Click here for more information.
STATEMENT BY THE SPOKESPERSON
FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
November 15, 2002
Q - Is Iraq's statement that it doesn't have weapons of mass destruction considered a violation of resolution 1441?
What matters are the facts. At this time, we've had Iraq's acceptance of resolution 1441. The next stage is for Iraq to declare its programs and then for the inspectors to go in and inspect.
Q - What is Mr. Blix coming for?
To discuss the working conditions for UNMOVIC in Iraq and talk about the next stages in the implementation of resolution 1441. Mr. Blix will perhaps wish to discuss the French contribution to UNMOVIC. We have a number of inspectors and there are also other forms of support. He will perhaps talk to us about certain practical problems.
Q - Will there be a press conference tomorrow after the meeting?
Yes, about 1:00 p.m.
Q - Iraq has announced its good intentions by accepting resolution 1441 and is demanding in return that the sanctions be lifted. What is your response to Iraq's request?
This matter has been addressed in several U.N. resolutions, most recently in 1382 which is referred to in resolution 1441. So the procedures exist. But let's proceed in order. At this time, the first stage is the inspectors' return.
Q - In the Security Council, Mexico was the only county, with Syria, to propose lifting the sanctions against Iraq...
Be careful, don't confuse things. We don't, I believe, have differing substantive positions with Mexico on this matter—namely that there are texts on lifting the sanctions, then lifting the embargo, texts which provide for a whole series of stages leading to what we usually refer to as the end of the tunnel. These texts still exist and must be respected, like the others. We have a legalistic attitude to this which, I believe, concurs with Mexico's, which is also legalistic. The question that was asked was whether there was any explicit mention or not, and if so in what form, of this perspective in resolution 1441. That is what was under discussion.
For our part we have always considered that the essence of resolution 1441 was to send Iraq a very clear message, as clear as possible centered on the question of disarmament. But we were also careful to ensure, with other countries including Mexico, that all the relevant texts were recalled so that it is quite clear that all the earlier procedures referring to the possibility of lifting the embargo were confirmed, which is the case. As I said, resolution 1441 cites resolution 1382 which is the latest relevant text on this matter.
Q - A technical question: Iraq is to present a list of sites of weapons of mass destruction within 30 days. At this time it denies having such weapons. If in 30 days the Iraqis repeat the same denials, would that be considered a breach of resolution 1441?
In that case, resolution 1441 stipulates a very clear solution: the inspectors are to return to Iraq and check.
Q - So whether Iraq offers a denial or not, we have to wait for the inspectors' report in any case?
I don't want to speculate on the legal questions but it is clear for us that resolution 1441 sets out a two-stage procedure; in the event Iraq refuses to cooperate with the U.N. or puts obstacles in the way of the inspectors, Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei will report to the Council.
Q - Can we expect Iraq to show good faith in its declaration?
I'm not speculating, I'm keeping to the facts.