October 2002 Speech
United Nations Security Council - Open debate on "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait"
Statement by the NZ Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Don MacKay
16 October 2002
Mr President
New Zealand welcomes this open debate. The issues being considered by the Security Council are of vital importance to us
all. They are about how the international community deals with threats to regional and global peace and security, and
about the role and credibility of the United Nations.
We approach this debate with a number of givens.
First, Iraq needs to comply with the Security Council’s demands for inspection for weapons of mass destruction.
Second, Security Council resolutions cannot be constantly flouted with impunity;
Third, the United Nations Charter, as the pre-eminent international legal instrument, sets out the proper multilateral
process for dealing with threats to international peace and security;
Fourth, if Iraq fails to fully comply with the inspection regime, the Council will need to take a clear decision on
further action.
Let me address each of these in turn.
First, Iraq has consistently ignored Security Council demands for inspection for weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq has in the past used chemical weapons against its neighbours and against its own people. It has possessed
biological weapons. There are strong grounds to suspect that it has sought the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
Iraq has been in breach of international disarmament treaties to which it is a party. Without inspection the Security
Council cannot be sure that Iraq does not possess or has no intention to develop these weapons.
When the Government of Iraq signed the Gulf War cease-fire agreement in 1991, it unconditionally accepted the terms of
Security Council Resolution 687 requiring “the destruction and removal, under international supervision” of all of its
weapons of mass destruction. Since then, Iraq has consistently violated these commitments – making false declarations of
its weapons capabilities, and repeatedly obstructing the work of mandated weapons inspectors.
Second, Security Council resolutions cannot constantly be flouted with impunity.
As a state which is strongly committed to the multilateral system New Zealand believes that States must comply with
Security Council resolutions. It must be clear to Iraq that there will be serious consequences, if it does not do so.
The international community will therefore be watching very closely to see how Iraq fulfils its obligations. If Iraq
fails to meet them, then we expect the Security Council to take firm action.
In saying this New Zealand proceeds from a longstanding position of support for the total elimination of weapons of mass
destruction.
Third, the United Nations Charter, as the pre-eminent international legal instrument, sets out the proper multilateral
process for dealing with threats to international peace and security.
As a first step, it is essential that weapons inspectors are immediately readmitted so that the Council can effectively
assess the state, nature and extent of Iraq’s weapons programme. New Zealand has offered to provide a support group to
the inspection team for this purpose.
This requires full cooperation and unrestricted access by Iraq. Should Iraq not comply with its obligations any decision
on further action should come back to the Council for consideration. It is the Security Council which must remain the
arbiter of Iraq’s compliance, based on UNMOVIC’s reporting and assessments. It is the Council’s proper role to make such
decisions. Any resolution, or resolutions, adopted by the Council should reflect this.
Clarity will be important. The rules governing Iraq’s compliance must be clear to the Security Council, to Iraq and to
UNMOVIC. There should be no room for misunderstanding or reinterpretation. In setting conditions for compliance it is
important that the inspection process remains credible. Equally the Council must ensure these conditions are not couched
in such a way that Iraq cannot comply. The rules must strengthen the hand of the inspectors, not make their already
difficult task more onerous.
We note that there has been a suggestion to give a special role in the inspection regime, to the permanent members of
the Security Council. It is true that under the Charter the P5 have certain voting privileges and responsibilities but
substantively they are not distinct from other Council members. Introducing such a distinction here would be neither
constructive nor acceptable.
Fourth, if Iraq fails to comply with the inspection regime, the Council will need to take a clear decision on further
action.
Iraq cannot fail to be aware of the strengthening of resolve on the Council’s part.
In the event of Iraqi non-compliance, the use of force is clearly not beyond the Council’s contemplation. This would
mean a significant loss of lives, including the lives of innocent Iraqis. There would be a risk of instability within
the region and beyond, particularly as the use of force is likely to be perceived by some – however wrongly – as having
an ethnic or religious dimension. There is also the question of what happens in Iraq afterwards. Some of these risks may
be alleviated by the Council providing a firm and united front, so that this action is clearly seen to be taken on
behalf of the international community at large. It is therefore important that decisions on future action are taken by a
united Council acting as a whole.
Finally, Mr President, may I make two brief comments. It is regrettable that such momentous decisions have to be
contemplated at a time when other Security Council resolutions remain unimplemented in the Middle East, and in the
absence of a comprehensive settlement there. It is also regrettable that this issue should face us when the multilateral
disarmament environment, and progress towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction more generally, is
disappointing. This setting will not make the Council’s task in maintaining international peace and security – or the
situation of governments in the region – any easier.
Thank you, Mr President.