News of Norway, February 13, 2003
Read a partial transcript of the statement here:
Mr President,
The international situation is more uncertain than it has been for a very long time. Many people are deeply worried. The UN has given Iraq a last chance to comply with the international community’s demand that it eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. Time has not yet run out, but there is definitely a danger of war. I understand and share the unease this is creating. It is important that we all hold on to our conviction that the use of military force is not inevitable. The Government’s policy will continue to be that everything possible must be done to obtain a peaceful solution to the conflict.
(...)The Iraq question will be my main focus today, since this is my annual statement to the Storting.
(...)I will begin with the question that is on everyone’s mind: the current status of the Iraq issue and how it is being dealt with in the Security Council.
Mr President,
Iraq is ruled by a particularly brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein’s regime is notorious for its massive violations of human rights. Iraq has twice invaded neighbouring countries. It has used weapons of mass destruction in two conflicts. Chemical weapons were used several times during the second half of the 1980s, against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and in the war against Iran. Thousands of lives have been lost.
In its dealings with the international community, the regime has resorted to denials and lies. But despite Iraqi attempts to play cat and mouse, the international weapons inspectors managed to find and destroy considerable arsenals of weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s. However, such great obstacles were put in their way by the Iraqi regime that the UN Secretary-General finally decided to withdraw them in 1998 without obtaining satisfactory answers to a number of serious questions.
These questions are still unanswered. The international community has reiterated that it will not turn a blind eye to the threat this poses. Therefore, the demands made on Iraq by the UN after the liberation of Kuwait have remained unchanged for more than 11 years: the uncertainty as to whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated, and the country must not be allowed to obtain new ones.
To achieve this goal, Iraq has since 1991been subject to sanctions that are intended to prevent it from developing new weapons of mass destruction, and to a demand for inspections to verify that it is eliminating any such weapons it may have and discontinuing any weapons programmes. This is the basis for the UN’s approach to the Iraq question, and it has been set out in a large number of binding Security Council resolutions.
Therefore, Security Council resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 confirms and strengthens binding demands made over a period of many years. The resolution gives the regime in Baghdad a final opportunity to comply with the UN’s demands.
On 27 January, UNMOVIC’s Executive Chairman, Hans Blix, and the IAEA’s Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported to the Security Council on the inspections carried out in Iraq since 27 November last year. Their reports were more alarming than I had expected. The inspectors stated they had received incomplete answers from Iraq on several important points, which leaves a number of serious questions unanswered.
These are some examples of such questions:
Firstly, the Iraqi authorities have not provided a satisfactory explanation for what happened to 6500 unused chemical warheads from the war against Iran. They may contain some 1000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents. We do not know where they are. Such large amounts could cause irreparable damage.
Secondly, it is unclear what has happened to 8500 litres of concentrated anthrax that Iraq earlier admitted to possessing.
Thirdly, there is considerable uncertainty about Iraq’s missile systems. The inspectors have found indications that Iraq has manufactured missiles in violation of UN demands, and that these may have a longer range than the 150 km limit set by the UN.
The weapons inspectors have also indicated that the uncertainty about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is solely due to Iraqi failure to co-operate, even though the authorities technically speaking have facilitated the inspections. Clearly Iraq has still not understood that it is absolutely necessary to produce complete documentation as it is explicitly required to do in resolution 1441.
The truly disturbing question is, if Iraq really has nothing to hide, why are the authorities not co-operating to the satisfaction of the inspectors and the Security Council?
To be sure, additional documentation was produced during Blix’ and ElBaradei’s visit to Baghdad last weekend, but this does not seem to have had any appreciable influence on the inspectors’ criticism. I presume that the inspectors will discuss this more fully when they report to the Security Council tomorrow.
It is important for the international community to keep up political and diplomatic pressure on the regime in Iraq. The Iraqis still have the time and the possibility to make use of this final chance to comply with the international community’s demands. But time is running out. The responsibility and the burden of proof lie entirely with Iraq. The country must show in practice that it is willing to comply with resolution 1441 and co-operate fully with the inspectors.
But it remains to be seen whether the regime in Baghdad is willing to do this. We must not forget that ever since 1991, Iraq has failed to comply with binding resolutions of the Security Council and has done what it can to prevent the weapons inspectors from completing their investigations.
Nor must we forget that it was only after President Bush’s speech on 12 September last year that Saddam Hussein agreed to resume co-operation with the UN. And it was only after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech on 5 February this year that the regime indicated that it would make further concessions to the inspectors.
Our experience is that strong pressure has to be put on the regime in Baghdad before it is willing to co-operate.
Secretary of State Powell delivered a comprehensive statement to the Security Council on 5 February. The scope and detail of his account mean that it cannot be ignored.
Some people say that Powell’s statement told us nothing new. I myself was not aware of everything he talked about. Nor had I seen the information put together in this way before. However, the crucial point is not whether the information is new, but whether it is correct. As far as I can see, objections have only been raised to a few of the points in his thorough account.
It is positive that the USA has further documented the possible existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This is exactly the kind of information that Norway and other countries have been calling for.
The sum of the documentation and information that the USA presented to the Security Council supports the weapons inspectors’ conclusion that Iraq has not provided the UN with complete information. I trust that the weapons inspectors are reviewing and evaluating more closely the information presented by the USA and will report back to the Security Council.
Mr President,
The next few days and weeks will be decisive for the way the Iraq issue develops. The situation is extremely serious, and we must be prepared for the fact that the USA and the UK with the support of several other countries will be willing to use military force if the regime in Baghdad does not co-operate fully. As we all know, preparations for military operations are in full swing.
But I would like to emphasise once more that the Security Council has not finished its deliberations on the question of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. We have not yet exhausted all the available diplomatic and political means.
I noted that during his statement to the Security Council, Secretary of State Powell emphasised that the Council did not draw up resolution 1441 in order to go to war, but in order to maintain peace – and to give Iraq a last chance. Powell showed a clear willingness to continue on the UN track. This is positive and in keeping with the Norwegian position that the Security Council is responsible for dealing with the Iraq question and for maintaining international peace and security.
The Norwegian Government still considers it essential to seek to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction without using military force.
The Government’s position is therefore that the issue must be dealt with once more in the Security Council in the light of the weapons inspectors’ reports. The response of the world community must be based on a Security Council resolution. This will be the basis for the Government’s further consideration of the matter. Norway must take an independent standpoint, but of course within the limits that a binding decision of the Security Council sets for all UN member countries.
Both during Norway’s term on the Security Council and subsequently, the Government has consistently maintained that it is the UN track that must be followed. This is not because we are incapable of action, but because we have made a fundamental choice based on the role that the international community has given the Security Council.
But what does this mean in practice?
Firstly, through resolution 1441 we have put considerable pressure on the regime in Baghdad, not least because the resolution states explicitly that Iraq will face serious consequences unless it is willing to co-operate. We do not wish to weaken the pressure on Saddam Hussein by drawing conclusions at this point, before the Security Council has considered the matter again.
Secondly, it means that the weapons inspectors must be given an opportunity to do their job and the time to do it in. And they must be given all possible support, as UNMOVIC and the IAEA have requested. I said something along these lines after the inspectors had presented their first report on 27 January this year. We must remain open to all constructive proposals that can contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, provided that Iraq co-operates.
Thirdly, the decision on the way forward must be taken in the Security Council. It must be founded on the best possible factual basis. And this basis must be in place before the Security Council makes the difficult decision on how to proceed.
Some people have claimed that this is an unclear position. But they are wrong. However, the choice we have made means that we neither can nor will cross any bridges before we get to them.
The weapons inspectors will be reporting to the Security Council again tomorrow. Unless there are clear indications that Iraq is prepared to co-operate actively with them and comply fully and without delay with the Security Council’s demands, we will be facing an extremely serious situation. However, it would not be right for me to speculate in advance on what conclusions the Security Council will ultimately reach.
It is important that all feasible routes to a solution without the use of military force are tried. The best route is the one that the authorities in Baghdad have the key to: they can comply with the UN’s demands.
Mr President,
I would like to say a few words about NATO’s deliberations on the Iraq issue. The Allied consultations are about safeguarding Turkey’s security policy interests. Turkey feels that its security will be threatened by Iraq if war breaks out, and has therefore made use of its right as a NATO member to raise this issue in the NATO Council. This is solely a matter of defensive contingency measures that do not in any way anticipate the efforts being made in the UN Security Council to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
It should be noted that the division in Allied views on the planning of such defensive contingency measures does not run down the middle of the Atlantic. Fourteen of the European Allies have joined with the USA and Canada in advocating a swift decision, and only Germany, France and Belgium have adopted a different view. So if there is any division of opinion, it runs straight through Europe.
For Norway, it is of course of the utmost importance to maintain the solidarity of the Alliance. I therefore hope that it will be possible to reach a NATO decision as soon as possible.
(...)Mr President,
All the challenges I have mentioned in my statement have this in common: they can only be resolved through international solidarity and co-operation, whether at global or regional level. The Government will ensure that Norway continues to take its share of the responsibility for these efforts. For it is in Norway’s own national interest to strive for an international community based on the UN Charter, international law and binding intergovernmental co-operation.