German MFA: Fischer Condemning the War in Iraq

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen,

I presume the rest of you must feel the same as I do: that on this day of all days it is hard to conduct a doubtless important but nonetheless ordinary budgetary debate. In view of the launching of the first military strikes it is, as Kofi Annan said yesterday at the UN Security Council meeting, a sad day. And I would like to add that for myself and the Federal Government it is a bitter piece of news, for war is the worst of all solutions.

War may only ever be used as a last resort. This Government saw no alternative in both Kosovo and Afghanistan and, as much as we disliked it, made use of this last resort. But before resorting to this ultimate instrument, one must always be aware of the risks and be sure that all peaceful means have genuinely been exhausted. These are the primary reasons why the Federal Government rejects this war and will not participate in it.

Looking at the situation in Iraq, one will naturally conclude that Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator. He has twice invaded neighbouring countries. He has in the past possessed weapons of mass destruction and there are grounds to suspect that he still has weapons of mass destruction. For all these reasons, the world has maintained a policy of containment since the first Gulf War, has established no-fly zones and imposed strict sanctions, the last also with horrendous consequences for large parts of the population.

Throughout this period, the policy on Iraq was not a policy of appeasement. Nonetheless, the Security Council decided to adopt a new resolution. Resolution 1441 led to the return of the inspectors. The inspectors have made progress in their work. Iraq was slow to cooperate, and in the beginning its cooperation left much to be desired. Nevertheless, the inspections have succeeded in minimizing the risk. Can one, in all seriousness, consider slow cooperation a reason for war, when at the same time monitoring mechanisms were being enhanced and the risk reduced? In our opinion, the answer is absolutely not!

The inspections had been shown to be working. It has repeatedly been said that they were only working in conjunction with the military pressure being applied to back them up. But today we have to look more closely at this claim. Anyone who has read the American newspapers such as the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal over the past few days will have had no illusions that the military build-up was just for show, and that it therefore had a corresponding effect.

In this context the limited nature of the accusations made yesterday against the Federal Chancellor and the Federal Government by Ms Merkel, the leader of the Opposition, also becomes apparent. Hans Blix had made a decision that related to the al-Samud missiles. These missiles were included in the report submitted pursuant to the Security Council resolution. The inspectors did their work and determined that the range of these missiles was longer than permitted. After this determination had been made it was clear that the missiles had to be destroyed. Hans Blix scheduled the destruction of these missiles to begin on 1 March and set out the procedure to be followed.

I am sure that if Saddam Hussein had at that stage appeared to reject this demand, military action would have been taken considerably sooner. When the inspections were beginning to have a positive effect – 70 of these missiles have so far been destroyed – they were suddenly deemed irrelevant. Hans Blix, however, submitted his concrete working report yesterday on precisely that basis.

Why am I telling you all this? I am doing so because it is my firm personal and political conviction that we did have a chance to disarm Iraq peacefully and comprehensively and to eliminate the danger posed by the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq may well have.

But I also want to make another point, which I have already made on numerous occasions: we would indeed not have managed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That was never part of the Security Council resolution nor part of the policy pursued by the Security Council.

This brings me to the crucial question: why was it not possible to overcome the divide in the Security Council? I do not understand the blinkered domestic view and political calculus that lies behind criticism of the Federal Government for prematurely positioning itself and other such mistakes. Such criticism does not in any way relate to the facts.

This was demonstrated again yesterday in the Security Council. There has been no change in where the majority in the Security Council lies, despite months of debate and the very difficult situations in which the individual member states have found themselves. The majority has remained were it was at the beginning. The clear majority of the Security Council is, just like the Federal Government, which represents the Federal Republic of Germany in the Security Council, of the opinion that it is a mistake to resort to military means when peaceful means have not been fully exhausted. This was made clear yesterday. It needs to be finally accepted that the clear majority of the Security Council is against war.

That has nothing to do with anybody taking a premature stance, isolating themselves or whatever else you claim. Some of the countries concerned are, like ourselves, the closest partners of the United States of America, such as Mexico and Chile, for example. We are not talking about countries about whose allegiance to the United States there can be one iota of a doubt, there is certainly no doubt as concerns the Europeans. These arguments cannot easily be discussed.

I mention this again because I believe it is a matter of great importance that will have relevance beyond the present day. And I want to tell you why. Even if I do not subscribe to the worst-case scenario, this will not be the last problem of this type in the world. You know that as well as we do. Does that mean that the new world order will be built on wars of disarmament against dictators who are suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction or whom we have good reason to believe to possess such weapons? To give us greater security, should we not rather rely, as the majority in the Security Council hold right, on the structures and instruments linked to the United Nations which we have now developed? An effective non-proliferation regime would really fight the new dangers and risks, but the foundations of such a regime cannot be the individual decisions of a single power, but rather the yet-to-be developed common rules of collective security and related instruments. This is the Federal Government's position.

Our major concern is the fate of the people. We all hope – and in this I want to expressly include the soldiers deployed – that the military action will be concluded as quickly as possible and above all that the civilian population, which has suffered enough in the past decades under this dictator and other conditions, is protected. In no case – let me stress this once again – may weapons of mass destruction be used and in no case may Israel be attacked. I trust that we are in full agreement on this point.

Unlike in days gone by, the Federal Government viewed it as a matter of course to deliver patriot missiles to Israel on request.

Everything must be done to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe – as Kofi Annan made clear yesterday in his impressive address at the end of the Security Council meeting.

The United Nations has achieved much in this field in the past years. Over two million people have been and still are directly dependent on food aid supplied by the UN. It is especially the weakest – the ill, the old, the disabled and children – who rely on these deliveries. Therefore it is particularly vital that we increase our commitment to such programmes. I would like to thank the parliamentary groups even now for their support in making this increase reality. For we must do all we can to avoid a humanitarian disaster.

It is however crucial that the Security Council and the United Nations remain the central channel for such aid. The same is true for negotiations on a political solution and the restoration of peace in the region. It is vital if we really want to eliminate the threats for good.

A short review. After the events of 11 September I tried, on my visits to Washington on 18 and 19 September, to discuss potential deficits. A few of you are aware of this, for we spoke about it in private with one or two representatives of the Opposition. I am therefore aware of your concerns and misgivings. If there was a deficit after 11 September, the key question is not whether the world must change in the face of the new threats, but rather how it must change.

The transatlantic strategic debate simply did not take place. That is in my opinion the main problem. We will not be able to make up for this by evoking historical reminiscences – there I bow to the larger Opposition group. We have to understand that we do not have to put up with everything just because of our strategic orientation. I do not wish to be polemical. But one has to see that in almost all democracies outside the US there is massive resistance among the population to the war. This is true of America's closest Latin American allies as well as its closest European allies.

This resistance reflects precisely this lack of discussion. How should a new world order be moulded? Should it be cooperative? Should it be built on a multilateral foundation? Or is it a unilateral world, which makes substantive differences along the fault lines of power? The Europeans in particular must discuss such questions, not in confrontation with the US, but rather with a view to developing our own capabilities.

I do not consider it at all a bad thing that the Europeans realize that they do not yet agree on this matter. The European Union has always grown stronger through crises and new challenges. I expressly add that I understand only too well the divergent opinion of many Eastern Europeans, above all our Polish friends. With their fourfold experience of partition, as well as their experience with Russia and with us, it is understandable that they take a different view. We Germans in particular know from our own experience following German Unification just how difficult it is to grow together, and how much patience and sensitiveness is required to meet each other halfway.

This enlarged Union will become a more fissured Union. An awful lot of experience will be necessary before we can overcome the 50-year long division of Europe. A new generation must be born. This however presupposes that we establish stable institutions capable of integrating this large and cumbersome Union. That is the precondition. And with it we Europeans naturally face a heavy, and international, responsibility. This too is one of the consequences of the past months. We must live up to this responsibility.

For if Europe stands for an extended security concept, if Europe stands for multilateralism, for a cooperative new world order, Europe must also have the political will and the full palette of options, institutions and capabilities to meet the demands of such multilateralism. As the largest member state of the European Union, our country will, crucially, have to play an active role.

This strategic discussion must be conducted over the long term and must eventually result in decisions being taken. The Heads of State or Government, as they meet this very day, must not forget this.

Let me repeat: today brought bitter news, for a peaceful alternative was practically available.

(...) it is a bitter day. Our concern is for the people. We hope and wish that this war will be over as quickly as possible. Our major concern is to avoid a humanitarian disaster. We want to do all we can, under the auspices and leadership of the UN, to ensure that disaster is averted.

Above and beyond this, we want a multilateral world order, we want a strong United Nations. I think the theory that the Security Council has been weakened is simply wrong. A strong United Nations presupposes that the Europeans unite and do their part to ensure that a multilateral world order built on a cooperative security foundation becomes reality.

As of August 2006, Iraq Watch is no longer being updated. Click here for more information.

Search WMD profiles Iraqi entities of concern Iraq's suppliers UN documents Government documents Controlled items Perspectives	SPEECH BY JOSCHKA FISCHER GERMAN FEDERAL FOREIGN MINISTER GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTRY March 20, 2003 Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, I presume the rest of you must feel the same as I do: that on this day of all days it is hard to conduct a doubtless important but nonetheless ordinary budgetary debate. In view of the launching of the first military strikes it is, as Kofi Annan said yesterday at the UN Security Council meeting, a sad day. And I would like to add that for myself and the Federal Government it is a bitter piece of news, for war is the worst of all solutions. War may only ever be used as a last resort. This Government saw no alternative in both Kosovo and Afghanistan and, as much as we disliked it, made use of this last resort. But before resorting to this ultimate instrument, one must always be aware of the risks and be sure that all peaceful means have genuinely been exhausted. These are the primary reasons why the Federal Government rejects this war and will not participate in it. Looking at the situation in Iraq, one will naturally conclude that Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator. He has twice invaded neighbouring countries. He has in the past possessed weapons of mass destruction and there are grounds to suspect that he still has weapons of mass destruction. For all these reasons, the world has maintained a policy of containment since the first Gulf War, has established no-fly zones and imposed strict sanctions, the last also with horrendous consequences for large parts of the population. Throughout this period, the policy on Iraq was not a policy of appeasement. Nonetheless, the Security Council decided to adopt a new resolution. Resolution 1441 led to the return of the inspectors. The inspectors have made progress in their work. Iraq was slow to cooperate, and in the beginning its cooperation left much to be desired. Nevertheless, the inspections have succeeded in minimizing the risk. Can one, in all seriousness, consider slow cooperation a reason for war, when at the same time monitoring mechanisms were being enhanced and the risk reduced? In our opinion, the answer is absolutely not! The inspections had been shown to be working. It has repeatedly been said that they were only working in conjunction with the military pressure being applied to back them up. But today we have to look more closely at this claim. Anyone who has read the American newspapers such as the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal over the past few days will have had no illusions that the military build-up was just for show, and that it therefore had a corresponding effect. In this context the limited nature of the accusations made yesterday against the Federal Chancellor and the Federal Government by Ms Merkel, the leader of the Opposition, also becomes apparent. Hans Blix had made a decision that related to the al-Samud missiles. These missiles were included in the report submitted pursuant to the Security Council resolution. The inspectors did their work and determined that the range of these missiles was longer than permitted. After this determination had been made it was clear that the missiles had to be destroyed. Hans Blix scheduled the destruction of these missiles to begin on 1 March and set out the procedure to be followed. I am sure that if Saddam Hussein had at that stage appeared to reject this demand, military action would have been taken considerably sooner. When the inspections were beginning to have a positive effect – 70 of these missiles have so far been destroyed – they were suddenly deemed irrelevant. Hans Blix, however, submitted his concrete working report yesterday on precisely that basis. Why am I telling you all this? I am doing so because it is my firm personal and political conviction that we did have a chance to disarm Iraq peacefully and comprehensively and to eliminate the danger posed by the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq may well have. But I also want to make another point, which I have already made on numerous occasions: we would indeed not have managed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That was never part of the Security Council resolution nor part of the policy pursued by the Security Council. This brings me to the crucial question: why was it not possible to overcome the divide in the Security Council? I do not understand the blinkered domestic view and political calculus that lies behind criticism of the Federal Government for prematurely positioning itself and other such mistakes. Such criticism does not in any way relate to the facts. This was demonstrated again yesterday in the Security Council. There has been no change in where the majority in the Security Council lies, despite months of debate and the very difficult situations in which the individual member states have found themselves. The majority has remained were it was at the beginning. The clear majority of the Security Council is, just like the Federal Government, which represents the Federal Republic of Germany in the Security Council, of the opinion that it is a mistake to resort to military means when peaceful means have not been fully exhausted. This was made clear yesterday. It needs to be finally accepted that the clear majority of the Security Council is against war. That has nothing to do with anybody taking a premature stance, isolating themselves or whatever else you claim. Some of the countries concerned are, like ourselves, the closest partners of the United States of America, such as Mexico and Chile, for example. We are not talking about countries about whose allegiance to the United States there can be one iota of a doubt, there is certainly no doubt as concerns the Europeans. These arguments cannot easily be discussed. I mention this again because I believe it is a matter of great importance that will have relevance beyond the present day. And I want to tell you why. Even if I do not subscribe to the worst-case scenario, this will not be the last problem of this type in the world. You know that as well as we do. Does that mean that the new world order will be built on wars of disarmament against dictators who are suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction or whom we have good reason to believe to possess such weapons? To give us greater security, should we not rather rely, as the majority in the Security Council hold right, on the structures and instruments linked to the United Nations which we have now developed? An effective non-proliferation regime would really fight the new dangers and risks, but the foundations of such a regime cannot be the individual decisions of a single power, but rather the yet-to-be developed common rules of collective security and related instruments. This is the Federal Government's position. Our major concern is the fate of the people. We all hope – and in this I want to expressly include the soldiers deployed – that the military action will be concluded as quickly as possible and above all that the civilian population, which has suffered enough in the past decades under this dictator and other conditions, is protected. In no case – let me stress this once again – may weapons of mass destruction be used and in no case may Israel be attacked. I trust that we are in full agreement on this point. Unlike in days gone by, the Federal Government viewed it as a matter of course to deliver patriot missiles to Israel on request. Everything must be done to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe – as Kofi Annan made clear yesterday in his impressive address at the end of the Security Council meeting. The United Nations has achieved much in this field in the past years. Over two million people have been and still are directly dependent on food aid supplied by the UN. It is especially the weakest – the ill, the old, the disabled and children – who rely on these deliveries. Therefore it is particularly vital that we increase our commitment to such programmes. I would like to thank the parliamentary groups even now for their support in making this increase reality. For we must do all we can to avoid a humanitarian disaster. It is however crucial that the Security Council and the United Nations remain the central channel for such aid. The same is true for negotiations on a political solution and the restoration of peace in the region. It is vital if we really want to eliminate the threats for good. A short review. After the events of 11 September I tried, on my visits to Washington on 18 and 19 September, to discuss potential deficits. A few of you are aware of this, for we spoke about it in private with one or two representatives of the Opposition. I am therefore aware of your concerns and misgivings. If there was a deficit after 11 September, the key question is not whether the world must change in the face of the new threats, but rather how it must change. The transatlantic strategic debate simply did not take place. That is in my opinion the main problem. We will not be able to make up for this by evoking historical reminiscences – there I bow to the larger Opposition group. We have to understand that we do not have to put up with everything just because of our strategic orientation. I do not wish to be polemical. But one has to see that in almost all democracies outside the US there is massive resistance among the population to the war. This is true of America's closest Latin American allies as well as its closest European allies. This resistance reflects precisely this lack of discussion. How should a new world order be moulded? Should it be cooperative? Should it be built on a multilateral foundation? Or is it a unilateral world, which makes substantive differences along the fault lines of power? The Europeans in particular must discuss such questions, not in confrontation with the US, but rather with a view to developing our own capabilities. I do not consider it at all a bad thing that the Europeans realize that they do not yet agree on this matter. The European Union has always grown stronger through crises and new challenges. I expressly add that I understand only too well the divergent opinion of many Eastern Europeans, above all our Polish friends. With their fourfold experience of partition, as well as their experience with Russia and with us, it is understandable that they take a different view. We Germans in particular know from our own experience following German Unification just how difficult it is to grow together, and how much patience and sensitiveness is required to meet each other halfway. This enlarged Union will become a more fissured Union. An awful lot of experience will be necessary before we can overcome the 50-year long division of Europe. A new generation must be born. This however presupposes that we establish stable institutions capable of integrating this large and cumbersome Union. That is the precondition. And with it we Europeans naturally face a heavy, and international, responsibility. This too is one of the consequences of the past months. We must live up to this responsibility. For if Europe stands for an extended security concept, if Europe stands for multilateralism, for a cooperative new world order, Europe must also have the political will and the full palette of options, institutions and capabilities to meet the demands of such multilateralism. As the largest member state of the European Union, our country will, crucially, have to play an active role. This strategic discussion must be conducted over the long term and must eventually result in decisions being taken. The Heads of State or Government, as they meet this very day, must not forget this. Let me repeat: today brought bitter news, for a peaceful alternative was practically available. (...) it is a bitter day. Our concern is for the people. We hope and wish that this war will be over as quickly as possible. Our major concern is to avoid a humanitarian disaster. We want to do all we can, under the auspices and leadership of the UN, to ensure that disaster is averted. Above and beyond this, we want a multilateral world order, we want a strong United Nations. I think the theory that the Security Council has been weakened is simply wrong. A strong United Nations presupposes that the Europeans unite and do their part to ensure that a multilateral world order built on a cooperative security foundation becomes reality.