So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for her part, proposes another meeting on 14 March at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
- Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq through inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would jeopardize this unity, which would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority – that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of 11 September this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, who has been struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the purpose of the Security Council meeting held on 20 January, at France’s initiative.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaida and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that currently disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention today be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: we do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors’ reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to face up to all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on 4 February which we must answer:
In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the centre of the peace to be built whatever happens.
To those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to succumb to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honour we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything she owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. She wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. Faithful to her values, she believes in our ability to build together a better world./.