The Foreign Minister Knut Vollebæk

Statement to the Storting concerning the Situation in Iraq

23 February 1998

Madam President

When on Thursday of last week I asked to give a statement concerning the situation in Iraq and the Government's position, we were all afraid that the world community would have to use military force to persuade Saddam Hussein to meet the demands imposed on Iraq by the United Nations Security Council.

The last reports from Iraq indicate that Secretary General Kofi Annan's visit to Baghdad has resulted in an agreement by Saddam Hussein to fulfil the conditions imposed by the Security Council. We will not know the final result of the Secretary General's negotiations with Iraq's leaders until Kofi Annan reports to the Security Council tomorrow. However, we should now be able to express our joy and relief that diplomacy seems to have carried the day. According to information released at the recent press conference, the agreement contains no time limits for the work of the inspectors. This has been a requirement for acceptance by the Security Council of an agreement with Iraq. At the press conference the Secretary General defended UNSCOM and stressed that it would be possible to lift the sanctions against Iraq when UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were satisfied. While it must be possible to regard the operation so far as a personal triumph for the Secretary General, it is also an illustration of the value to us all of the United Nations' continued role in the efforts to maintain international peace and security.

I also believe that the achievement of a positive result will owe much to the clear signals given to Saddam Hussein by the united stand of the members of the Security Council, particularly the five permanent members, behind all of the conditions that Iraq was required to fulfil. I believe that the international community's awareness of the real danger of a military option if the conditions were not met has also contributed to our being able to hope that we have now achieved a peaceful solution to the conflict. Not least for the sake of the people of Iraq, we hope that the positive reports will be substantiated.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, and since we do not yet know with certainty what will be the result of the Secretary General's consultations with the members of the Security Council, I consider it nevertheless correct to give an account of the background of the conflict, the Government's position and the reason for the Government's decision to support a military action within the framework of the Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council if all means of reaching a peaceful solution had been tried and proved to be in vain.

Iraq’s invasion of its neighbour Kuwait on 2 August 1990 was condemned by the United Nations Security Council, which established that Iraq had breached international peace and security, and demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. This demand was not met, and during the following period, the United Nations’ Security Council passed a number of Resolutions demanding that Iraq should comply with its rulings.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 of 29 November 1990 authorizes member states to use all necessary means to ensure Iraq’s compliance with the demands of the Security Council. The authority to use force also applied to violations of subsequent Resolutions relating to the same matter. Iraq was given a time-limit for compliance with the demands of the Security Council, but when they were not complied with, a coalition of the United Nations member states carried out a military action against Iraq. The action began on 16 January and ended on 28 February 1991.

On 3 April 1991, the Security Council adopted Resolution 687, which included clear conditions for a cease-fire. Among these conditions, Iraq was required to accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and all related subsystems and components, and agree not to acquire or develop such weapons. Iraq declared its willingness to fulfil these conditions. A cease-fire came into effect, but the lifting of sanctions against Iraq was postponed until it could be established with certainty that Iraq had fulfilled all of the conditions.

The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) was established to monitor the removal and destruction of chemical and biological weapons, subsystems and components, and to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in monitoring the nuclear weapon program.

However, Iraq’s leaders have continuously and systematically created obstacles for UNSCOM’s work and have shown an increasing lack of willingness to cooperate. Inspection teams have been refused access to areas of interest. Information has been withheld or distorted. Inspection of materials has been evaded, and Iraq has objected to inspectors appointed by UNSCOM.

In spite of these difficulties, UNSCOM has revealed and destroyed considerable quantities of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, subsystems and production facilities. According to UNSCOM’s assessment, there is evidence that Iraq still possesses and is capable of producing more weapons of mass destruction. As long as Iraq does not give UNSCOM unrestricted and unconditional access, UNSCOM is unable to acquire full knowledge of the situation, and is therefore also unable to carry out its mandate. It will therefore be of decisive importance that the Secretary General has obtained an agreement concerning the inspectors' right of inspection.

In this connection, I should like to remind you that the United Nations has invested extensive efforts in eradicating chemical and biological weapons worldwide. International agreements forbid the development, use and storage of such weapons. Iraq’s activities therefore not only constitute a breach of the Resolution of the Security Council in connection with the Gulf War, they are also in contravention of international agreements acceded to by many countries of the world. Iraq has itself signed and ratified the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons of 1972, and is thus guilty of a clear violation of an international agreement that it is itself a party to.

It is important to remember that Saddam Hussein has already shown both the ability and the willingness to use such weapons. We all remember Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against his own population some years ago, when pictures of Kurdish civilians stricken by Saddam’s chemical weapons were shown on television screens the world over. This brings to mind the situation that might arise if Iraq is allowed to continue producing weapons of mass destruction. The international community cannot show indifference to this.

I should like to discuss in greater detail the statutory basis for a military action as the Government sees it.

Security Council Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991 concerning the cease-fire with Iraq suspended, but did not revoke, Resolution 678 (1990). The continuing validity of Resolution 678 (1990) is explicitly confirmed in the Cease-fire Resolution.

In practice, Resolution 678 provides the authority to use military force against Iraq. It states that the member states of the United Nations that cooperate with the government of Kuwait are empowered to use all necessary means to achieve the specified objectives. These include implementation of Resolution 660 (1990) concerning Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, and all subsequent relevant Resolutions, and the restoration of international peace and security in the area. The authority thus also applies to the implementation of subsequent Resolutions of special significance for the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors, which is a major concern of the Cease-fire Resolution.

A number of binding Resolutions that have been adopted clarify and enlarge on the demands in the Cease-fire Resolution concerning the removal of weapons of mass destruction and the agreement not to engage in further programmes for the development of such weapons. The obligations of Iraq in relation to the United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) are further regulated inter alia in Resolutions 707 and 715 (1991), which must be seen in close connection with the Cease-fire Resolution. Iraq’s violation of the conditions of the Cease-fire Resolution and associated Resolutions has taken a form equivalent to a major and continuing contravention of these Resolutions. This results in the reactivation of the authority given to the appropriate member states in Resolution 678, which was used by the military coalition in 1991 in responding to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait.

Iraq’s restrictions in 1993 relating to which aircraft the weapons inspectors were to be allowed to use in connection with inspections were, in two statements made by the chairman of the Security Council, described as major violations of the Cease-fire Resolution, and a warning was issued of the consequences of such violations. Against this background, bombardment of southern Iraq was carried out by the USA, Britain and France.

In view of Iraq’s continuing and repeated violations of major obligations of international law imposed on it by Security Council Resolutions, and the serious threat to countries in the region and to the international community if Iraq should be allowed to possess and develop weapons of mass destruction, the Norwegian Government has, on the basis of an overall assessment, concluded that the necessary use of force in this case must be regarded as lying within the framework of existing Resolutions adopted by the Security Council if all diplomatic and political efforts proved to be in vain.

The chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction which Iraq is thought to be in possession of constitute a very serious threat both to countries in the region and to the international community. In our view, we cannot be indifferent to this threat. If all attempts to find a peaceful solution fail, other solutions must be considered. The fact that the United Nations Secretary General has been able to carry out constructive negotiations with the Iraqi leaders illustrates the importance of a firm reaction from the international community, and the importance of establishing a credible military option. Only an agreement entailing full inspection rights for UNSCOM will enable the avoidance of an air strike against Iraqi military targets. Such an agreement seems now to have been reached.

The objective of a military action would be to make a decisive reduction in Iraq’s capacity to produce and employ weapons of mass destruction. Reports leave no doubt that Iraq still has ambitions to further develop the production of such weapons. While a military strike against selected targets is hardly likely by itself to be able to force Iraq to cooperate with the international community or with UNSCOM, it must be seen in the context of a broader strategy whereby political pressure and the necessary sanctions are maintained until Iraq complies with the United Nations Resolutions.

The risk that we will face if Iraq is allowed to continue its programmes for production of weapons of mass destruction will be considerable. In parallel with the efforts to achieve a political and diplomatic solution, which must be given top priority, the USA and Britain have therefore wished to establish the extent of political and military support for an action against Iraq.

Most allied countries have expressed political support for such a military action, should this prove necessary. A number of countries outside the allied group have stated that they are prepared to provide practical military support to a multinational action should this prove necessary. This involves various kinds of participation, such as access to bases and territorial air space, the use of aircraft and naval vessels, and military or medical personnel. The political and practical support that has been offered by a broad group of nations leaves us in no doubt as to the capacity and willingness of the world community to implement military measures if necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance with the binding Resolutions of the Security Council.

I should like also to say a few words about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

On 1 February this year, the Secretary General of the United Nations stated in a report that the humanitarian situation in Iraq is still precarious, despite the fact that the sanction rules make a clear exception for the import of food and medicines. It is widely considered that the main responsibility for this situation must be borne by the Iraqi government. This is a result of its own political and other measures and because it has delayed the “oil for food” arrangement for six years.

In his report, the Secretary General proposed an extension of this arrangement coupled with greater efficiency and a simplification of the procedures followed by the Sanctions Committee. This has received Norway’s active support. Last Friday, the Security Council decided unanimously to implement such an extension of the arrangement. This clearly demonstrates that the Council stands united in relation to Iraq, and that there is a wish to ease conditions as far as possible for the civilian population.

Norway donated NOK 30.4 million in humanitarian aid to Iraq in 1997. The support includes commodity assistance (tents with stoves, blankets, food, etc.), maintenance of the UN Guard in Iraq, loan of expert personnel to UNICEF, distribution of special nutrition for children suffering from extreme malnutrition, training in treating injuries caused by land mines, etc.

So far this year, the total amount of additional humanitarian aid that has been paid or decided amounts to NOK 19.4 million, to be channelled through the United Nations system and through Norwegian NGOs. Further applications and appeals are currently being considered.

Contact has been established with appropriate humanitarian organisations in the United Nations system, and with Norwegian and international NGOs, with a view to preparing a humanitarian effort in Iraq to follow any military action. The Government has also been in contact with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities with a view to making available a quantity of children's gas masks and injections.

I will sum up as follows:

The Government welcomes the agreement that has been achieved in Baghdad between the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Iraqi authorities. We do not know the details, but assume that the agreement involves Iraq's now fully meeting its commitment to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission for Iraq in its work on inspecting and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

If all efforts to find a peaceful solution nevertheless prove unavailing, it is Norway’s view that a military action is justified within the framework of the Security Council Resolutions for dealing with the threat represented by the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The Norwegian Government has therefore, in response to the request from the American and British authorities, and after consultations with parliamentary bodies, decided , if it should prove necessary, to make available to a multinational force a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, preferably equipped for medical evacuation.

The aircraft is operative. Approximately 30 persons will participate, including the crew and necessary support personnel. The security of these persons will be assigned the highest priority. If it should prove appropriate, the Government will aim to include in the revised National Budget an additional allocation to cover the cost of this, which is estimated to amount to approximately NOK 10 million per month during the period that the aircraft is made available.

The Government is concerned about for the situation of the civilian population of Iraq, and is therefore providing humanitarian aid via NGOs and the United Nations system. In addition to the aid that has already been donated, the Government will consider further humanitarian support should this be required by the situation.

If we are now actually approaching a peaceful solution, this is a result of the firmness shown by the international community in ensuring compliance with the binding Resolutions of the Security Council, and is also a personal triumph for the United Nations Secretary General, which will strengthen the role of the United Nations in the years ahead.