A new world order remains a dream to European nations

Part 1 of 2

Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister of France

Today our world needs security. But it also needs justice and stability. I believe that, together, France and the UK have what it takes to achieve these goals. The path to a new world is one we can truly map out together.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world of 1989 was full of hope. The confrontation between the blocs had ended.

Peoples were asserting their right to self-determination. Europe was regaining its unity. New democracies were burgeoning. The dream of a new world order seemed within our grasp.

And yet what do we see today? Everywhere, tensions are causing havoc. They are threatening to create fault lines.

Everyday violence rears its ugly head -- a violence that erupts as a result of a clash of ideologies, religious fanaticism or nationalism. It scars the Middle East, India and Pakistan, the Balkans. But there is also a blind and absurd violence that grows in the areas of crisis and lawlessness in Africa, Latin America or Asia -- violence which sends child soldiers to die on landmines or drunk gunmen to decimate a village.

Sept. 11 has shown us a third kind of violence, one seemingly intent on hijacking all the others. This violence -- the violence of al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks -- tries to set the world against itself.

Let's also beware of the possible connections between terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Such a combination can be a destabilizing factor for whole regions. More serious still, it could result in blackmail or even a direct threat to our security interests.

Here we are facing a major global risk -- from North Korea to the Middle East, an arc of proliferation has taken shape with its trafficking in technology and materials, and the underground activities of scientists.

Against this background, one of the first tests of our determination will be the settlement of the Iranian crisis. Here we share the same analysis: The Iranian nuclear program is raising concerns, which must be allayed. We won't compromise on the strict adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor on the mandate given to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Nothing less than full transparency on the different aspects of the Iranian program will make the restoration of confidence possible. Once confidence has been established, we would be ready to discuss ways of ensuring that the Iranian people get legitimate access to civilian nuclear technology, with all the necessary safeguards and precautions.

In the meantime, not backed by force, law is powerless. But force alone is futile. A strategy focusing solely on the use of force cannot destroy the roots of terrorism.

It would risk giving political legitimacy to individuals acting in the shadows. In the area of proliferation, it could incite states to acquire the most destructive military capabilities. It would then soon reveal its flaws -- who today would contemplate military action against North Korea?

Indeed our idea of the nature of power has undergone a complete revolution. Today the weak can threaten the strong. An armed group can, in an instant, shatter all our previous certainties. Power is no longer a mere matter of military and technological might.

So we must be vigilant. If we wound those identities, we run the risk of provoking an allergic reaction.

At a time when we have just emerged from a trial of strength between two ideological blocs which took the world to the edge of the abyss, let us be careful not to recreate the conditions for a new clash between North and South, East and West, Christianity and Islam.

How can we respond to these global threats without locking ourselves into a spiral of violence? We must start by trying to resolve the current crises.

Justice in the Middle East first of all.

We cannot accept the status quo. If we go on procrastinating, the situation will deteriorate even further.

We share the grief of the Israeli people facing the ever more deadly and unacceptable violence of terrorist actions.

As the (Mid-East)'s leading economic partner and the Palestinians' main supplier of aid, Europe has a special responsibility

We share the despair of the Palestinian people who see no future.

But we cannot resign ourselves to a policy solely driven by security.

The time has come for us to ask ourselves the right questions: Is it constructive to blame all the difficulties on Yasser Arafat? Is the building of the present security fence acceptable? Does all this strengthen Israel's security?

The answer is no -- for a simple reason: the security of Israel and the sovereignty of the Palestinians cannot be dissociated.

As the region's leading economic partner and the Palestinians' main supplier of aid, Europe has a special responsibility. And France and the UK, which share the same beliefs, have a duty to take action.

In Iraq too, justice must prevail.

Judging by the debate here, which I have followed from afar, I am under the impression that our position may have sometimes have been very slightly misunderstood.

Let's face it: Unless we all act together with due regard for international law, we will not get acceptance for regime change by force.

We too were concerned by the security threat of Iraq. But what were we talking about? Was it weapons of mass destruction?

At that time, there was no established link between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network. Today, in Iraq, terrorist groups, which hadn't been there before, are taking advantage of the inadequate border controls to infiltrate.

Was it remodeling the Middle East region? Today we can all clearly see the concern of the neighboring countries.

Is the region more stable? Are we on the way to peace?

Have no doubt about it: Despite the difficulties, despite our differences, France will spare no effort to achieve stability and security. Meanwhile, coalition soldiers are dying in Iraq. Among them Britons. Every day civilians are dying. The number of terrorist acts is increasing.

This, my country feels, is to allow the Iraqis to take control of their destiny. They must regain their sovereignty as soon as possible.

It's by asserting this principle that we shall bring home to everyone the fact that Iraq is no longer an occupied country, but, on the contrary, a nation supported by the whole international community. The handover of sovereignty must take place as soon as possible.

Let us not underestimate the ability of the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their destiny. Let us not repeat the mistakes made in the past. Let us not consider, as all occupying forces have always done, that an occupied country is never ready to recover its sovereignty.

Meanwhile, globalization encourages technological progress and the expansion of trade. But it accentuates also prosperity gaps, speeds up the spread of viruses, damages our environment.

Those inequalities are shocking. They are also dangerous. They create a feeling of injustice and fuel resentment.

Can we really pay no heed to the lack of development in some African countries because the fight against terrorism is taking up so much of our energy?

Can we turn a deaf ear when social divisions grow and threaten to turn limited tensions into fully-fledged civil wars?

The above article is based on an abbreviated text of the annual BBC Dimbleby lecture delivered in London.