Syria's speech at the Security Council meeting on Iraq and Kuwait
Syria-Iraq, Politics, 3/8/2003

Syrian deputy Premier and foreign minister Farouk al-Shara yesterday at the UN headquarters in New York delivered Syria's speech at the UN on the special meeting on "the situation between Iraq and Iran." The speech read as follows: Three weeks ago, we met in this Chamber to discuss the question of Iraq. That was only a short while ago, yet the fast and important developments that we have witnessed deserve to be recalled if only because of their grave impact on the situation in the Middle East and perhaps on the future of international relations.

The day after our meeting here on the Fourteenth of February, millions of people in more than two thousands cities around the world took to the streets to say ''No to war on Iraq'' in an unprecedented phenomena in history.

On the day following those demonstrations, the Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs held an emergency meeting in Cairo. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Greece attended the meeting in his capacity as the current President of the European Union and so did representatives of the European Commission. All the participants expressed their opposition to war and stressed the need for a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis in order to implement Security Council Resolution 1441.

France, Russia, China and Germany have repeatedly and most clearly stressed that there is an alternative to war. These countries are confident that the disarmament of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction can be achieved by peaceful means if the role of the inspectors is enhanced, and the inspectors are left to freely implement this task.

On the 25th of February, the Non-Aligned Movement held its summit in Kuala Lumpur which was attended by one hundred and sixteen states.

In its final statement, the Summit called for peaceful settlement to the Iraqi crisis and stressed the need to allow inspectors more time to finish their work.

All of them emphasized the role of the UN and international legitimacy in dealing with the Iraqi crisis far away from double standards.

On the first of this month, the regular Arab Summit was held in Sharm esh Sheikh. In the very first decision it took-which made it indeed act as if it were an emergency session, the summit expressed its categorical opposition to a strike against Iraq. The Summit stressed the need to give the inspectors sufficient time to fulfill their mandate and underlined the Security Council's responsibility in protecting the Iraqi people and preserving Iraq's independence, unity and territorial integrity. The Arab leaders expressed their solidarity with the Iraqi people, called for a lifting of the sanctions and established a follow-up committee that included Bahrain, Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt and the Secretary General of the League of Arab States. The Committee is entrusted with transmitting the Arab point of view to the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council, the Secretary General of the United Nations and back to Baghdad should the situation warrant this. The Arab Summit was immediately followed by an Islamic Summit in Doha, in which Islamic countries confirmed the decision of the Arab Summit.

We, Arabs and Muslims should recall with appreciation the repeated appeals of leaders of world churches to prevent war and work for peace.

These appeals were crowned by the message the emissary of the Holy Sea (Vatican) carried two days ago to the American President in which he, without any vagueness, considered the war against Iraq illegitimate and unjust.

As for Iraq, Mr. Blix as well as Mr. El-Baradei informed us just now that Iraq has cooperated actively, and that this cooperation was on process and substance.

The destruction of missiles which are currently underway in Iraq is a tangible and material evidence of this cooperation that can neither be considered deceptive nor be dismissed as insignificant. It is happening while inspectors are achieving tangible progress in implementing SC Res.1441.

However, we think that it is the right of any state or any individual to ask why all this insistence on adopting a new resolution allowing the use of military force as if war were the best and not the worst option? In the light of the aforementioned, one cannot but also wonder what logic can explain the cooperation of the United States with Israel in developing advanced missiles that cost billions of dollars paid by the US tax payers, when Arab countries are in need for these missiles, from the point of view of both their altitude and capacity, to defend themselves are denied that opportunity by the US? One must also ask what logic is the one that allows Israel to posses all kinds of WMD's although it continues to occupy the territories of its neighbors against all norms and laws and to threaten them? Or perhaps if I may quote but not from Israel? If given that SC Res. 1441 does not set a time-frame for the inspectors' work what then could the background of the arguments that the time is up and that Iraq had only days left to comply, or elseÉ?! It is really ironic that some may claim that war against Iraq will disclose the undeclared WMD' s while the inspectors cannot find these weapons, if any, despite all the unprecedented facilities provided to them? Contrary to the commonly accepted proverb which says '' Backing away from what is wrong is a virtue'', some, unfortunately believe that this huge build-up of armed forces is by itself sufficient to justify war against Iraq and destroy it because no one who has a realistic sense can accept that these forces would go back to their barracks empty-handed. If this is the case, then, are we before a just cause or before an armed robbery, no more or less ? Mr. President, Regardless of the precision of the arguments advanced internationally on the possible objectives of the American military campaign, be they related to occupying the oil fields or to change the map of the Middle East, the Arabs in particular and the International Community in general, are very apprehensive. We are gravely concerned over the possible massacres against the Palestinian people, the demolition of their homes and their forced transfer when war against Iraq is in full swing. Our apprehensions well founded given the developments in the occupied territories since September 11, 2001 and the Security Council must take this into account, whenever we get closer to the zero-hour, which we hope we will never come to.

I conclude by saying that we are confident that the United Nations which represents the will of the International Community will opt for peace. This option will prevail over the use of force. The United Nations and its charter and principles, shall remain the main instrument for the achievement of peace and security for humankind everywhere.

Previous Stories:
  Palestinian demonstration in Damascus in support of Iraq   (3/6/2003)
  Wahbeh outlines Syria's position on Iraq   (2/27/2003)
  Khaddam outlines Syria's position in an interview with AP   (2/25/2003)
  Damascus: the Americans, the British leave, the French deny danger   (2/24/2003)
  Al-Shara: US to use a new UN resolution on Iraq as pretext for attack   (2/24/2003)
  Al-Assad confers with US assistant secretary of state for ME affairs   (1/22/2003)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search