The situation in Iraq

February 22, 2002

Madame President!
Ladies and Gentlemen!

For 20 years Saddam Hussein has governed or, to put it more precisely, terrorized Iraq and the region with an iron fist. He is one of the worst tyrants still in power. He brutally suppresses every form of political opposition as well as ethnic minorities, Kurds and Shiites. I will never forget the horrific scenes after the poison gas attacks on villages in the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq.

This shows the determination and brutality of this tyrant. He has produced weapons of mass destruction and used them against his own people. He also deployed them against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. He invaded Kuwait and not only attempted to annex this neighbouring state but also committed heinous crimes there.

Worst of all, however, is the brutal oppression of his own people. I happen to be familiar with the facts and figures, also from talks with my former colleague Robin Cook, who stated that the possibilities afforded by the United Nations programme for importing medicines, technical equipment for hospitals, foodstuffs and similar items, for instance, have by no means been exhausted but that imports of hard liquor from Scotland have increased tremendously. There are other examples that show how he is attempting to circumvent the sanctions and once again develop the capability for manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. All of this has long been common knowledge, and it was Colin Powell, it was precisely the United States of America that at the beginning of the Bush administration set out to revamp the sanctions programme, namely by reaching agreement on so-called "smart sanctions".

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. This is all embedded in the overall situation in the Middle East and the whole region as well as the situation since 11 September - since the horrific and inhumane terrorist attack on the people of the United States, on the government of the United States - and the emergence of the coalition against terror.

Deployment of the German armed
forces only within the framework of the Bundestag mandate for Operation Enduring Freedom

Let's get one thing straight right away: The German armed
forces will only be deployed on the basis of the parliamentary decision on Operation Enduring Freedom. As far as the mandate is concerned - and, incidentally, areas of operations as well
- there are clear-cut specifications here. The procedure has the approval of both the government of Afghanistan and people outside Afghanistan. You can thus definitely assume that all operations carried out by the German armed forces in this context will only take place within the framework of this mandate. The Federal Government will not be party to anything else. So as far as this point is concerned, you really ought to bring your election propaganda more in line with reality ¦

No involvement in speculation

Talking about the general situation here and talking about concrete plans are two entirely different things. The Federal Government is not aware of any concrete plans of the government of the United States of America. In view of the seriousness of the subject one may very well be tempted to speculate about it in political discourse, but the Federal Government cannot and dare not - as I am sure you can understand - become publicly involved in such speculation. We are quite willing to discuss all the various aspects in committee meetings, but we must stick to the facts in public discourse. We are concerned, however, to see that the discussion is headed in a certain direction: The Munich Conference on Security Policy has been mentioned. The American President used very strong language in his State of the Union Address as well.

Whether one agrees with the consequences following from the idea of an "axis of evil" in every respect, whether it is right in this context to cast the efforts of the reformers associated with Khatami to open up Iran in the light in which they were presented, whether the postulation of an "axis of evil" will have a salutary effect on the momentum of South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung+s "sunshine policy"
- which has unquestionably prompted steps in the right direction, though this is of course not yet the breakthrough; these are questions that have not only been raised here in Germany but are also meanwhile likely to be addressed again in Washington in the light of the American President+s visit to the Far East. I therefore think it is very important that we not indulge in speculation here but instead and indeed clearly voice our concerns.

Acceptance of the sanctions regime
by Saddam Hussein

I am not seeking to defend Saddam Hussein here - far from
it! Rather, I believe there is only one step that can prevent a corresponding escalation, namely that Saddam Hussein - this is something that he is obliged to do both politically and under international law, if he really means it - unconditionally accept the United Nations sanctions regime as formulated in two Security Council resolutions, in other words, that he allow the unrestricted activity of United Nations inspectors in Iraq so that it can be determined whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction and whether or not he is capable of producing them. If this is the case, then these weapons must be eliminated in keeping with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council so that Iraq no longer has these options at its disposal.

For someone who thinks ahead, this gives rise to the crucial question of where things go from there in the region as a whole

Transatlantic debate

We are currently engaged in a debate with our European partners. At the informal meeting of the European foreign ministers in Cáceres, everyone voiced the same concerns. You can see this yourself if you follow the articles in the national press. I have the impression that the rather strongly worded transatlantic debate, which certainly should not be continued in this tone, has done more good than bad from the standpoint of "Now we have to talk to each other" and "Now
let's listen to each other" - at least this was
the impression I gained from my discussion with American congressmen today. One thing is still clear: This is a discussion among partners, a discussion among friends.

We have to realize that the United States sees things differently than we Europeans do. Conversely, the United States must understand that our point of view differs from its own in some respects. We have a complicated and important discussion ahead of us that we must properly place in the context of the overall situation.

Let me bring this to a close. The great achievement of the United States in the 20th century was, after all, the military victory over National Socialism. Unfortunately it was not Germany that got rid of Hitler and his thugs; unfortunately the assassination attempt on July 20, 1944 was unsuccessful. And, may I add: Unfortunately the resistance of the Social Democrats and the Communists was also unsuccessful. Unfortunately courageous individuals were unsuccessful as well.

The United States of America, the other Allies and the Red
Army defeated the Nazis. This led to the division of Europe and to the Cold War. We have the United States to thank for the fact that Western Europe remained free. We have the United States to thank for the fact that West Germany was afforded a democratic perspective and for our reunification in peace and freedom.

Nation building

The great achievement, however, was precisely not a reliance
on military might alone but rather the "nation building" - as it is called today - that emerged from the confrontation between the systems, the confrontation with Soviet Communism. The rebuilding of the Federal Republic of Germany and other European democracies was nothing other than nation building. They are founded on the market economy, the concept of a social state and democracy. This was the great achievement.

As far as consideration of the potential prospects is
concerned: In the case of Afghanistan, too, we will find that the long-term challenge will be to pursue something like nation building. This will of course be true in the Middle East as well. Everything else would have very dangerous consequences. If I were to continue thinking along these lines I would wind up speculating, and I do not want to do that.

Within the transatlantic alliance we are engaged in an important and necessary debate. The position of the Federal Government is clear: We want the United Nations resolutions to be implemented promptly with no ifs or buts.

Thank you very much.

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page