International terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are the most immediate threats to international peace and security today. This awareness has united the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations in the fight against those who have been willing to use such means to attack the fundamental values of our societies and thereby undermine both human dignity and our democratic way of life.

Today the attention of the international community is primarily focused on the uncertainty surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. This uncertainty is in itself a threat to international peace and stability.

The situation is made even more serious by the fact that the regime in Baghdad has been willing to use such weapons to achieve its aims. Iraq has twice invaded neighbouring countries, and has killed several thousand of its own citizens and Iranian soldiers using chemical weapons. We must therefore be prepared for the fact that in a given situation, the Iraqi regime may resort to such weapons again unless it is prevented from doing so.

Since the Gulf War ended in 1991, the UN Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iraq cooperate in destroying or removing all of its weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery, or in rendering them harmless. The Council has also ordered Iraq to give the UN weapons inspectors unfettered access. The demands made on Iraq are set out in a series of Security Council resolutions.

Nevertheless, we have received information – from the USA and other close allies – to the effect that Iraq still has access to chemical and biological weapons. It is also said that Iraq has an active nuclear weapons programme and that it will soon be capable of developing nuclear weapons if the regime manages to acquire highly enriched uranium. In addition, we have been told that Iraq has delivery systems that will enable it to attack neighbouring countries with such weapons of mass destruction. There are a number of independent research reports that have dealt with this in great detail.

However, the only way to answer the questions concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with any certainty is by carrying out a full and unfettered weapons inspection in the country. The main challenge facing the members of the Security Council now, Norway included, is how we can ensure credible inspections. The inspections are not an end in themselves, but a means for the international community to satisfy itself that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Since President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly on 12 September, Iraq has expressed its willingness to allow the weapons inspectors to return unconditionally. It is too early to tell whether Iraq’s ostensibly unconditional consent is a sign of a real change of attitude and willingness to comply with its obligation to cooperate fully with the UN. Unfortunately, all previous experience indicates that promises from the regime in Baghdad must be viewed with considerable scepticism.

The head of the UN weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, has discussed practical arrangements for the resumption of inspections with Iraqi representatives. According to Dr. Blix, there are still issues that have not yet been clarified. Dr. Blix himself prefers that UNMOVIC’s mandate is fully clarified before the inspectors return. This is also my position.

We should have a clear and unambiguous Security Council resolution, with a clear and unambiguous timetable, as a basis for the new inspections. Another important element in such a resolution must be free access for the inspectors to the whole of Iraq. This means that the Security Council will have to repeal the agreement concluded between Iraq and the UN in 1998 on special procedures for inspecting the so-called presidential sites, which include several hundred buildings, unless Iraq itself declares that it will disregard the agreement. The point is that no buildings or sites can be given immunity from inspection if we are to get definite answers to the questions linked to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. We cannot have an inspections system that has loopholes.

The discussions in the Security Council so far have shown a growing recognition of the necessity of intensifying the pressure on Iraq. This autumn’s debate in the General Assembly also demonstrated that the international community will no longer accept that Iraq ignores binding UN resolutions. In other words, there is broad international agreement that the Security Council should become actively involved in the efforts to fully eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Consultations are currently going on between the five permanent members of the Security Council on the elements of a new resolution. It is absolutely essential that the five reach agreement on a text. So far no draft resolution has been tabled, which also indicates that the consultations reflect the seriousness of the situation.

One of the main questions on which the five permanent members disagree is whether and when military force should be used if Iraq continues to ignore Security Council resolutions. The USA and the UK in particular have advocated a tougher stance, and that a new Security Council resolution must send a clear and unequivocal warning that force will be used if the Council’s demands are not complied with.

It is still too early to say anything definite about whether the five permanent members of the Security Council will be able to reach agreement on an ultimatum to Iraq, which would provide the basis for coercive measures if the demands are not complied with.

In the Government’s view, there are two main concerns that must be dealt with by the Security Council in the Iraq issue.

Firstly, it is essential to work towards the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems without using military force. Therefore, the Security Council resolution must be worded in such a way that it produces the desired effect in Baghdad. In our view, there must be absolutely no doubt that failure to comply will have extremely serious consequences for the country.

Secondly, any reaction to Iraq must be anchored in international law. The Security Council’s demands on Iraq are clear and precise. We feel strongly that this matter is the province of the Security Council, and are pleased that it is now being dealt with there.

Military measures would probably have extremely serious consequences for Iraq and its people. And they could also have a considerable impact on the region as a whole and on the cohesion of the broad coalition against international terrorism. This makes it even more important for the UN Security Council to stand united so that its legitimacy, credibility and authority are upheld.

. . .