Declaration of Eight European Leaders in 
  Support of United States on Iraq
  
  
  Special to washingtonpost.com Thursday, January 30, 2003; 2:17 PM
  
  What follows is the text of a joint declaration signed by the
  leaders of eight European states in support of the United States
  in its efforts to disarm Iraq. The declaration was published in
  various European newspapers.
  
  
  "The real bond between the United States and Europe is the values
  we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the
  Rule of Law.
  
  These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Eu-
  rope to help create the USA.
  
  Today they are under greater threat than ever.
  
  The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists - the
  enemies of our common values - are prepared to go to destroy
  them.
  
  Those outrages were an attack on all of us.
  
  In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments
  and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrat-
  ed the strength of their convictions.
  
  Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of
  our freedom.
  
  We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has
  stood the test of time.
  
  Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-
  sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny
  that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and
  Communism.
  
  Thanks, too, to the continued co-operation between Europe and the
  United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on
  our continent.
  
  The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the
  current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world
  security.
  
  In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we
  preserve that unity and cohesion.
  
  We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism
  and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands
  unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the
  part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.
  
  The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a
  clear threat to world security.
  
  This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations.
  
  All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which
  was adopted unanimously.
  
  We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution
  1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the
  Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen
  European Council.
  
  In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that
  we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's
  weapons of mass destruction.
  
  We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed.
  
  The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international
  community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our
  strength lies in unity.
  
  The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a
  threat of incalculable consequences.
  
  It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution
  1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful
  means.
  
  The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him.
  
  Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his
  long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance
  with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.
  
  Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people.
  
  Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal re-
  gime.
  
  Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring
  that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction.
  
  Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat.
  
  Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own
  citizens and to the wider world.
  
  The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the
  task of preserving international peace and security.
  
  To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by
  ensuring full compliance with its resolutions.
  
  We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Reso-
  lutions.
  
  If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its
  credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.
  
  We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its
  responsibilities.
  
  
  Jose Maria Aznar, Spain
  Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Portugal
  Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
  Tony Blair, United Kingdom 
  Vaclav Havel, Czech Republic 
  Peter Medgyessy, Hungary 
  Leszek Miller, Poland 
  Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark"
  
   c) 2003 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive 
  

24 responses total.

france should start speaking german ... they had their chance 60 yrs
ago, it;s about time to start.

There are some notable absences there.

Yes, most of the countries that really have something at stake. 

Who is using mass destractive weapons?--Iraq or the Allied force? So far Iraq
has not used any short of Chemical/Biological /Neuke weapons.Think twice pleas

Neither have the coalition forces.

Let us condemn the attack on Iraq by US and its slaves. The war crazy 
leaders should respect the feelings of common people.

Countries against weapons of Mass destruction are precisely those which posses
them in thousands.

There aren't against weapons of mass destruction - they are against their
proliferation. 

Its okay for them to have it while others should not have.

That has been a long standing international policy agreed to by most
countries in regard to nuclear weapons: they are joint partners in the
"nuclear nonproliferation" treaty of 1970. 188 countries have ratified
the treaty. They understand that it is in their interest to not add
more nuclear nations to the current few. So, yes, it IS "OK", by mutual
consent, for "them" to have it while "others" should not.

Of course, a treaty like this only works so long as the logic for it
is accepted, which is a weakness, as shown by the addition of other
countries to the nuclear group since the ratification of the treaty. 

Exactly , it wont work unless it is universally ratified.
India hasn't ratified NPT , Pakistan will do so only if India does .
I find such policies flawed in the first place.It makes some more equal than
others.

So, you would feel safer in a world in which  every country was "equal"
with nuclear weapons?

This response has been erased.

right mynx, disarmament for everyone ..not just for the weaker nations.
Why does a handful of countries feel the need to have it?

Given how easy it would be for a country like the US, Russia, Chia, or the
UK to make more in secret after publicly "disarming," it's almost better to
be up front about who has the things.

This response has been erased.

Re #13: I'm afraid you were missing MY point. #12 was a sarcastic inquiry.
The fact is, all nations will NEVER eliminate nuclear weapons. So what
is the best that can be done? Since "zero" equality is impossible, 
asking for equality can only mean what can be attained, universal nuclear
armament. But that is an invitation for disaster. So....the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty is the best, so far, in an imperfect world. 

You cant stop proiliferation either.

It has been slowed down for a long time. That is the best we can do
with resource depletion, population growth, and many other threats to
human existence.

We can understand the interests of MNCs to get the oil fields of Iraq. 
But I am really shocked to see the indifferent attitudes of the people 
of America towards the destructions in Iraq. Afterall its the US tax 
payers who are getting the burn of war. US might have won the battle 
but have they won the war, the history will tell.
The communist Korea has started producing Nuke weapons, China does have 
it already but both dont have any oil fields so possessing nuke weapons 
by them dont make any different to US.
Awake arise and start telling the truth--- People of US still its not 
very late.

COnsidering that the United States has been acting as the aggressor, I find
the fact that it refuses to disarm, more alarming than having a country that
doesn't already have nukes agreeing that they wont develop them not really
reassuring. As long as any nation has nukes, all other nations will want them,
since it will be the only effective means of deterrence. If America knows that
Iran has nukes and has the capability and willingness to use them (like we
do), than an attack on Iran will be less likely. If the politicians thought
that Iraq *really* had WMD instead of just using that as a way of coaxing the
masses into agreeing with the invasion of Iraq, then you can be sure we
wouldn't have gotten anywhere near Iraq. China and Russsia, we leave
peacefully alone, for example. 

It may not be the politicians but the oil companies.

Today, on February 24, 2004...can we look behind and ask about those MDW?

funny, to read some items few monthes later, hehehe

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss