Text of
President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Thursday, as released by
the White House:
Es ist also nicht der Text der Rede,
wie sie Bush gehalten hat. Mindestens in einem wichtigen Punkt weicht der
„genehmigte“ Text von der gehaltenen Rede ab: Bush sagte, die USA würden
sich an neuen „UNO-Sicherheitsresolutionen“ (Plural!) beteiligen.
(Frankreich verlangt z. B. mindestens zwei neue UNO-Resolutionen: ein
Ultimatum an den Irak und dann ein „Aktionsbeschluss“, falls der Irak die
Forderungen nicht erfüllt. In der vom Weißen Haus publizierten Rede wird
das Angebot Bushs aber auf eine einzige Resolution reduziert: „My nation
will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our
common challenge.“
PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary-General,
Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: ... Erst klopft sich Dabbeljuh auf die eigenen Schultern, preist die
USA – den Text habe ich mir erspart - und bietet dann der UNO ein
klitzekleines Zuckerbrot: As a symbol of our commitment
to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This
organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its
mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.
Dann hält er den arabischen Staaten ein Zuckerbrot hin:
Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and
religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East,
there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides.
America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine,
living beside Israel in peace and security. Dem
Zuckerbrot für die arabischen Staaten folgt aber gleich eine Peitsche für
das gequälte palästinensische Volk: Nicht die Palästinenser haben zu
bestimmen, wer ihre Regierung ist, sondern Israel und die USA. Bush
verkündet: Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a
government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. Meint: Arafat und seine Verwaltung hat in den Augen von Busharon
nicht genügend den Interessen der Palästinenser gedient. Denn das
Hauptinteresse der Palästinenser ist ja allein, dass die Okkupationen und
Eroberungen Israels legitimiert und nie wieder in Frage gestellt werden –
oder etwa nicht? ...
Dann kommt G. Dabbeljuh
B. endlich zum eigentlichen Thema: Above all, our principles
and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that
accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In
the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of
our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In
cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building
new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is
that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw
regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive
scale.
In one place – in one regime – we find all these dangers, in
their most lethal and aggressive forms ... exactly the kind of aggressive
threat the United Nations was born to confront. Es
folgt eine lange Liste der Sünden Saddam Husseins, auf die die bekannte
Fabel Äsops passt: Ein Wolf und ein junger Hund trinken durstig aus
demselben Bach. Der Wolf beschwert sich: Du verschmutzt mir mein
Wasser! Der Hund versichert: Das kann gar nicht sein, denn du stehst
doch oberhalb von mir am Ufer! Der Wolf lässt nicht locker: Aber vor
einem Jahr hast du über mich gespottet! Der Hund versichert: Da war ich
noch gar nicht am Leben! Ständig gibst du mir Widerworte! Da sieht man,
was du für ein Bösewicht bist!, ruft der Wolf und frisst den Hund.
... Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the
regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other
countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of
stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world.
Yet this aggression was stopped – by the might of coalition forces, and
the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities and to spare
himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were
clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with
every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his
contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking
every pledge – by his deceptions, and by his cruelties – Saddam Hussein
has made the case again himself.
In 1991, the U.N. Security
Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all
involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to
operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation
of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support
terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and
Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In
1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former
American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of
September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known
to be in Iraq.
This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N.
Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely
grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all
pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens
have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary
execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation,
mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands;
children in the presence of their parents – all of these horrors concealed
from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991,
the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that
Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime
agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level
coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian,
Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain
unaccounted for – more than 600 people. One American pilot is among
them.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687,
demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no
terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke
its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq
continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct
violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents
abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the
Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly
praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped
from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.
In 1991, the Iraqi regime
agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying
with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this
fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had
no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program
defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of
thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use
with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N.
inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of
biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than
three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological
weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were
used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations
inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX,
mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and
expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in
1995 – after four years of deception – Iraq finally admitted it had a
crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it
not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear
weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold
important information about its unclear program – weapons design,
procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and
documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear
scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to
build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy
high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.
Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear
weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported
numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists,
leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these
weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with
ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and
production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles
that could inflict mass death throughout the region.
In 1990, after
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq.
Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's
compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to
use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program,
working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military
materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations,
even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and
arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears
full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.
In
1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to
verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years
deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing
cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security
Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully
with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its
obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and
twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its
obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in
1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling
Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was
renewed yet again.
As we meet today, it has been almost four years
since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq – four years for the Iraqi
regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.
We
know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they
left? Es ist also nur eine bloße VERMUTUNG, dass S.
Hussein heute immer noch nach Großwaffen strebt. Immerhin wurde ja über
den Irak ein strenges Wirtschaftsembargo verhängt, was die Möglichkeiten
S. Husseins sehr beschränkte. Aber es gibt dennoch nur eine einzige
Schlussfolgerung: Der Irak MUSS gefressen werden! The history,
the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is
a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the
evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of
millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a
risk we must not take. Der Irak muss gefressen
werden! Delegates to the General
Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have
tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military
strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to
develop weapons of mass destruction. Plötzlich ist
Gewissheit, was eben noch Vermutung war. Der Irak muss gefressen
werden!
The first time we may be completely certain he has
nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. Wir
können also nicht sicher sein, ob Saddam Hussein ein Verbrecher ist. Am
besten, wir hängen ihn noch vor der Tat, dann haben wir seine Verbrechen
verhindert! We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in
our power to prevent that day from coming. Der Irak muss
gefressen werden!
Doch was gibt’s an dem unappetitlichen Saddam
Hussein zu verspeisen? Der Irak verfügt über die zweitgrößten
Ölreserven der Welt mitten in der reichsten Ölregion der Welt – voller
arabischer Staaten, die den USA nicht mehr gehorchen wollen, und denen mit
Geldgeschenken nicht beizukommen ist, weil sie halt leider nicht arm
sind. Und die Beißreflexe von „Terrier“ Blair werden vielleicht
verständlicher, wenn man in Betracht zieht, dass die britischen Ölreserven
in der Nordsee in spätestens fünf Jahren verbraucht sind.
Der Fehdehandschuh an den Irak und die arabische
Welt ist hingeworfen. Der nächste Fehdehandschuh wird der UNO und ihrem
Sicherheitsrat hingeworfen: The conduct of the Iraqi regime is
a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace.
Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All
the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining
moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or
cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose
of its founding or will it be irrelevant? Dem Irak wird
mit „Aktionen“ gedroht, der UNO, dass sie von den USA boykottiert wird –
was sonst soll die Drohung heißen, dass die UNO „bedeutungslos“
würde?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We
want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the
resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be
enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by
the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us,
by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
Die Völkergemeinschaft bekommt von den USA Testaufgaben
gestellt. Der Irak bekommt eine lange Liste ultimativer
Forderungen. Wann immer in der Geschichte der Menschheit ein Staat an
einen anderen ähnlich rigorose Forderungen gestellt hat, bedeutete das nie
etwas anderes als eine Kriegserklärung. If the Iraqi regime
wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose
and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles
and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will
immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all
states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If
the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian
population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others – again
as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime
wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose
fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased,
return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the
invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to
resolve these issues – as required by the Security Council
resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately
end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept
U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money
is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi
people.
Selbst die Erfüllung all dieser
Forderungen, mit denen die US-Regierung die Souveränität eines anderen
Landes vom Tisch wischt, reicht nicht für den Wolfsappetit: If
all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and
accountability in Iraq. Die Regierung Saddam Hussein
muss in jedem Fall verschwinden: And it could open the prospect
of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all
Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty
and internationally supervised elections. Also eine
Statthalter-Regierung nach dem Wunsch der USA.
Waren nicht auch mal
Gaddhafi und Fidel Castro die Oberbösewichte für die USA? Warum sind sie
noch im Amt? Offenbar reicht ein Israel nicht, um die Ölregion des
Mittleren Ostens „auf Kurs“ zu halten. Ein „zweites Israel“ muss
her. Findet Bush auch die passenden „Manager“ für sein
Mittelost-Unternehmen? Wir werden sehen. In Afghanistan ist’s jedenfalls
nicht weit her mit dem neokolonialen „nation building“ der USA.
... My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new
resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again,
the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account.
The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security
Council resolutions will be enforced – the just demands of peace and
security will be met – or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that
has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn
in one of two ways.
If we fail to act in the face of danger, the
people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will
have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning
the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will
remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the
progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward
gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to
confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to
supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September
11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our
responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very
different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They
can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine,
inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by
their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great
Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.
And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled
in our time.
Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been
set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of
progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must
stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of
mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make
that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make
that stand as well.
Thank you.“
Bemerkenswert ist die
Reaktion der heutigen FAZ auf die Bush-Rede:
„Bemerkenswert war auch die Reaktion von UN-Generalsekretär
Kofi Annan. Dieser warnte nicht - wie zuvor noch - vor einem Krieg gegen
den Irak, sondern nur vor einem amerikanischen Alleingang. (...) Annan
unterstützt damit offenbar nun, wie auch die Ständigen
Sicherheitsratsmitglieder Großbritannien und Frankreich, einen
Regimewechsel im Irak, wenn der Sicherheitsrat ein Mandat dazu
erteilt. Bleiben die mit Veto-Kompetenz ausgestatteten Ratsmitglieder
China und Russland. Diesen Staaten wird sich die Bush-Administration in
den nächsten Wochen widmen. Da wird dann sicher nicht nur über das
Völkerrecht geredet. Wie im zweiten Golfkrieg wird Washington versuchen,
Pekings und Moskaus Zustimmung bilateral zu erkaufen: Um wirtschaftliche
Vergünstigungen dürfte es ebenso gehen wie um Russlands neue Rolle in der
Nato. Es darf am Ende nicht verwundern, wenn eventuell noch vor den
amerikanischen Kongresswahlen im November ein förmlicher UN-Beschluss für
einen Angriff vorliegt. Bis dahin ist auch in Berlin die Regierungsbildung
abgeschlossen - in welcher Konstellation auch immer. Dann wird ein
Bundeskanzler Schröder oder Stoiber zu erklären haben, warum nun alles
ganz anders sei als noch vor dem 22. September.“ (FAZ, 13.9.2002)
Die Bush-Regierung will den Krieg. Ich denke, es gibt derzeit
keine Macht der Welt, die die USA von einem Mittelost-Krieg abhalten
können. Das Beste, was Europa in dieser Lage tun kann, ist, die USA
unilateral in ihren Krieg marschieren zu lassen. Wer für
„Multilateralismus“ eintritt, wenn es um Eroberung der zweitreichsten
Ölvorkommen der Erde geht, der will sich in den US-Karren spannen lassen
und an der Kriegbeute teilhaben. Wal Buchenberg, 13.9.2002
|