Iraq/Zimbabwe - Interview given by M. de Villepin on the "Le Grand Jury RTL-Le Monde-LCI" television programme (excerpts), Paris 16.02.2003

Iraq/Zimbabwe – Interview given by M. Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the "Le Grand Jury RTL-Le Monde-LCI" television programme (excerpts) [Part 1]

Paris, 16 February 2003

(...)

Q. – Yesterday it was, above all, the pacifist voices which made themselves heard, more than those of people worried about the widespread presence of weapons of destruction in Iraq. Aren’t you afraid of, to an extent, being included in the pacifists’ camp?

THE MINISTER – From the outset France has made an unambiguous choice: to act responsibly. And President Chirac has said this. On the one hand, very great firmness, very great determination in the approach to Saddam Hussein in order to disarm him. This is the United Nations’ goal. On the other hand, she has chosen to take the inspections route as a peaceful means of attaining this goal. Today, this is clearly the key and our choice. As we see it, there are two solutions. On the one hand, there are those advocating war, military intervention, to obtain this disarmament. On the other, those who think that we can achieve this goal through the inspections. And what happened on Friday at the Security Council? What did the chief inspectors say? They said the inspections are working. This is very important. There could be doubts as to whether progress was achievable through these inspections. Yet, it’s clear to us that there’s progress. France’s goal – shared, it has to be reiterated, by a large majority of the international community – is to ensure that these inspections can be made fully effective so as to achieve our goal: no more chemical weapons, no more biological weapons, no nuclear weapons and, already, we know more about the various programmes which might exist in Iraq. We’ve made progress. Mr ElBaradei said that in six months’ time he would be able to give the guarantee that there was no prospect of a nuclear capacity in Iraq. We’ve also made progress in finding out about the chemical and biological situation. This is clearly the international community’s goal.

(...)

Q. – So when, for example, Mr ElBaradei says "six months for the nuclear capacity", does that seem to you a reasonable period of time?

THE MINISTER – Let’s compare. How much time would it take for a war genuinely to achieve the goal the international community has set itself, to disarm Iraq? How much time would be necessary? Because winning the war, that can be done relatively quickly. But winning the peace, how much time would it take to succeed in maintaining, guaranteeing Iraq’s unity, the region’s stability? To dispel the opposition, overcome the splits, the divisions which would inevitably appear on the international stage? How many months, how many years, how many decades? And what worries France is clearly this: the risk of even greater splits. We are all aware of the situation in the Middle East, the Israeli-Arab situation, the tensions existing in the Indo-Pakistan arc of crisis. Should we take the risk, through war, of introducing new uncertainties? Are we so sure that building peace through a war would be quicker than the path chosen by the inspectors? And there’s an additional argument which must be taken into account. It’s that there are other proliferation crises like that of Iraq in the world: North Korea and other countries which, today, are threatening proliferation. We have to find, through the United Nations, an instrument allowing us to settle the crises peacefully. There is in what we are doing a desire to provide a model, failing which, if we yield to the temptation to use force in Iraq’s case, will we tomorrow have to do so elsewhere, or should we imagine that, as if by magic, the other crises will resolve themselves just like that?

Q. – But on this question of time, the Americans are saying Saddam Hussein has now been walking all over us for twelve years, ever since 1991, and we’re not succeeding in getting the hoped-for results, the certainty of Iraq’s complete disarmament".

THE MINISTER – Let’s remember that the inspections began two and half months ago. Other examples are being used, other disarmament schemes.

Q. – They’re doing a job which was begun before?

THE MINISTER – Yes, but the inspections have resumed, they ceased in 1998. It must be reiterated that between 1991 and 1998 there was disarmament. The inspections worked. Thanks to these inspections, between 1991 and 1998 more weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological programmes were destroyed than all the weapons destroyed during the Gulf war. That’s nevertheless something which gives food for thought. Another example: South Africa committed herself voluntarily to disarm all her programmes. That took two and a half years. So let’s weigh things up. (...) There is today something exceptional, which is not sufficiently stressed, it’s the fact that the international community was united in adopting UNSCR 1441. That gives extraordinary weight to the international community when it comes to dealing with all the world’s difficulties. Let’s face up to reality. There’s great disorder in the world. There’s terrorism. Since 11 September, an immense tragedy, we’ve all been mobilized to try and coordinate our efforts to counter terrorism. There’s proliferation, another threat. A lot of proliferation crises which may occur. A lot of weapons to be destroyed all over the world. There are regional crises, the Middle East crisis I was talking about. Other crises. All this means that the international community has to stay united to try and cope with all these difficulties.

Q. – You’re lumping all the problems together and not accepting the regional crisis theory: George Bush’s idea that he’d like to settle the Middle East problem after the war in Iraq – for you that’s not a tenable option. Have you got a plan?

THE MINISTER – There’s a French vision, there are French convictions. President Chirac has supported this French vision right from the start of the Iraq crisis. It’s precisely the need to enable the international community, at every stage, to adapt to the crisis, by adopting the means, by giving itself the most adequate means. Time for the inspections to achieve Iraq’s disarmament and, if the inspections become hamstrung, let’s consider the other options. It’s genuinely this that united the international community when we passed UNSCR 1441. This is the choice the United States made, let me remind you, expressed in President Bush’s speech at the beginning of September. The choice of the United Nations, the choice of collective security, collective responsibility. And when we tot up what today can shake Iraq’s resolve, what allows us to say that the inspections are making headway, what is there? First, of course, this unity. The international community’s firmness allows us to score points. A second very important factor is obviously the mobilization of the international community, the diplomatic mobilization of the Arab world and of all the world’s chanceries. To exert pressure on Iraq, there’s the American mobilization, the pressures exerted by the US presence on the ground.

Q. – There isn’t any complementarity between this military pressure and the inspections?

THE MINISTER – All this is making Iraq move without a single shot being fired. Without one death. That gives food for thought. It gives tremendous credibility to the international community, as we’ve been saying. In a world in disorder, the fact that we are capable of together managing the conflicts, of managing them peacefully, through our will, our unity, is an enormous asset in the management of all the crises.

Q. – Is this, in your view, a deliberate, organized, thought-through complementarity or a de facto one?

THE MINISTER – There’s a problem regarding the goals and means. In the US position, as it’s being expressed, there is, of course, the goal of disarming Iraq. And then we feel that, behind that goal, there are others. Notably the idea of regime change. From that point of view, we’re making it plain that we can’t go along with that goal. We aren’t, of course, turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein’s regime. As President Chirac says today in an interview given to "Time Magazine", we’d be very happy to see Mr Saddam Hussein leave Iraq...

Q. – He said "if he vanished", but how?

THE MINISTER – But, in any case, if he were no longer in Iraq, that would very probably resolve all the questions. (...)

THE MINISTER – (...) The idea of regime change introduces into international relations, an instability whose consequences we have to assess. Whose job would it be to decide that a regime is good or that a regime is bad? What would be the first factor denoting an unacceptable regime? What would stop a regime being acceptable? In these situations – and this is something France firmly believes and President Chirac has championed – we have to apply the law, we have to respect international moral values and I believe that we mustn’t cut corners.

Q. – But, all the same, listening to you, we get the feeling that Saddam Hussein’s departure or exile would, as things stand at the moment, provide an opportunity of finding a way out of the crisis in line with what the US is currently seeking.

THE MINISTER – That would certainly make things easier for the Americans. But the Americans’ goal, the one they are working for with the United Nations, is Iraq’s disarmament. And as Colin Powell has said several times, an Iraqi regime which no longer had any weapons of mass destruction wouldn’t be the same regime as the one we know today. So we must doggedly pursue our common goal, which is uniting the whole international community and maintain clearly the same course.

(...)

Q. – Let’s talk a bit more specifically about the war option, that of the United States. On Friday you said "it’s illegitimate, inefficient and dangerous". President Chirac and you yourself aren’t totally ruling out the war option, what would make it legitimate, what would make it more effective and less dangerous?

THE MINISTER – The only possible legitimate war, the only possible legitimate use of force is that decided on by the United Nations Security Council, thus in the United Nations framework. That’s what makes an international action legitimate and effective. Because a unilateral intervention would divide the international community, make such an initiative far more vulnerable. (...) And it’s very important for everyone to comply with the international community’s legal rules. There’s one factor, and I want to say this, which has to be taken into account – and we do this every day – with respect to our American friends. They experienced 11 September. They were struck a savage blow on 11 September. It was a huge shock. One has to understand what a shock, what a traumatic experience it was for them to discover insecurity on their home soil. Insecurity which the Americans had never experienced before. Because of that tragedy, obviously, these security questions take on major importance. We obviously share that feeling and that desire to protect our peoples. But for the Americans, this feeling of vulnerability is something new. And in the wake of that, of course, they have taken the view that in Iraq the United States’ security was at stake. We’re drawing attention to the fact that security is clearly at stake elsewhere in the world and that we are stronger when we find tools allowing us to settle crises peacefully rather than yield to the temptation to resort to the use of force, possibly drawing us into a spiral of similar reactions which would be hard to control.

(...)

Q. – One element which isn’t hypothetical is the idea of a second resolution which is apparently being drafted by the American administration and British government and would give Iraq an ultimatum with a very short deadline, following closely on the heels of UNSCR 1441. (...) What will be France’s attitude towards the draft of a second Anglo-American resolution?

THE MINISTER – UNSCR 1441 lays down a slightly better course of action, as we have said. We haven’t yet totally explored all this resolution’s possibilities. And so we have put proposals to the United Nations on improving the inspections regime. Is it now necessary to adopt a new resolution? We don’t see how it could be useful.

Q. – I mean what will France actually do?

THE MINISTER – If the British and Americans propose this resolution, we’ll look at the text. At this stage, we consider – and we aren’t alone, you’ve see the tripartite statement with Germany and Russia, with which the Chinese and a large number of countries in the international community have associated themselves – that we have the appropriate tool. (...)

Q. – When you say "we’re continuing to work with our American friends", you’re always careful to say "our American friends".

THE MINISTER – As Colin Powell recalled when everyone was leaving our Security Council meeting, we have been friends for 225 years, that creates ties. We are allies, exigent allies, allies who talk frankly to each other. There are, of course, a number of differences between us regarding our assessments of the state of the world, the way we see the world. We express them. Obviously, relations between France and the United States remain particularly close.

Q. – At what level are they taking place at the moment?

THE MINISTER – At every level. President Chirac talks regularly to President Bush. I’m working virtually on a daily basis with Colin Powell and we’re anxious to ensure that France and the US try to move forward on the path chosen by the international community.

Q. – There’s no trial of strength?

THE MINISTER – When there are differences between you, you have to sort them out, you have to seek the points on which headway can be made. Our prime concern, that of us all, is the same: to disarm Iraq. In this context, all proposals are worth considering, everything which can make it possible to demonstrate greater resolution, firmness towards Iraq. We have never ceased demanding from Iraq that she fulfil all her obligations. There is here genuinely, I believe, some very strong common ground between the goals of the United States and France.

(...)

Q. – You were well aware that by proposing a new meeting on 14 March that that was very late for the Americans to launch hostilities?

THE MINISTER – (...) France’s aim isn’t to gain time. I have in mind the saying "you can’t rush things". This isn’t President Chirac’s approach, it isn’t France’s. It certainly isn’t France’s objective. France’s goal isn’t to gain time. (..) We have a tool which is allowing us to make headway and move forward. Let’s never forget, there’s a decision to make between the solution of achieving our goal peacefully through the inspectors and the other solution proposed today: war. That merits reflection. It isn’t a matter of allowing time, it’s one of knowing if we’ll be more legitimate and effective through the inspections [or through war].

Q. – You can look at that question from the angle of the diplomatic timetable but, as you well know, there’s a US military timetable, also possibly governed by the weather.

THE MINISTER – Do people wage war because of the weather? (...) War is a serious matter. We’ve experienced on our soil all kinds of wars – civil, religious, world wars. These wars have taught us something. War is always the worst solution. (...) We’re facing up to our responsibilities. We’re ruling out no option, but obviously want to take as far as possible any peaceful course of action which works before – should we reach an impasse – considering other options.

(...)

ZIMBABWE

Q. – To this summit [France-Africa summit] you have invited the president of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugabe, who has been subject to European sanctions for two years, which in fact, in the normal course of events, ban him from coming to Europe. Why invite such a dictator? The decision has been denounced in France and in Africa?

THE MINISTER – The France-Africa Summit is bringing together all Africa’s heads of State. As you say, there are sanctions which the EU voted to impose. France has participated in these sanctions against Zimbabwe. There are a number of exception clauses and, moreover, a few days ago, those sanctions expired. We have chosen, and have made this point to our British friends, to renew these sanctions and have asked for and obtained everyone’s agreement that the Zimbabwean president can come to Paris. Why? Because there is solidarity in Africa. There is solidarity in southern Africa and if the President of Zimbabwe hadn’t come, others were threatening not to come. And we are anxious today to take the whole of Africa forward and are convinced that the messages we’ll be able to get through to the Zimbabwean president will perhaps help in the request for a solution to this crisis. So, of course, just as there is a requirement for consistency – we are voting for sanctions –, there is also one to face up to our responsibilities at diplomatic level. When "sidelining" a member of the international community in this way means we can’t get messages through to him, then we don’t think the idea is a good one./.