|
Honorary Speaker of the Saeima,
Dear deputies,
Guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,
And I would like to approach all participants, including the highly respected opposition for today we discuss an issue of national importance. This is an issue of international importance which has nothing in common and which may not have anything in common with internal political debate and discussions. For this reason I hope on objective and truthful analysis of the matter also by our highly respected opposition – the Fraction of People’s Party and other parties.
I have initiated the Saeima session in order to discuss a very serious and topical question – Latvia’s stance towards Iraqi crisis in the context of collective security system of the world.
This session is organised just in time – not too early, not too late, without any hurry and at the same time without any hesitation.
It was just two days ago that we could not consider this issue neither in the Cabinet, not in the Saeima for thus we would have disclosed the confidential strategies, actions plans of our allies entrusted to us. For this reason we could not take the step before our allies clearly defined their intensions and before all diplomatic means were not exhausted. Nevertheless, the moment has come and we as a democratic country do address this question in a respective way by including it in the Saeima agenda – today, without hesitation, without any delay, just as soon as it is required by the current conditions.
Let us approach the essence of the matter in question. Imagine a situation that a citizen of Latvia passes a street and sees that a hooligan attacks another citizen. Perhaps the victim is weaker, perhaps, he is alone and isolated. And the citizen thinks – I better stand apart for I am afraid. Perhaps, I should also not intervene because this would guarantee my security. If I stand apart from the conflict, it will not concern me. This is what a man thinks when he sees that a hooligan assaults a weaker person, that the hooligan assaults his contemporary, his comrade. This could continue up the moment when the hooligan assaults the observer himself. And then he would reasonably complain – why no one does pay any attention to what is happening, why no one helps, why no one stops the hooligan, just stands still and observes but does not intervene? For this is the established non-interference culture, which allows impertinent hooligans to prevail for they know that when they assault someone hardly anyone would pay any attention. More likely, other would look in the opposite direction and think: this is not my business for at this moment it does not concern me. Nothing of this could happen in a society of responsible and brave people. This could not happen in a society in which every member regardless of his strength or weakness would without hesitation hurry to help the weaker. And thus every hooligan, anyone who opposes the established public order would have to take into account that the society would stand in opposition and that he would be called to account. In such a society hooligans would have no chance to prevail and to fix their positions.
Although every separate hooligan may be stronger than every separate honest and peace-loving citizen, he is certainly weaker than all honest and peace-loving citizens together, if this is a society of solidarity, if they dare to oppose injustice whenever they face it. This forms the collective security system, which guarantees security of the society.
Thus, today we speak about collective security. One may ask: how does all this regard the agenda issue? The link is very direct. Like some criminals, hooligans and other villains must be stopped before they grow into organised mafia, also dictators must be stopped before they possess strength, power and armament. Let us remember the lessons taught to us by history! The Bolsheviks were not stopped because initially no one did really take them seriously. Afterwards the world paid for 70 years for its non-interference. In the result in peacetime more people fell victims and were destroyed due to starvation in concentration camps, direct repressions and fusillades than in wartime. And when we speak about the war, the World War Two would be avoided if Stalin and Hitler had agreed on separation of Europe. The war would have been avoided if Hitler, this lance corporal, would have been stopped in time and the world would not have allowed Hitler to strengthen his political and military position.
Those days the League of Nations and the international society were blind and passive when Hitler violated all the international obligations effective at that time and grew in force and armament. They were blind and just patiently observed even when this dictator started his pace across European countries without any obstacles in his way.
No one did stop also occupation of the Baltic States, which does directly concern us. The League of Nations just winked its eyes. Remember, Chamberlain, when he returned in Britain with the agreement he had concluded with Hitler, left the ship with words: I have brought you peace. In fact, he opened doors to the war.
You may say – but that was so long ago. Well, you are not correct. In terms of history this happened just yesterday. You may say – Iraq is so far away. No, it is just near us. I would like to note that today modern rockets could reach from the most apart point on the Earth to the other hemisphere just in 20 minutes. And we should bear in mind that they might be shot from much near military bases, submarines and so on. Thus, all this is near us, we as participants of the democratic society are responsible for the collective security system on the.
If we speak about historical scales, let’s remember the recent impudence of Milossevich dictatorship in Balkans. In that case the international society also remained silent for a long time and winked and passively observed how just near Europe, actually, in one of the European countries a dictator slaughtered his citizens. Then the international society had long discussions that Milossevich could not be bombed for this would harm the peaceful civilians. For example, guardsman of Milossevich. But no one discussed the fact that Milossevich slaughtered citizens of his country without any interference – with purpose and realising real genocide.
Thus, in such conditions like in any other conditions stopping a dictator would actually mean stopping violence and not continuation of violence. This is the question I would like to speak about today.
Today I urge to discuss the collective security system. At last, thank God, non-interference stance in Balkans and Yugoslavia, which allowed continuing slaughtering of citizens, was stopped. Unfortunately, too late for while the world hesitated many civilians were destroyed and buried in mass graves – without any ceremonies, simply slaughtered and shot dead. Luckily, that was stopped, and Milossevich case is brought to court.
Today in question is another armed and very dangerous dictator – Sadam Hussein who may not be allowed to become more powerful and more armed as we allowed it to happen in case of Stalin, Hitler, Milossevich.
Brief political profile of this dictator who is a leader of Iraq since 1968 but who in 1979 became an unlimited dictator by shooting dead and physically destroying his opponents in the party. A dictator who shoots dead those who stand in opposition to him or who just look at him in a ‘wrong’ manner. A dictator who shot members of his family to whom he promised inviolability. A dictator who aimed genocide against his own nation, who possess mass destruction weapons and who has applied them. Thus, we must discuss not why now the international society, including Latvia, may not stand apart and observe any more. We must rather ask why the international society has allowed this dictator to freely act for so long and threaten the people of Iraq and neighbouring countries, why Iraqi nation had to experience the plague of chemical and biological weapons, why they had to face ethnical cleansing and why Iraqi people have no rights to live in a free democratic country as it is all over the world.
To illustrate the dictator portrait, I would like to mention just some facts and examples about the plague and nightmares faced by the Kurds, about ethnic cleansing and genocide. Today the Kurds form the main ethnical group of 25 millions in Iraqi territory but without their own country. The Kurds were subject to continuous ethnical cleansing and genocide. Why? Just because they wanted autonomy within Iraq in order to eliminate the historical injustice.
Dear friends, dear deputies, does it not make you to recall something? Do you not see analogies in the quite recent history of Latvia?
In 1963 ethnic cleansing and the Arabisation campaign in the Kurd territories were started. In the Kurd settlements thousands of their houses were destroyed by bulldozers, people were moved to other regions or destroyed. Other people living in Iraq were moved from the southern and central regions to the northern parts to replace the Kurds. Does it remind you something? Does it not touch hearts of Latvians recalling repressions and genocide faced by our nation in 1940 and 1947?
Year 1974. The second stage in ethnic cleansing aimed mostly to territories and oil fields, which economically and politically presented strategic importance for the Iraqi regime. The Kurds were moved, destroyed, imprisoned in camps and collective towns. Villages were destroyed; the regime performed mass slaughters, used chemical weapons, and poisoned drinking water output places. In schools teaching of the Kurd language was banned, a 20-km wide area around the border was made inaccessible for people. If anyone dared to step into this zone, he was killed immediately without any warning. Is it not something familiar?
1984, the third phase of the campaign, which may be characterised by extensive use of chemical weapons. Systematic destruction of the people is continued, the same happens with villages, homes, churches and mosques in the Kurd territories. The peak is reached in 1988 during the so-called Anfal operation, which was personally led by a cousin of Sadam Hussein. Again chemical and biological weapons were used in villages. Any means were justified in order to suppress resistance and independence aspiration of the Kurds. Cleansing was continued which demanded to destroy every man aged between 15 and 70. At the same these territories faced economic blockade, people were moved to ‘collective town’ in the southern part of Iraq.
During the Anfal operation – within seven months – more than 1200 villages were destroyed. More than 180,000 people were missing, most likely - slaughtered.
Exactly 15 years ago, March 16, 1988 was the day of most violent tragedy in the history of the Kurd people by using chemical weapons. 5000 of 50,000 inhabitants of Halabzh town were killed during the chemical attack, another 12,000 died in next three days. Fifteen years have passed but scientists continue to reveal new facts about the chemical substances used in the attack.
In total in Iraq – the country of Sadam Hussein – the number of destroyed or missing people during his regime amounts to more than 300,000 people. More than 4000 villages were destroyed. Millions of people left their homes and are now refugees in neighbouring countries.
Moreover, Iraq is an aggressor, which has attacked its neighbours. Let us remember the conflict with Iran in 1980s, and with Kuwait in 1990 where, luckily, the war was short for what we must credit the purposeful, prompt and efficient actions of our allies and international society.
Thus, dictators... The lesson is one and very clear. Such dictators must be stopped before they realise their malicious intentions, and this commitment is a part of the collective security program of the international society.
Now about the concrete case. The case has at least 12-years long history. This is the period for which the international society has attempted to disarm Iraq in a diplomatic and peaceful way.
Let us remember that in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and occupied the small country, the international society had a united stance and requested liberation of Kuwait. Hussein refused. Most likely, Hussein hoped that the international society would again fail to act together in order to protect its principles. That time Hussein was wrong. He was not able to split the international society and Kuwait was liberated in a couple of days. Just upon the defeat of Iraq in Kuwait, on April 3, 1991, the UN Security Council adopted the Resolution No. 687 setting forth that the ceasefire with Iraq would be effective only if it destroys all its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 150 km. Thus, the lawful and legal ceasefire situation in Iraq was maintained while the international society patiently waited – for 12 years. That was a situation, which set forth very concrete and specific duties for Iraq, and it had to comply with them. At that time Iraq accepted such ceasefire conditions but today – after 12 years – we can conclude that Iraq has not settled its obligations and continues to cheat the international society and has not disclosed the weapons at its disposal.
Already the first weapons declaration submitted by Iraq in 1991 included just obsolete weapons, only in 1992 Iraq admitted possession of biological weapons.
Today’s stance of Iraq does remind its activities 12 years ago. Nothing has changed, indeed!
On November 8 last year the UN Security Council unanimously adopted the Resolution No. 1441 stating that Iraq continues to violate the relevant resolutions of the UN SC, that it has not settled its obligations and has not performed disarming activities. The Resolution stated that Iraq is given the last opportunity to disarm voluntarily. Iraq was obliged to promptly involve in full-scale cooperation with the weapons inspectors and to promote the process of disarming. It was stated that the international society is not going to accept non-compliance with the requirements set and that this would lead to the most serious consequences for Iraq.
By adopting this resolution, the international society was concerned that the mass destruction weapons possessed by Hussein could pass into hands of terrorists and that destruction and nightmares in this case would be unpredictable.
I can mention just a few examples. Nothing is clear about the 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve gas. 12 kilograms of his substance could poison an urban territory of one one square kilometre.
One litre of the Sibirian plague bacilli could kill one million people. Iraq has failed to convincingly explain where the 10,000 litres of his deadly substance possessed by Iraq have disappeared.
Iraq has systematically violated 16 resolutions of the UN Security Council, which requested disarming. It did also violate the 17th.
Upon adoption of the last Resolution No. 1441, Iraq submitted its weapons declaration, which did not differ from the one submitted in 1998. It maintained lies that it does not possess any mass destruction weapons.
Nevertheless, under the growing military pressure by the United States, Great Britain and other aliens many more facts were disclosed about Iraq’s weapons and the actual situation. Suddenly inspectors found 12 chemical warheads; suddenly it is found that the al-Samude missiles exceed the permitted distance limit of 150 kilometres and so on.
When submitting the declaration, Iraq promised to fully cooperate with the inspectors and to promote disarming but we witnessed something different. The inspectors were like suppliants and they had to “seek a needle in haystack”. Just upon two months after promising full, active and prompt cooperation Iraq permitted reconnaissance planes to enter Iraq territory. Until now the inspectors have failed to freely interview scientists and technical workers who could provide information about the mass destruction weapon programs of Iraq.
On in the end – only when the military deployment in the Persian Gulf exceeded 200,000 servicemen, Iraq expressed readiness to provide information about the missing VX nerve gas by maintaining that it does not possess such weapons.
Is this cooperation of Iraq full, active and voluntary? Obviously, not really. Should the military deployment increase ten times more for Iraq to consider withdrawal from the weapons possessed? Obviously, not really. This regime would not change. This regime would not change its attitude towards the international society, neighbouring countries and peace in the world.
If Iraq would be really ready to disarm, it had 12 years to do it and to demonstrate it. Nothing of this happened. Most likely, Iraq hoped that like in 1998 it would manage to split the international society. Otherwise it is hard to explain this little yielding shortly before session of the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, this time Iraq succeeded to some extent. The UN Security Council was split. International opinions differed. Still, I hope that this time Sadam Hussein will be wrong. The world may not tolerate the threats that mass destruction weapons of a dictator could be aimed at neighbouring countries or pass into hands of international terrorists.
45 countries have already expressed their support to the United States and their readiness to participate in the coalition to disarm the Iraqi regime. Some sources report that France could also participate in the military operations if Iraq would use chemical and bacteriological weapons. Undoubtedly, this is a serious step towards international consolidation, which we have always supported and recognised. This decreases opportunities of Hussein regime to once more ignore compliance with the requirements of the international society.
This is a very important moment for us to show that we are not a cowardly, small and provincial country, which troubles just about its local interests. If it does not concern us, we will neglect when a hooligan attacks the weaker, and afterwards we ourselves will wonder why no one helps us when we need it. Now it is decided how the world is going to fight threats to international peace, security and democracy. This is for what we are going to vote today – for the collective security system in the world. And I hope that the voting will give a positive answer.
International ability to counteract the threats imposed by Iraq will greatly decide whether our children will live in a secure world, or in a world in which every impudent dictator possesses biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. If we step back today to Sadam Hussein, it will encourage totalitarian regimes to acquire mass destruction weapons in order to ensure their well-being, inviolability and prevalence over the neighbouring countries.
Today we do not vote for a war, today we vote for peace in the world, for assurance that every dictator must know – he has to behave accordingly in the democratic world. The Earth is too small and every such case directly concerns us.
In the modern world security is inseparable and countries cannot themselves guarantee their security. We stand for security, which we lacked in 1940. Today we also decide the question whether Latvia would be supported in difficult times or it would again risk being isolated when facing an aggression.
Those stating that involvement will just increase the risk should remember that Indonesia thought similarly. The British Intelligence Service warned about the possible terror acts but, obviously, majority in Indonesia considered – non-interference is a guarantee for security. It was until the Bali tragedy, when the misleading illusion vanished.
The Latvian society must be aware that we cannot stand apart and hope that no one will threaten us because we ourselves do not threaten anyone. We should learn the lessons our history has taught us. Also before the World War Two Latvia hoped that the conflicts of the superpowers would not concern it because Latvia did not threaten anyone. I consider that for this mistake, for hesitation to at least form a military Baltic alliance we had to pay too much and that we will never repeat the same mistake.
It is not true that small countries cannot influence the international politics. I would like to remind that in 1991, a year critical for our small country, another small country, Island, was the first to recognise our independence, followed by Denmark, which was the second, thus, showing the way for other countries to do the same. At that time Islanders and Danes did not choose to hold back and do nothing and we will always be grateful for that. Now it is time for Latvia to act similarly.
Talking about our allies, particularly about relations with the United States of America, I would like to remind that the Baltic States have always been supported and nourished by the politics of the USA. Our affiliation, annexation to the USSR, has never been accepted by the USA in the course of 50 years. And these were moral principles, moral values which urged the USA at that time to act that way and not any mercantile, geo-political, political interests which at that time would have been advantageous for them – to come to agreement with large, powerful Soviet Union in circumstances when it seemed to be everlasting and when it seemed that the Baltic States will stay de facto with this empire forever.
At that time, the USA acted according to its moral and ethical principles, disclaimed incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR. Today we are grateful for that. Today Latvia is free to large extent also thanks to them.
Likewise, I can mention the Federative Republic of Germany and Japan where they helped to elaborate democratic constitutions, promoted development of democracy after American military occupation. Today Germany, especially the part, which we know as Western Germany and Japan are prospering, developed and democratic countries.
This is sample behaviour of democratic international society, after the threat of dictatorship is averted, after the totalitarian power is defeated. This is the way to open the door to democratic development.
Also for that nonsense that will probably come out here today, that in reality the question is about the oil, I would like to remind a very simple argument. If anyone at this moment were interested in the oil in the world market, the easiest way to achieve it would be to allow Iraq sell it. Currently the economic blockade against Iraq and veto to sell its oil directly impedes inflow of Iraq oil in the world markets and thus is in conflict with mercantile interests. However, unfortunately, even the money earned for the oil Iraq is allowed to sell within the framework of the programme “The Oil in Exchange to Food” is not given by the dictator of Iraq to the people, children or medical services, but invested in renovation of his palaces and development of arms’ policies. Thus, if we proceed with regime of Saddam Hussein, about 5000 people would die from hunger and illnesses every month only because they do not have access to money their dictator puts in his pocket.
Therefore, at present moment we speak about Latvia’s joining the peace, democracy and international order. The foreign policy success for Latvia is not automatically guaranteed only by our participation in some international structure. We as proud and sound country have to act for ourselves according to our moral and ethical ideals.
I am convinced that this is what Latvia will do today!
Thank you for attention!
|
