operate fully with the inspection and disarmament process, means that the Iraqi people now face the prospect of serious hardship. The Iraqi leadership must take its full share of responsibility for this. Now that military action has commenced, we clearly have a concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. For that reason, the sooner the military action is over, the better. It is the strong wish of the New Zealand government that peace is restored as quickly as possible and that the issue of the next steps over Iraq is swiftly brought back into the multilateral arena. At the end of this conflict, which I very much hope will indeed be short, the international community must be ready to contribute to the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq, and to humanitarian relief. The government has this afternoon indicated that it will participate fully in reconstruction and humanitarian efforts within the umbrella of the multilateral system. Funds have already been pledged to relevant UN agencies, and consideration will be given to what further contribution New Zealand can make to the post-conflict challenges which Iraq will face. The international community was regrettably unable to reach common agreement on the best means for disarming Iraq. It is, however, important that the international community now finds a way to come together at the end of this conflict to meet the needs of the Iraqi people for humanitarian relief and reconstruction. New Zealand will play its part in that process. PakistanRemarks by Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, March 20Pakistan deplores the initiation of military action against Iraq. Our position is quite clear - we are against it. Source: Pakistan voices strong opposition as Iraq war starts, Agence France Presse, March 20. PortugalRemarks by Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, March 20At this difficult time, Portugal reaffirms its support for its allies, with whom it shares the values of freedom and democracy, and expresses the hope that this action is carried out swiftly and achieves its aims... Source: Portuguese government defends war support against broad outcry, Associated Press, March 20. Russia'A Big Political Mistake': Statement by President Vladimir Putin, March 20'Statement by President Putin on Iraq at a Kremlin Meeting, march 20, 2003'; Russian Foreign Ministry transcript, http://www.mid.ru. Today the United States started a military action against Iraq. Already there are human victims and destruction. A whole region is under a threat of a large-scale humanitarian and environmental disaster. Let me stress from the beginning that military actions are taking place contrary to the world public opinion, contrary to the principles and norms of international law and the Charter of the UN. Nothing can justify this military action - neither accusations of Iraq of supporting international terrorism (we have never had and do not have information of this kind) nor the desire to change the political regime in that country which is in direct contradiction to international law and should be determined only by the citizens of this or that state. And finally, there was no need to launch military action in order to answer the key question that was put by the international community, namely, does or does not Iraq have mass destruction weapons and if it does, what should be done and within what timeframe in order to liquidate them? Furthermore, by the start of the operation Iraq posed no threat to the neighboring states or to other countries and regions of the world because especially after a ten-year blockade it was a weak country both militarily and economically. It was still less of a danger because international inspectors were working there. On the contrary, of late their activities had produced serious positive results. I would like to note that joint work at the UN Security Council, including joint work with the United States, the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1441 that does not authorize the use of force but that has made it possible to resume the activities of international inspectors as well as the set of other measures to influence the Iraqi leadership marked the start of practical activities to disarm Iraq by peaceful means. In this connection, regardless of how the situation around Iraq will shape up, on behalf of Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council I would like to appeal to the UN Secretary General and to international inspectors. I want to say words of thanks and appreciation to them. They have honestly performed their duty in a responsible manner and in the process they have displayed a high level of professionalism and courage. I am sure that the institution of international inspectors will yet be invoked by the international community. The military action against Iraq is a big political mistake. I have already referred to the humanitarian aspect. But the threat of the disintegration of the established system of international security causes at least as much concern. If we allow international law to be replaced by "the law of the fist" whereby the strong is always right and has the right to do anything and in choosing methods to achieve his goals is not constrained by anything, then one of the basic principles of international law will be put into question, and that is the principle of immutable sovereignty of a state. And then no one, not a single country in the world will feel secure. And the vast area of instability that has arisen will grow and cause negative consequences in other regions of the world. It is for these reasons that Russia insists on early termination of military actions. And we are still confident that the central role in resolving the crisis situations in the world, including the situation around Iraq, must belong to the UN Security Council. I would like to stress that Russia is committed to trying to bring this situation back to a peaceful course and to achieve genuine solution of the issue of Iraq on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions, a solution that would take into account the legitimate interests of the Iraqi people, respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country. 'Particularly Hard To Understand Are Attempts To Present This Action As One Of "Liberation"': Statement by Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, March 21'Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Igor Ivanov at the State Duma Session, Moscow, March 21, 2003'; Russian Foreign Ministry website. Over the last few months Russia and other countries have taken energetic efforts to prevent war and find a political solution to the Iraqi problem. In doing so we were fully aware of the fact that not only the fate of Iraq but to a large extent the future of international relations will depend on the means to be used to solve the problem. This is why Russia has so persistently and firmly insisted that the Iraqi situation be resolved in accordance with international law and UN Security Council resolutions. In dealing with this problem we tried to create conditions for resolving other complex problems, primarily those connected with the threat of international terrorism and other global challenges. By and large the idea was to take a step toward a new, just and safe world order through the Iraqi settlement. We leaned on the understanding and support of a broad range of countries, including a majority of UN Security Council members. The basis for concerted international action on Iraq certainly existed and exists. It is comprehensive recognition of the need to answer the main question: does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction or it does not? Resolution 1441, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council and which enabled international inspectors to resume their work in Iraq, served this purpose. As is known, Russia has done much to convince Baghdad to unconditionally agree to the resumption of inspections. It is of fundamental importance that owing to the unity of the international community and joint pressure Iraq met practically all demands of the inspectors and did not pose any serious obstacles to their work. They were granted unconditional and unlimited access to any facilities in Iraq. During the four and a half months of their work in Iraq, UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors achieved considerable progress. The results of this work are well-known - suffice it to mention the elimination of Al-Samoud-2 missiles. The work of the inspectors was repeatedly discussed at the UN Security Council sessions, including four times at the foreign minister level. Each time it was becoming more and more obvious that the inspectors had everything they needed to successfully accomplish their mission and complete the process of Iraq's disarmament by peaceful means. Unfortunately, this work was interrupted - contrary to the will of the Security Council. But even those results that had been achieved were sufficient reason to say with all responsibility that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the security of the United States or any other nation. We have many times raised the following question with our American partners: how does Baghdad specifically threaten them? And we did not get a clear answer even once. It is noteworthy that even respected US politicians, in particular, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, have said that the strike against Iraq is the first war in the history of the US started by the US in the absence of a direct threat. Likewise, there are no convincing facts to confirm the accusations that Iraq supports international terrorism. It is no chance, therefore, that the supporters of the forcible solution began to prioritize questions that were not directly related to the UN Security Council resolutions. They started to say that inspections did not matter and that what mattered was that Iraq was to disarm itself and to prove that to the world at large. This was followed by statements that the point is not in disarming Iraq but in changing its regime. A new argument was put forth quite recently, that the war against Iraq is needed in order to begin democratic reforms in the entire Islamic world. In other words, attempts were being made to find pretexts for justifying a military solution of the Iraqi problem. And this was happening at the time when prospects for disarming Iraq with the help of international inspectors were becoming increasingly real. The meeting of the UN Security Council convened on March 19 at our initiative at the foreign minister level proved extremely important in this context. The reports submitted to the meeting by the UNMOVIC and IAEA heads, listing concrete questions that needed clarifications, strongly proved the efficiency of the existing inspections mechanism. This demonstrated anew that the arguments in favor of inevitability of the use of force against Iraq as the only means of achieving its disarmament were far-fetched. In spite of all that, on March 20 the US began military actions against Iraq. As for our assessment of this action, it is contained in the comprehensive statement by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. This action does not have legal grounds, of course. Attempts to justify it by referring to earlier UN Security Council resolutions are futile because, according to Resolution 1441, the degree of Baghdad's cooperation with the UN should be evaluated by the UN Security Council on the basis of UNMOVIC and IAEA reports. In other words, only the UN Security Council itself can determine any violation of Resolution 1441 by the Iraqi side and decide what actions should be taken in this context in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter and if there are grounds for the use of force against Iraq. In the absence of any such decision by the Security Council the use of force against Iraq - I want to stress this anew - has no legal grounds. Shortly before the operation UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made it clear that if the US and other countries went beyond the UN Security Council and undertook military action, such action would not be consistent with the UN Charter. There are also questions about the announced plans for the military occupation of Iraq. In the absence of the appropriate decision of the UN Security Council, such occupation will be unlawful because it will be a result of the unlawful use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. The humanitarian situation in Iraq is a matter of serious concern. There already is information about casualties among the civilian population. This raises the question of how the norms of international humanitarian law will be observed during the conflict. In particular, we are talking about a ban on attacking civilians and civilian facilities, about the non-use of indiscriminate weapons that cause excessive damage, and about not causing serious damage to the environment. The reaction of most countries in the world shows that the US actions against Iraq do not have international support. Playing with the thesis about the creation of a broad-based anti-Iraqi coalition can hardly convince anyone, let alone replace the will of the international community, which must be expressed only through the United Nations Organization. Particularly hard to understand are attempts to present this action as one of "liberation." The non-acceptance of military action against Iraq is attested to by the fact that for several weeks now the whole world has been the scene of massive anti-war protests, including those in the United States. At the present time the most urgent task is to ensure an early return of the Iraqi problem into the mainstream of a political settlement on the firm basis of the UN Charter and international law. Russia is profoundly convinced that in solving this problem the key role must continue to belong to the UN Security Council. In particular, it is important that the March 19 meeting succeeded in passing the Council's decision to the effect that international inspections were being suspended rather than terminated. Therefore, the chance remains to return to the completion of the UNMOVIC and IAEA mandate as soon as the proper conditions for that are in place. In this connection I wish to especially dwell on one point. Now there is a lot of talk that the United Nations has allegedly lost its role in international relations, and there are attempts to compare it with the League of Nations. I categorically disagree with this. On the contrary, the unique experience of inspections in Iraq indicates that the UN Security Council as a body that bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security has fully coped with its duties by ensuring the dispatch of international inspectors to Iraq and creating the necessary conditions for their work. This experience can come in handy in the future as well in view of the acute problem of proliferation of mass destruction weapons in the world. Finally, at all the stages of the development of the situation around Iraq Russia has acted consistently and in a balanced way, firmly defending our principled position and at the same time not slipping into confrontation with other nations. We tried to preserve a positive perspective of the unity of the UN Security Council member countries and cooperation among them. And today this policy line fully conforms to both Russia's national interests and the interests of the entire world community. In the current conditions it is yet difficult to assess all the possible consequences of the war that has begun. However, one has every reason to say that it will result not in stabilizing but, on the contrary, in further aggravating the situation in that region. The attempts to foist by force on the Iraqi and other peoples of the Middle East some particular models of statehood lead inexorably to that. In reality such ambitions will only play into the hands of extremists operating under radical Islamic slogans. Indeed, those forces cannot wait for a pretext to justify their terrorist activities and multiply the number of their followers in the Islamic world. All this immediately contradicts the goals for which the international anti-terrorist coalition was established. That is why it is vitally important to stop the war as soon as possible and to restore the unity of the world community. This is the necessary condition for carrying on multilateral cooperation in fighting global threats and challenges. An important role in these issues belongs to interaction between parliaments. At a time when the world public with increasing firmness declares its non-acceptance of solutions to the Iraqi problem by force, parliamentarians can do much to unite the efforts of the international community in favor of an early end to the crisis situation around Iraq. I would wish to assure the distinguished deputies that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs will be open to the closest possible interaction with the Federal Assembly with regard to this most complex problem, and that it counts on your understanding and support. Saudi Arabia'Profound Concern and Deep Regret': Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20'Kingdom's concern over military attacks on Iraq', Foreign Ministry Statement, March 20; Saudi Arabian Information Resources (official government website), http://www.saudinf.com. The Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, expressed the Kingdom's profound concern and deep regret about the launch of military attacks on Iraq. Prince Saud reiterated the position of the Kingdom that it would by no means take part in a war against brotherly Iraq, and confirmed that the Kingdom's armed forces would not take a step inside Iraqi territories. In a statement to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA), he referred to the address of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd bin Abdul, which stated the position of the Kingdom towards the crisis, and asserted that efforts currently exerted by the Kingdom to safeguard its security, stability and national integrity are a responsibility shared by all Saudi officials and citizens. The Foreign Minister expressed the Kingdom's hope that the military operations cease as soon as possible, and that the parties return to peaceful means of resolving the crisis, without violating Iraq's territorial integrity and internal security, and without subjecting the country to a military occupation. South Africa'War Is Not A Solution To World Problems': Government Statement, March 20'South African Government Reaction to the War Against Iraq,' Statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, March 20; Foreign Ministry of South Africa, http://www.dfa.gov.za. 1. South Africa regrets the war. War is not a solution to world problems. This unilateral resort to force is compounded by the fact progress was being made in dealing with the matter of disarmament of Iraq with regard to any weapons of mass destruction. 2. It sets a regrettable precedence which undermines the authority of the UN in dealing global affairs 3. It is unfortunate the action will result in the loss of life of ordinary Iraqis and all others involved in the conflict - a tragic consequence of the failure of negotiations and diplomacy. 4. South Africa calls on the UN to assert its authority to ensure that whatever action is undertaken is within the rules of international humanitarian law. 'The Coalition Will Win The War; Can They Win The Peace?': Statement by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad, March 20'Statement by Deputy Minister Pahad on war with Iraq, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry website. The moment we feared and hoped to avoid has arrived. A few hours ago war against Iraq started. The South African government expresses its regrets at the coalition's decision to resort to force outside the framework of the Security Council. This is a tragic failure of negotiations and diplomacy. The world is sharply divided on this issue. Under a strategy of "shock and awe", it is expected that an awesome storm of firepower will be unleashed. A USA military source is reported to have said, "it will be the most serious aerial bombardment in history". South Africa wishes to re-affirm the AU and NAM positions that war is not a solution to world problems. The vast majority of countries and billions of people throughout the world support these positions. This includes the Vatican and all major religious leaders in the world. The war must not set a precedent which further undermines multilateralism and especially the authority of the UN and Security Council, institutions that were established precisely to deal with problems peacefully and through dialogue. We remain fully committed to the position that the world should be free of weapons of mass destruction. In this context we supported UNSC Resolution 1441(2002) which peacefully sought to ensure that Iraq was free of WMD. We therefore spared no effort to ensure that the resolution was implemented fully and successfully within a reasonable period of time. In this respect we interacted with many countries and consistently urged the Iraqi government to fully and transparently co-operate with the inspectors. In the last few weeks, as the inspector reports show, the Iraqi authorities intensified their co-operation and substantial progress was made. Yesterday Dr Blix briefed the Security Council of their work plan, which, inter alia, identified all outstanding disarmament issues and included benchmarks and time frames to resolve these outstanding issues. This would have been completed within months. Now all this is academic, the war has started. We note Secretary General Kofi Annan's comments that the legitimacy of the war without a Security Council mandate would be questioned and he urged the coalition to respect international and humanitarian law. There are sharp debates and differences on these issues. We have noted the views of the International Commission of Jurists based in Geneva that a war without a Security Council mandate would be "an illegal invasion and it would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibitions of the use of force... It is a question of the erosion of international restraint on the use of force" We will continue to monitor this debate. The urgent challenge now is to prepare for the possible negative consequences of the war. Critical is the challenge to restore confidence in the United Nations. Other challenges, inter alia, include increased terrorism, instability in the region which can impact on international peace and security, clash of civilizations and increased religious hatred and intolerance, tragic loss of lives of ordinary Iraqis and others involved in the war, the humanitarian tragedy, further delays in pursuing the Middle East Peace Process, a global economic slowdown, the volatility in the oil market. Undoubtedly African issues, especially our objectives of achieving sustainable development through the NEPAD initiative will be negatively impacted on. The immediate and urgent challenge facing the international community is the humanitarian tragedy. Secretary General Kofi Annan on 19 March 2003 at the Security Council stated: "The plight of the Iraqi people is now my most immediate concern. In the past twenty years, Iraqis have been through two major wars, internal uprisings and conflict, and more than a decade of debilitating sanctions. The country's vital infrastructure has been devastated, so that it no longer meets the most basic needs for clean water, health or education. Iraq's most vulnerable citizens - the elderly, women and children, and the disabled are denied basic health care for lack of medicine and medical equipment. Already, nearly one million Iraqi children suffer from chronic malnutrition. Already, Iraqis are heavily dependent on food rations, which is handed out each morning to every family in the country. For more than sixty percent of the population, this ration is their main source of income. Yet many families have to sell part of it to buy clothes or other essentials for their children." We hope that the sharp divisions that have emerged in the UN and the Security Council, the EU, NATO and the other multilateral institutions can be resolved. Without such unity the world will not be able to tackle the many challenges facing humanity. These include the reconstruction of Iraq and the region, terrorism, poverty eradication, sustainable development of the poor countries, conflicts in Africa and elsewhere, environmental degradation, HIV/AIDS etc. ... The coalition will win the war; can they win the peace? People of all religious denominations must unite in prayers for peace. Humanity needs peace. Sweden'In Breach Of International Law': Statement by the Government, March 21'The Swedish Government's View on the Iraq Issue,' statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, March 21; Foreign Affairs of Sweden, http://www.regeringen.se. The Government of Sweden deeply regrets that war has now broken out. The United States and its allies are attacking Iraq without a UN mandate and are therefore acting in breach of international law. Every conceivable effort must be made to protect the civilian population. The rules of humanitarian law must be observed. This is the responsibility of both sides in the war. The Swedish Government does not share the US-held opinion that the use of military force is in line with international law. Even if military action is now being taken without a UN mandate, the United Nations still has a central role to play, not only in humanitarian support but also in a post-war Iraq. Management of the conflict must be referred back to the UN and the Security Council. Even if the US is resorting to military force the Security Council will continue to bear the ultimate responsibility for international peace and security. Everything must be done to minimise the suffering of the Iraqi people. Reconstruction of Iraqi society must be achieved as soon as possible. The Swedish Government is closely monitoring the humanitarian situation in Iraq and is prepared to cooperate with the UN, the EU and other international actors on short notice to offer extra support to humanitarian efforts and to refugees in the region. Sweden is one of the largest donors of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq, contributing some SEK 50 million per year. So far this year, Sweden has contributed an extra SEK 25 million to humanitarian support to Iraq and others in need in the region through the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We welcome the European Council's decision to give priority to humanitarian efforts. In the view of the Swedish Government, Iraq - having waged two wars against its neighbours, used weapons of mass destruction and attacked other countries in the region - constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of this regime therefore entail a threat of this nature, which the UN has made clear ever since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Military action against Iraq could have been accepted as a last resort in the event of a refusal by Iraq to cooperate with the United Nations Security Council in accordance with resolution 1441, and Iraq's continued development or possession of weapons of mass destruction. It is only the UN Security Council that has the right to evaluate the actions of Iraq and to decide on the use of force - not any individual state. Sweden does not intend to take part in any military operation. Any armed attack, with or without a UN mandate, always raises the question of whether international law requires Sweden to stop exporting military equipment. Our assessments include these legal considerations, which must be weighed against the importance we attach to far-reaching international cooperation in the defence industry in order to safeguard Sweden's future supply of military equipment. In weighing up the different guidelines for the export of military equipment, the interests of the nation must take precedence. Ultimately, the most important consideration must be to safeguard Sweden's long-term security. A long-term approach to assuring supply is of vital interest to Sweden's security policy. 'In Contravention of International Law': Statement by Prime Minister Göran Persson, March 20'Prime Minister Göran Persson's first comments on the outbreak of war in Iraq, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry website. I regret that this war has now broken out. The attack on Iraq is in contravention of international law and threatens the lives of thousands of people. The disarming of the terrorist regime in Iraq must take place within the framework of international law and must therefore be returned to the United Nations Security Council. As long as the war continues, every conceivable effort must be made to avoid any impact on the civilian population. The rules of humanitarian law must be observed. This is the responsibility of both sides in the war. The attack on Iraq does not absolve that country of its obligation to comply with the resolutions previously adopted by the Security Council. 'War Is Always A Failure. A War Outside The United Nations Charter Is A Great Failure': Statement by Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, March 20'Statement by Foreign Minister Anna Lindh at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 59th Session, New York, March 20, 2003'; Foreign Ministry website. War is always a failure. A war outside the United Nations charter is a great failure. There was a good chance to disarm Iraq peacefully. However, the day before the arms-inspectors presented their work programme their work came to an abrupt halt. It is deplorable that they were not allowed to fulfil their task. With continued and unified pressure from the world community Iraq could have been forced to cooperate fully. Had they not complied, in the end, the UN Security Council has the possibility to decide on a military action. The haste to take a decision on military action ruined the chance for a peaceful solution, it weakened the UN and thereby a stable world order. We are not naïve concerning the Iraqi regime. Fifteen years ago, the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons against Iran and its own Kurdish population. Thousands were brutally killed. Iraqis of all ethnic origins are victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression and human rights violations. But a war without a UN mandate is not the right way to pursue democracy in Iraq. We should bring the Iraq-question back to the Security Council as soon as possible. Now has the time to discuss the security of Northern Iraq, humanitarian assistance to all civilians and the central role of the UN in the post-conflict Iraq. Now is also the time for a renewed commitment to fight proliferation and achieve disarmament of weapons of mass destruction all over the world. Syria'This Barbaric Aggression': Statement by the Government, March 22As it condemns this barbaric aggression to which our Iraqi brethren are being subjected...Syria calls for an immediate end to the war and the withdrawal of invading forces... [This conflict may have] grave ramifications on the security of the region. ... [Syria] urges the United Nations to assume its role in addressing this dangerous situation...[caused by a] flagrant infringement [of international law]... Source: Syria wants immediate end to 'barbaric' war on Iraq, Reuters, March 22. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |