Peace Archive: French Consulate

I.- UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL MINISTERIAL LEVEL MEETING ON IRAQ SPEECH BY M. DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

(New York, 5 February 2003)
* * *
In unanimously adopting UNSCR 1441, we chose to act through inspections. This policy rests on three fundamental points: - a clear objective on which we cannot compromise: the disarmament of Iraq;
- a method: a rigorous system of inspections which demands Iraq's active cooperation and affirms the central role of the Security Council at each stage - - a requirement: our unity. This gave the message we unanimously addressed to Baghdad its full force. I hope that our meeting today will strengthen this unity. Significant results have already been recorded: - UNMOVIC and the AIEA are at work: more than a hundred inspectors are deployed on the ground and they are making 300 visits a month on average; the number of sites inspected has increased; complete access to the presidential sites in particular is a major gain.

"...in the nuclear domain, the first two months allowed the IAEA to make good progress in its knowledge of Iraq's capacity as Dr ElBaradei has stated. This is a key element"
- in the areas covered by UNMOVIC, the inspections have provided us with useful information. Mr Blix has confirmed, for example, that no trace of biological or chemical agents has so far been detected by the inspectors: neither through analyses of samples taken from inspected sites nor on the 12 empty warheads discovered at Ukhaider on 16 January; Nonetheless, there are still grey areas in Iraq's cooperation: - the inspectors have reported real difficulties. In his 27 January report, Mr Blix gave several examples of unresolved questions in the ballistic, chemical and biological domains. These uncertainties are not acceptable. France will continue to pass on all the information she has so they can be better defined;
- right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is here that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant: regarding the chemical domain, we have presumptions of its capacity to produce VX and yperite; in the biological domain, our indications suggest the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability;
- today the absence of long-range delivery systems reduces the potential threat of these weapons. But we have disturbing signs of Iraq's continued determination to acquire ballistic missiles beyond the authorized 150-km range;
- in the nuclear domain, we must in particular get to the bottom of Iraq's attempt to acquire aluminium tubes; So it is a demanding process, rooted in UNSCR 1441, that we must carry out together. If this path were to fail and lead us into a blind alley, then we rule out no option, including in the final analysis the recourse to force as we have said all along. But in that case, several answers will have to be clearly provided to all governments and all peoples of the world to limit the uncertainties:
- To what extent do the nature and scope of the threat justify the recourse to force?
- How do we make sure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control? This quite obviously requires that the world community take collective responsibility. In any case, it must be clear that in the context of such an option, the United Nations will have to be at the centre of the action to guarantee Iraq's unity, ensure the region's stability, protect civilians and preserve the unity of the world community. For now the inspections regime, favoured by UNSCR 1441, must be strengthened since it has not been explored to its limits. Use of force can only be a final recourse. Why go to war if there still exists some unused capacity in UNSCR 1441? Consistent with the rationale of this resolution, we must therefore move on to a new stage and further strengthen the inspections. With the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate for lack of cooperation on Iraq's part, we must choose to strengthen decisively the inspectors' resources. This is what France proposes today. To do this, we must define with Mr Blix and Dr ElBaradei the requisite tools for increasing their operational capabilities: - let us double or triple the number of inspectors and open up new regional offices. Let us go further: could we not establish a specialized body to keep under surveillance the sites and areas already inspected?
- let us substantially increase the capabilities for monitoring and collecting information on Iraqi territory. Here, France is ready to provide full support: she is ready to deploy Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft;
- Let us collectively establish a coordination and data-processing centre that would supply Mr Blix and Dr ElBaradei, in real time and in a coordinated way, with all the intelligence resources they might need;
- let us list the unresolved disarmament questions and rank them by importance;
- with the consent of the leaders of the inspection teams, let us define a demanding and realistic time-frame for moving forward in the assessment and elimination of the problems. We must regularly keep track of the progress made in Iraq's disarmament. This enhanced regime of inspections and surveillance could be usefully complemented by having a permanent UN coordinator for Iraq's disarmament, stationed over there and working under the authority of Mr Blix and Dr ElBaradei. But Iraq must cooperate actively. The country must comply immediately with the demands of Mr Blix and Dr ElBaradei, in particular by: - permitting meetings with Iraqi scientists without witnesses;
- agreeing to the use of U2 reconnaissance aircraft;
- adopting legislation to prohibit the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction;
- handing over to the inspectors immediately all relevant documents on unresolved disarmament questions, in particular in the biological and chemical domains; those handed over on 20 January constitute a step in the right direction. The 3,000 pages of documents discovered at the home of a scientist show that Baghdad must do more. In the absence of documents, Iraq must be able to present credible evidence. The Iraqi authorities must also provide the inspectors with answers to the new material presented by Colin Powell. Between now and the inspectors' next report, on 14 February, Iraq will have to provide new material. Accordingly, the forthcoming visit to Baghdad by the chief inspectors will have to provide the opportunity for achieving clear results. This is the demanding process that we must carry out together so as to reach a new stage. Its success presupposes, today as yesterday, that the international community remains united and mobilized. It is our moral and political duty first to devote all our energy to Iraq's disarmament, in peace and in compliance with the rule of law and justice. France is convinced that we can succeed on this demanding path so long as we maintain our unity and cohesion. This is clearly the path of collective responsibility. Thank you./. I.- FRANCO-BRITISH SUMMIT STATEMENTS MADE BY M. JACQUES CHIRAC, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, DURING HIS JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH MR TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND (EXCERPTS)
(Le Touquet, 4 February 2003) FRANCE/UK THE PRESIDENT ? (...) A word first of all to highlight both our long experience of bilateral and multilateral meetings, and the particularly positive and warm nature of the one today. I'm saying this because some media and political commentators may have had concerns on this point. I've rarely observed an entente cordiale like the one which has spontaneously emerged from our meetings today. (...) I want to highlight the fact that we each represent two very long-established civilizations, nations and cultures. For centuries, we've rubbed shoulders with each other and often come to blows. Over time, we've forged traditions and developed interests which weren't the same. And today we need, in the European framework, to have sufficient determination and imagination to iron out our differences and strengthen our cooperation where we see eye to eye. Obviously you can't do that overnight, by waving a magic wand, and today it's normal for us to record some very substantial progress in our cooperation and to note that some differences remain, which need to be managed in a friendly and non-aggressive way.
IRAQ As far as Iraq is concerned, we have different approaches, but we both start off with two shared essential convictions. The first is that Iraq has to be disarmed. And the second is that requisite action must be conducted within the United Nations Security Council. That's the main thing and on that point we totally agree. Taking that as our starting point, when it comes to what's actually happening, on what conclusions it's appropriate to draw from this, our approaches may differ, but less than they appear to. (...) We consider that (...) the main thing is to leave the inspectors to go on with their work, take on board any new material they are given, particularly in the statement expected tomorrow from Secretary of State Colin Powell. We intend to wait for the conclusions drawn from this by Messrs Blix and ElBaradei who will be reporting to the Security Council on 14 February and we consider, as far as we are concerned, that everything must be done to give the inspectors all the resources they need to achieve the result sought, which is Iraq's disarmament. And we think that (...) it's possible to achieve this objective by this means.
MIDDLE EAST We talked about the Middle East, the Prime Minister having had important talks with the American President, two or three days ago, during which they discussed the Middle East problem. We simply stressed that our analysis of it is absolutely identical, i.e. we agree on the urgent necessity to resume a political process which, alone, will make it possible to improve the situation and perhaps return to peace.
AFGHANISTAN We also talked about the problems of Afghanistan noting our agreement that the most effective support possible must be given to the present Afghan authorities, i.e. the Prime Minister, Mr Karzai. We are in complete agreement.
AFRICA/NEPAD/G8 Then we discussed another major issue which is essential, for me and for Prime Minister Tony Blair as well: Africa. It's an area where, starting from different historical positions, a few years ago, we achieved a total convergence of views. Which shows too, moreover, the progress in Franco-British relations. We see totally eye to eye on the need to fight poverty, underdevelopment, to help Africa get back on its feet and take control of its destiny. It's with this in mind that we have both given our full support to the NEPAD procedure, particularly at the last G8 in Kananaskis. And that will also be the case at the next G8 in Evian. In Kananaskis we took a joint financial initiative on helping Africa which is now being implemented. And, at the British Prime Minister's suggestion, we are contemplating a second more important initiative to promote public-private partnerships and provide incentives for investment, particularly in essential spheres, especially water. And we are planning on finalizing this new initiative in the next few weeks, so as to be able to present it and, I hope, get it adopted at the Evian G8
DEFENCE AND SECURITY We talked about defence and security problems. This too is a sphere where there were some major differences of view between Britain and France, stemming from our different histories. I remind you that it was in Saint-Malo that we both set in train the process leading to the creation of Defence Europe. Since Saint-Malo, we have managed to convince, one after the other, the thirteen other European Union members and to reach a stage where, now, the European Union has a common defence policy which is developing constructively. Of course, the progress must continue and in our declaration (...) we have made important progress in three essential spheres. (...) We completely agree on the operations in the Balkans. We have settled the problem of relations between the European Union and NATO and have a comprehensive agreement on the operations in the Balkans. We both recognize the principle of solidarity between member States, i.e. solidarity in the event of what is, alas, the new sphere of terrorism. And, finally, we agree on the need to create a European armaments agency so that acquisition of our military equipment can be made more efficient.

Finally, we talked about bilateral issues. We welcomed the fact that, thanks to the determination and will to find a solution, on a very difficult issue, the two Interior Ministers managed to overcome the obstacles and arrive at an agreement on the closure of the Sangatte centre BEEF EMBARGO We also discussed the conclusion of a painful dispute, that of the embargo on beef, welcoming the fact that this running sore has been cured.

SECURITY/POLICE/MARITIME DEFENCE/EDUCATION We also signed four important agreements (...) on security, the police, on maritime defence, and above all, for the first time ? this must be highlighted since we are countries with long-established cultures and very attached to their traditions in the education sphere ? we have signed an agreement on education and particularly language teaching. (...) And, finally, we of course talked about the commemoration of the hundredth anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, in 2004. We want to do this with all the respect we owe a historic date and all the hopes we're pinning on the spirit which, at the time, had fired the Treaty's signatories. We have entrusted our two ambassadors with the task of presenting us, in the next few months, with all the necessary proposals so that we can commemorate this centenary, not just because it's a centenary but because of the encouragement it has to give us for the future (...). LETTER OF EIGHT EUROPEAN LEADERS
Q. ? Talking about the Entente Cordiale, do you regard the letter written by the eight initiated by Prime Minister Tony Blair, as a friendly initiative or verbal aggression? THE PRESIDENT ? I shall simply add that, as the Prime Minister has just said, Europe came together on 27 January, it adopted at the General Affairs Council a unanimous position, it's Europe's position. (...)

IRAQ/UN INSPECTIONS/MILITARY INTERVENTION Q. ? Do you think a time limit has to be set for the United Nations inspections? Because in a country like Iraq, with a hundred or so inspectors and inadequate cooperation from Saddam, the operation could go on forever...

THE PRESIDENT ? As you know, for me it's clear that the inspections system is one which has in the past proved its efficacy. Indeed, let me remind you that, over the years when there were inspections, more weapons were destroyed by the inspectors than during the Gulf war, which simply means that the inspections can be effective. Secondly, you ask me for an opinion on the inspectors' efficacy, I am not in a position to give it. It's for them to say if they have the requisite resources or if they need new ones and also what degree of cooperation they are getting and what help they are requesting in this respect. I have total confidence in them. And I can tell you, in any event, that France will unreservedly approve any request for resources, for personnel or equipment, from Mr Blix or Mr ElBaradei. Unreservedly. (...)
Q. ? Is it still possible for France to accept or support a military intervention in Iraq and, if so, on what condition? THE PRESIDENT ? Our position, I repeat, is well known. We consider that there's still a great deal in the way of disarmament which can be done by peaceful means. And so we shall decide on our position only when we consider that nothing more can be done. We are very far from that. ZIMBABWE
Q. ? You talked about your agreement on Africa, could we ask you something about Zimbabwe? You have talked a lot about multilateralism. But it appears to many in Britain that your invitation to President Mugabe violates the spirit, if not the letter of the European Union position on sanctions on travel by the President. What can you hope to gain at a time when the opposition leader is on trial for his life in Zimbabwe by feting President Mugabe in Paris? PRESIDENT ? We don't want to prove anything and aren't setting out to be aggressive towards anyone. This is a bilateral summit. We felt we had to invite all the presidents, which we've done, and we have, of course, opened discussions in Brussels which are going on now to see what the final decision we take will be.

IRAQ/FRENCH VETO

Q. ? The British and the Americans have said that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors has to be obtained in a matter of weeks and not months. And that seems to imply that war is a few weeks rather than a few months away, unless there's a miracle. Would you use France's right of veto to veto that resolution, under those circumstances THE PRESIDENT ? First of all, I consider that war is always the worst solution. I might add that, in that region, they don't need another war. That said, I repeat, I think that we have to wait. We have adopted a strategy, that of the inspections. We have to have confidence in the inspectors. I do. In fact everyone does and we must leave them to decide the time they need. That's my position. As for the rest, France will shoulder her responsibilities as she deems fit, at the appropriate moment and having regard to the circumstances. (...)./.
III.- IRAQ MINISTERIAL-LEVEL UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING ON IRAQ PRESS BRIEFING GIVEN BY M. DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(New York, 5 February 2003) THE MINISTER ? We have had a very good working session. I'd like to begin by thanking Secretary of State Colin Powell for sharing information with us, with the whole Security Council, for presenting witness statements, suspicions regarding Iraq's attitude. We now await Iraq's answers. Iraq has to reply. For us, it is of course very important to share the information with the Americans and to compare it with what we ourselves have. It's for the inspectors to tell us what is actually happening on the ground. Because France considers that between the current situation of inadequate inspections and war, there is room to improve the inspections regime; we think that more can be asked of Iraq in the framework of UNSCR 1441. We propose that, if necessary, we double or triple the number of inspectors, increase the number of United Nations regional offices in Iraq. We could, if necessary, increase the flow of intelligence the inspectors need and, if necessary, increase the observation capability. We think, as President Chirac has said several times, that the use of force must be the last resort.
Q. ? Do you think that Colin Powell has convinced the sceptics, like France, about the need to resort to force? THE MINISTER ? The Secretary of State was very clear. There's no absolute proof in these spheres, there are some indications, information, suspicions. We should all try to find out more and this is why we need inspections, in order to move forward and maintain our objective: Iraq's disarmament which is the international community's sole objective.
Q. ? What came out of Mr Powell's presentation is that Iraq is hoodwinking the inspectors. So how can you be so sure that the inspections have to continue?
THE MINISTER ? We have inspectors on the ground. They are the Security Council's eyes and hands. From the outset, we have said that the inspectors are capable of doing their work on the ground. We are in the first phase of UNSCR 1441, i.e. the inspection phase. If we end up in a blind alley, then we move on to a second phase. On the basis of an inspectors' report saying that they can no longer work in Iraq, we would then have to work on a second resolution. And everyone would take full responsibility for it.
Q. ? How would you describe how far we are away from the war? And how much time should the inspectors still have? THE MINISTER ? UNSCR 1441 doesn't set a deadline. We should work in the framework of the inspections and UNSCR 1441 so long as we can go on making progress. That's the whole philosophy behind UNSCR 1441. So long as there's progress. This way the Security Council is acting responsibly.
Q. ? What's your answer to those saying that time is running out, that the diplomatic window is closing? Is it up to the inspectors to decide on the timetable?
THE MINISTER ? The Security Council has fifteen members. They are there to take collective responsibility. They must assess the situation. They are doing so on the basis of information given by the inspectors. The Council as a whole is responsible. It's not for one country, on its own, to decide. It's for the inspectors to report to the Security Council and, on this basis, the Council must decide what it has to do. That, I think is the philosophy of the Security Council.
Q. ? What's your answer to the Americans who consider that France's attitude is a hostile one
THE MINISTER ? We are the United States' friend. We have been friends for centuries. We are friends today and will remain so tomorrow, whatever happens. The relationship between France, Europe and the United States isn't being impugned. It isn't the issue. The issue is Iraq: what are we doing with Iraq? What are we doing vis-à-vis that region? What must the international community do today to exercise its responsibilities with respect to this crisis? And what would we do in the face of another proliferation crisis? And we know that there are today many other potential proliferation crises in the world.
Q. ? Up to what point would France today be ready to give the Americans satisfaction?
THE MINISTER ? I think that, today, we have to face up to our responsibilities vis-à-vis the international community's central problem: the proliferation crises. We have tried to work in a spirit of solidarity, it's what underpins our relationship with the United States. But we consider that the issue today is knowing how we want to act in the face of the crises in the world. And we think that, at every stage, the United Nations should have a central role. We consider that whatever happens, the United Nations will remain centre stage.
Q. ? Do you think the material presented by Colin Powell constitutes circumstantial proof
THE MINISTER ? Secretary of State Colin Powell made this plain: there's no absolute proof. He didn't claim to provide proof. He provided indications, suspicions, witness statements. All this is what is causing the international community's anxiety, anxiety which we share. Iraq must respond, as have said from the outset. The international community must express its firmness vis-à-vis Iraq. Iraq has to change. We have pledged to work to get Iraq genuinely to embark on the path of disarmament. Iraq has to respond and this morning that's what we are all saying very clearly, even though I believe that a large majority of the Security Council wishes us to step up and increase the inspectors' ability to work on the ground.
Q. ? Did you find him convincing?
THE MINISTER ? I believe that the Secretary of State said what he thought. He has delivered the information and for that we thank him. We were the first to call for all States with information of their own to give it. I wrote to all the Council members, at President Chirac's request. I am very pleased about the convening of today's meeting, and was the first to welcome it.
Q. ? What are you expecting the Iraqis to do before 14 February to show that they are moving in the direction you want them to?
THE MINISTER ? The Iraqis have to respond. And 14 February is important since it's the date when the inspectors are going to report again on the situation to the Security Council. And, on the basis of their report, we're going to assess the situation. Either the inspections can continue ? and they must continue ? or they've been a blind alley and so we're in a second phase. It will then be important for the Security Council to reconvene.
Q. ? Have you changed your position a bit?
THE MINISTER ? We've worked very closely with the Americans this past month. We've shared information. I must say that Colin Powell has provided a lot of what we think are very important and interesting indications and witness statements. We can compare it with the information we ourselves have. But, as I've said, in this sphere, it's very difficult to have absolute proof. This is why we have to step up the inspections, since the inspectors are on the ground and we can't base our analysis solely on suspicions. We need facts. It's very important.
Q. ? Do you think the Americans have been open enough with the United Nations regarding the sharing of information with the inspectors
THE MINISTER ? The Secretary of State's participation in our meeting today is a clear answer to your question.
Q. ? (On a new resolution)
THE MINISTER ? There's no second resolution on the table today. And there's no need for a second resolution. We're working on the basis of UNSCR 1441 which is fully in force. We can improve it. It contains many possibilities we can make use of. But today, the inspectors are on the ground. They will report to us on 14 February. We're working in the framework of UNSCR 1441. There's no need for a second resolution./.
AMBAFRANCE