STATEMENT BY IGOR IVANOV
RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

March 21, 2003

Esteemed deputies,

Today we are discussing the most acute international problem, to which the attention of the whole world is riveted -- the situation around Iraq.

Over the last few months Russia and other countries have taken energetic efforts to prevent war and find a political solution to the Iraqi problem. In doing so we were fully aware of the fact that not only the fate of Iraq but to a large extent the future of international relations will depend on the means to be used to solve the problem.

This is why Russia has so persistently and firmly insisted that the Iraqi situation be resolved in accordance with international law and UN Security Council resolutions. In dealing with this problem we tried to create conditions for resolving other complex problems, primarily those connected with the threat of international terrorism and other global challenges. By and large the idea was to take a step toward a new, just and safe world order through the Iraqi settlement.

We leaned on the understanding and support of a broad range of countries, including a majority of UN Security Council members. The basis for concerted international action on Iraq certainly existed and exists. It is comprehensive recognition of the need to answer the main question: does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction or it does not? Resolution 1441, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council and which enabled international inspectors to resume their work in Iraq, served this purpose. As is known, Russia has done much to convince Baghdad to unconditionally agree to the resumption of inspections. It is of fundamental importance that owing to the unity of the international community and joint pressure Iraq met practically all demands of the inspectors and did not pose any serious obstacles to their work. They were granted unconditional and unlimited access to any facilities in Iraq.

During the four and a half months of their work in Iraq, UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors achieved considerable progress. The results of this work are well-known - suffice it to mention the elimination of Al-Samoud-2 missiles.

The work of the inspectors was repeatedly discussed at the UN Security Council sessions, including four times at the foreign minister level. Each time it was becoming more and more obvious that the inspectors had everything they needed to successfully accomplish their mission and complete the process of Iraq's disarmament by peaceful means.

Unfortunately, this work was interrupted - contrary to the will of the Security Council. But even those results that had been achieved were sufficient reason to say with all responsibility that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the security of the United States or any other nation. We have many times raised the following question with our American partners: how does Baghdad specifically threaten them? And we did not get a clear answer even once. It is noteworthy that even respected US politicians, in particular, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, have said that the strike against Iraq is the first war in the history of the US started by the US in the absence of a direct threat.

Likewise, there are no convincing facts to confirm the accusations that Iraq supports international terrorism.

It is no chance, therefore, that the supporters of the forcible solution began to prioritize questions that were not directly related to the UN Security Council resolutions. They started to say that inspections did not matter and that what mattered was that Iraq was to disarm itself and to prove that to the world at large. This was followed by statements that the point is not in disarming Iraq but in changing its regime. A new argument was put forth quite recently, that the war against Iraq is needed in order to begin democratic reforms in the entire Islamic world. In other words, attempts were being made to find pretexts for justifying a military solution of the Iraqi problem. And this was happening at the time when prospects for disarming Iraq with the help of international inspectors were becoming increasingly real.

The meeting of the UN Security Council convened on March 19 at our initiative at the foreign minister level proved extremely important in this context. The reports submitted to the meeting by the UNMOVIC and IAEA heads, listing concrete questions that needed clarifications, strongly proved the efficiency of the existing inspections mechanism. This demonstrated anew that the arguments in favor of inevitability of the use of force against Iraq as the only means of achieving its disarmament were far-fetched.

In spite of all that, on March 20 the US began military actions against Iraq. As for our assessment of this action, it is contained in the comprehensive statement by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. This action does not have legal grounds, of course. Attempts to justify it by referring to earlier UN Security Council resolutions are futile because, according to Resolution 1441, the degree of Baghdad's cooperation with the UN should be evaluated by the UN Security Council on the basis of UNMOVIC and IAEA reports. In other words, only the UN Security Council itself can determine any violation of Resolution 1441 by the Iraqi side and decide what actions should be taken in this context in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter and if there are grounds for the use of force against Iraq. In the absence of any such decision by the Security Council the use of force against Iraq - I want to stress this anew - has no legal grounds.

Shortly before the operation UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made it clear that if the US and other countries went beyond the UN Security Council and undertook military action, such action would not be consistent with the UN Charter.

There are also questions about the announced plans for the military occupation of Iraq. In the absence of the appropriate decision of the UN Security Council, such occupation will be unlawful because it will be a result of the unlawful use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state.

The humanitarian situation in Iraq is a matter of serious concern. There already is information about casualties among the civilian population. This raises the question of how the norms of international humanitarian law will be observed during the conflict. In particular, we are talking about a ban on attacking civilians and civilian facilities, about the non-use of indiscriminate weapons that cause excessive damage, and about not causing serious damage to the environment. The reaction of most countries in the world shows that the US actions against Iraq do not have international support. Playing with the thesis about the creation of a broad-based anti-Iraqi coalition can hardly convince anyone, let alone replace the will of the international community, which must be expressed only through the United Nations Organization. Particularly hard to understand are attempts to present this action as one of "liberation."

The non-acceptance of military action against Iraq is attested to by the fact that for several weeks now the whole world has been the scene of massive anti-war protests, including those in the United States.

At the present time the most urgent task is to ensure an early return of the Iraqi problem into the mainstream of a political settlement on the firm basis of the UN Charter and international law. Russia is profoundly convinced that in solving this problem the key role must continue to belong to the UN Security Council. In particular, it is important that the March 19 meeting succeeded in passing the Council's decision to the effect that international inspections were being suspended rather than terminated. Therefore, the chance remains to return to the completion of the UNMOVIC and IAEA mandate as soon as the proper conditions for that are in place.

In this connection I wish to especially dwell on one point. Now there is a lot of talk that the United Nations has allegedly lost its role in international relations, and there are attempts to compare it with the League of Nations. I categorically disagree with this. On the contrary, the unique experience of inspections in Iraq indicates that the UN Security Council as a body that bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security has fully coped with its duties by ensuring the dispatch of international inspectors to Iraq and creating the necessary conditions for their work. This experience can come in handy in the future as well in view of the acute problem of proliferation of mass destruction weapons in the world.

Finally, at all the stages of the development of the situation around Iraq Russia has acted consistently and in a balanced way, firmly defending our principled position and at the same time not slipping into confrontation with other nations. We tried to preserve a positive perspective of the unity of the UN Security Council member countries and cooperation among them. And today this policy line fully conforms to both Russia's national interests and the interests of the entire world community.

In the current conditions it is yet difficult to assess all the possible consequences of the war that has begun. However, one has every reason to say that it will result not in stabilizing but, on the contrary, in further aggravating the situation in that region. The attempts to foist by force on the Iraqi and other peoples of the Middle East some particular models of statehood lead inexorably to that. In reality such ambitions will only play into the hands of extremists operating under radical Islamic slogans. Indeed, those forces cannot wait for a pretext to justify their terrorist activities and multiply the number of their followers in the Islamic world. All this immediately contradicts the goals for which the international anti-terrorist coalition was established.

That is why it is vitally important to stop the war as soon as possible and to restore the unity of the world community. This is the necessary condition for carrying on multilateral cooperation in fighting global threats and challenges.

An important role in these issues belongs to interaction between parliaments. At a time when the world public with increasing firmness declares its non-acceptance of solutions to the Iraqi problem by force, parliamentarians can do much to unite the efforts of the international community in favor of an early end to the crisis situation around Iraq.

I would wish to assure the distinguished deputies that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs will be open to the closest possible interaction with the Federal Assembly with regard to this most complex problem, and that it counts on your understanding and support.

Thank you for your attention.