The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
“There is
no doubt that, particularly in recent weeks, Baghdad has begun
to
co-operate
more. The information Iraq has provided … are steps in the
right
direction.
Baghdad is meeting more and more of the demands contained in
the
Security
Council resolutions. But why should we … especially now –
abandon
our plans
to disarm Iraq by peaceful means?
“The
majority of Security Council members believe that there are no
grounds now
for breaking
off the disarmament process …”
987.
Mr Fischer
made three points:
•
The “myth”
that the Security Council had “failed” must be countered. It
had
“made
available the instruments to disarm Iraq peacefully”. The Security
Council
was “not
responsible” for what happened outside the United
Nations.
•
“… clearly,
under the current circumstances the policy of military intervention
has
no
credibility. It does not have the support of our people. It would
not have taken
much to
safeguard the unity of the Security Council. There is no basis in
the
United
Nations Charter for regime change by military means.”
•
The
inspection regime should be preserved and the work programme
endorsed
because
both would be needed after military action.
988.
Mr Fischer
concluded that Germany was “convinced that the United
Nations
and the
Security Council must continue to play the central role in the Iraq
conflict”.
That was
“crucial to world order and must continue to be the case in the
future”.
The United
Nations was “the key institution for the preservation of peace and
stability
and for the
peaceful reconciliation of interests”. There was “no substitute for
its functions
as a
guardian of peace”.
989.
Mr Fischer
also argued that an “effective international non-proliferation
and
disarmament
regime” continued to be needed. The instruments developed in the
Iraq
process
could be used to make the world a safer place. But the UN was the
“only
appropriate
framework” for that: “No one can seriously believe that disarmament
wars
are the way
forward.” Europe had experienced the horrors of war “too often”:
“It can
only be the
very last resort when all peaceful alternatives really have been
exhausted.”
Germany
had:
“… accepted
the necessity of war on two occasions … because all
peaceful
alternatives
had proved unsuccessful.
“Germany
fought side by side with its allies in Kosovo. It did likewise in
Afghanistan.
“Today,
however, we in Germany do not believe that there is no alternative
to military
force. To
the contrary, we feel that Iraq can be disarmed using peaceful
means.”
990.
Mr de
Villepin said that for France “war can only be a last resort”. He
stated that
the
inspectors’ work programmes reminded the Council that there was
“still a clear and
576