'It is the cities and their people who are suffering most from armed conflicts'

Speech by Lord Mayor of Munich Christian Ude on the occasion of the Conference on Security Policy, 7 February 2003 (excerpt)

[...] Today, the imminent expansion of military conflicts is on the agenda. The conference is therefore getting more attention than ever before in its history. Tomorrow thousands of people in this city will be on the street and make use of the presence of government officials and members of parliaments from all over the world to give a signal of international attention: In favour of peace and in favour of peaceful solutions of the present conflicts and against a military attack on Iraq.

[...] And I myself have called to attend this demonstration [...]

This demonstration is not anti-American. The people of Munich are aware of the fact that they were liberated by the American Armed Forces from the nazi terror régime and they are fully aware of what they owe to the American people since that time. The German-American friendship has struck deep roots in the people of Munich. There is no doubt however, that differences of opinion can occur - even among friends. But these differences have to be settled without cringing. The participants of this demonstration are by no means willing to belittle Saddam Hussein. We know that he is a dictator who oppresses his own people, that he has already used chemical weapons, that he is in possession of dangerous weapons, that he is a threat to the security of the region and violates binding resolutions of the World Security Council. A great majority of the German people is of the opinion, however, that these facts cannot justify going to war. The people ask: Why are other dictators tolerated who are also violating human rights ? Why are no actions taken against other states who are undoubtedly in possession of weapons of mass destruction? We are concerned, above all, that a war which includes the bombing of cities would not bring freedom and democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people, but additonal suffering. We are concerned that a military attack could set on fire the entire middle and near east. And, we are finally concerned that a military attack on Iraq would not eliminate the suspected biological and chemical weapons, but on the contrary, provide a pretext for terrorist attacks.

I know that in military circles such arguments are considered to be naive because they hold no patent remedy to enforce the respect of international law with a terror régime.

The question is do the military planners have a patent remedy ?

Was it the expression of strategic superiority to give arms to Iraq against Iran and then be terrified in view of the stockpile of weapons ?

Is it an appropriate measure against the threat of war to start a war ?

Is it justifyable to let any opportunity for a peaceful solution go by unused ?

And, is it possible to impose even greater respect for the resolutions of the World Security Council by saying one could go to war even without a U.N. mandate ?

Please consider in all your consultations: The people want peace - and international politics are only successful if this aim is achieved.

Let me finally quote the words of Pope John Paul the Second early this year: 'NO TO WAR! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.'

I wish you great success in your efforts to avert such a defeat and thank you for your attention.