the real voice of america, page-3

re: the real voice of germany The old lie machine at it again. (Ritter certainly believed that but the German and French intelligence were even more firmly of the opinion that Iraq had WMDs than were the US/Brits).

Have a look at what the German Foreign minister said a few days before the war. Note that Germany was not in favour of the war so would have tried to discredit the view that Sadamm had WMD if its intelligence supported that. Instead the following is Germany's position:

Statement by Federal Foreign Minister Fischer at the Public Meeting of the Security Council on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, New York, 7 March 2003
Mr President,
I would like to thank Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei for their briefing on the quarterly report. Both can count on Germany's full support.

The aim of the international community remains the complete disarmament - and only the disarmament - of Iraq to finally eliminate the international threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This is what all the relevant Security Council Resolutions say.

What is at stake now is the unity of the International Community. We have taken a forceful stance in our common fight against international terrorism. We fight together against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We stand united in our condemnation of the Iraqi regime. Where we have different views is our strategy on how to achieve effective and total disarmament of Iraq. The Security Council must not spare any effort to find a joint approach to attain our common goal.

The briefing by Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei has made clear once more: Iraq's cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA does not yet fully meet UN demands. Baghdad could have taken many of the recent steps earlier and more willingly. In recent days, cooperation has nevertheless notably improved. This is a positive development which makes all the less comprehensible why this development should now be abandoned.

There is real progress to be noted on the implementation of the relevant Security Council Resolutions in all fields:

In the sphere of missile technology, there has been clear progress. Thus, Iraq informed the inspectors of its Al Samoud missiles. After examination by UNMOVIC, it was established that their range was too long. After Dr Blix had set the regime in Baghdad a deadline for their destruction, Iraq began to destroy the missiles within the prescribed timeframe. This is important progress. It shows that peaceful disarmament is possible and that there is a real alternative to war. This positive development also shows that Hans Blix' approach of giving the regime in Baghdad concrete timeframes is successful. This method also ought to be used for other unresolved problems.

As far as Iraq’s nuclear potential is concerned, we can note great progress. Dr ElBaradei has just confirmed this. The accounts presented by Iraq are plausible and verifiable. Cooperation on inspections is good. The IAEA is confident about reaching final conclusions soon.

Turning to biological weapons, there has also been progress in individual spheres. For example, in the excavation of many R400 aerial bombs which are now being assessed by UNMOVIC. Baghdad has announced the presentation of a comprehensive report on open questions in the field of biological and chemical weapons.

The interviews with Iraqi scientists are now taking place without monitoring or recording. Preparations are being made to conduct interviews abroad.

Mr President,
France, Russia and Germany presented a Memorandum to the Security Council on 24 February proposing a tough regime of intensive inspections. On the basis of these proposals, the inspections should be stepped up and accelerated. For this to happen, each remaining problem has to be specified and priorities have to be set. A timeframe should thereby be prescribed for every single problem.

Therefore, Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei should present us with a detailed, comprehensive working programme that clarifies how they and their teams intend to tackle the complete disarmament of Iraq as called for by the UN. It is of great importance that this working programme is presented to the Security Council without delay. We would like to hear today a statement by the inspectors on what are the remaining key disarmament issues in the Cluster report that has been drawn up.

The inspections can't go on for ever. The aim of disarming Iraq has to be pursued energetically and systematically. The Iraqi Government has to fully cooperate with the inspectors.

But given the current situation and the ongoing progress we see no need for a second Resolution. Why should we leave the path we have embarked on now that the inspections on the basis of Resolution 1441 are showing viable results?

Mr President,
The Security Council is now meeting for the third time within a month at ministerial level to discuss the Iraq crisis. This shows the urgency we attach to the disarmament of Iraq and to the threat of war. The crisis in Iraq troubles our governments, it troubles the people in our countries. It troubles the entire region of the Near and Middle East. Precisely because the situation is so dramatic we have to keep firmly reminding ourselves what a war would mean. What endless suffering it would bring to countless innocent people. What catastrophic humanitarian consequences it would entail. Are we really in a situation that absolutely necessitates the "ultima ratio", the very last resort? I think not, because the peaceful means are far from exhausted.

Mr President,
The Security Council – in fact, we all face an important decision, probably a historic turning point.

The alternatives are clear: Disarmament of Iraq by war or disarmament by exhausting all peaceful means. The risks of a military option are evident to us all. There is good reason to believe that the region would not become more stable rather more unstable through a war – and, what is more, in the long term; that international terrorism would be strengthened not weakened; that our joint efforts to solve the Middle East Conflict would be hindered.

Then, there is the alternative. If we succeed in implementing the effective and complete disarmament of Iraq with peaceful means, we will improve the framework conditions for a regional process of stability, security and cooperation, based on the renunciation of the use of force, on arms control and on a cooperative system of confidence-building measures.

Mr President,
Resolutions 1441 and 1284 point a clear way forward for the Security Council. They have to remain the basis of our action. The progress of last few days have shown: We have efficient alternatives to war in Iraq. By taking this path we will strengthen the relevance of the United Nations and the Security Council.

Thank you.

published: Friday 07.03.03