Dinner for Diplomats
Address by
Prime Minister David Oddsson at a Dinner for Diplomats
at Bessastadir, 7th of March 2003
On behalf of my wife and myself, and the other guests, I wish to thank our host for a splendid banquet, held in this historic setting. Bessastaðir may appear to be rather isolated here on Álftanes, the "headland of swans." But at a closer look, if one were to take a pair of dividers and draw a circle around this place, evolving patterns of habitation mean that this ancient manor of magnates is no longer remote. And even in olden times, when the capital was a good distance away and other habitation widely dispersed, this headland was nearer to the centre of events than it appeared. When Jón Sigurðsson, leader of Iceland's nineteenth-century campaign for independence, arrived in Iceland after a long sojourn abroad, he had himself ferried across Skerjafjörður to Álftanes, where many influential personalities of the time lived. He spent a long time with Sveinbjörn Egilsson at Eyvindarstaðir discussing old Icelandic manuscripts and linguistics. At Smiðsholt he talked about the publication of maps of Iceland with Björn Gunnlaugsson, and after having called on the Reverend Árni Helgason at Garðar he made his way to the manor-house to see Grímur Thomsen, who was staying with his parents at Bessastaðir. All roads have long led to Bessastaðir. And while this place, and Iceland itself, are now on the beaten path, compared with the country's situation over the centuries, we are still far from centres of conflict, and we can be grateful for that. But due to our links with such organisations as the United Nations and NATO, we cannot avoid giving thought to, and observing, major world events, forming our own opinions and then taking a stance, for which we accept responsibility.
The NATO Summit in Prague in November last year was in many ways quite remarkable. From an Icelandic point of view, the enlargement of NATO was of particular importance, and especially the fact that the Baltic states were invited to join. I am, as hitherto, convinced that their participation, and that of the other candidate countries, will reinforce the transatlantic link, which we see as the very basis of the Alliance, and strengthen NATO in other ways.
Those who attended the Prague Summit were well aware that the difference of opinion among the allies regarding the Iraq issue was going to grow more severe. People hoped, of course, that an agreement could be reached, as has generally been the case during the Alliance's history. This finally occurred in the dispute last month on Turkish defences relating to military preparations in case of war on Iraq. But it is undeniable that the dispute has damaged the Alliance's prestige. It is most unfortunate that consensus has not yet been reached regarding the Iraq issue among the NATO countries, and it is a matter of equally great concern that this issue has split the European Union, and in fact Europe itself.
To me, the Iraq issue centres on a few main points. The threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of regimes such as that which rules in Baghdad can only grow if no action is taken, and hence all available means must be used to disarm it. Experience from elsewhere has demonstrated how much it can cost the international community to delay dealing with governments of this nature. Where would we stand, if there were no credible threat of military force against Iraq should it fail to comply with Security Council demands? Baghdad's decision to allow, reluctantly and resentfully, the resumption of weapons inspections, was entirely due to the fact that it faced a credible threat that military action would otherwise be taken, and the regime forcibly removed.
The Government of Iceland wishes, of course, for a peaceful solution to this difficult issue, and, obviously, sees war in Iraq as a last resort. The Iraqi government can still avoid conflict, if it disarms in a credible manner, as the United Nations are demanding.
It is not disputed that the Iraqi government is in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. This states that Iraq will face serious consequences if it continues to fail to comply with Security Council resolutions. The credibility of the United Nations is thus at stake here. One does not need at this point to presume that the Security Council may not have the courage of its convictions. For this reason, there is still cause for optimism that the organisation will handle this issue with sufficient firmness to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Most of the people of the earth yearn for security above all – and it is hard for anyone to improve his life, and that of his loved ones, where their security is not assured. So it is apt that the most important body of the United Nations should be named the Security Council.
Mr. President. Once again, together with your other guests, I thank you for your invitation to this noble house. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to rise from your seats, and drink the health of our host.