~I welcome all of you here today. I have always tried to maintain the tradition of consultations with major political parties, particularly on important international issues. This has helped strengthen the national consensus on our foreign policy.

On Iraq, we have expressed our views on several occasions in recent days. I have made a statement in both Houses of Parliament. We also had an al-party meeting, like this one today, earlier this month. Our position is based on our principles and national interest. We have been consistent in underlining certain basic principles in our various statements. These are that:

· Iraq should destroy any weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and comply fully with all relevant UN Resolutions.

· Every possible effort should be made to avoid war, a peaceful solution should be sought, and any action on non-compliance by Iraq should be taken with UN authority.

· Any Action without the specific authorization of the United Nations will undermine the credibility of the United Nations and have grave consequences for the world order.

· Regime change should be decided by the internal processes in a country and cannot be imposed from outside.

We have had long-standing friendly ties with Iraq and its people. We have very valuable political, economic, cultural, religious and other ties with the Arab world. Our relations with United States and Britain and others involved in the Iraq crisis are strong, with many dimensions, and are expanding. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq situation, our relationship with others cannot be defined by a single issue, however important and whatever the differences in points of view.

We should also recognize that the Iraqi crisis has been very divisive. The Security Council itself is divided, with three Permanent Members ranged against two others, and non-Permanent Members with varying views. There are divisions within Europe and within NATO. Most importantly, the Arab world itself is divided. Indeed, many Arab countries are cooperating with United States and Britain in the current military action against Iraq. We should observe where troops are stationed, where the air bases are, and from which territories missiles are being fired.

We have to take the totality of the situation into consideration and craft an approach, which is consistent with both our principles and our long-term national interest. Our words, actions and diplomatic efforts should be aimed at trying to achieve pragmatic goals, rather than creating rhetorical effect. Quiet diplomacy is for more effective than public posturing.

We sincerely hope that the military campaign would be short-lived. We are concerned about human lives – Iraqis and others. We are also concerned about refugee flows. The sovereignty and integrity of Iraq should be fully preserved and so should its secular traditions. Sectarian and ethnic conflict should not be allowed to divide the country.

We have been in touch with all major countries to share our perspectives on these matters. I had mentioned in Parliament my telephonic conversation with President Bush. We had another conversation on Thursday. I conveyed to him our concerns about the military action. I also mentioned to him the widespread unease at the implications of the concept of regime change. I would like to read a portion of my remarks to him on this:

~Mr. President, when I was recently in Kuala Lumpur for the Non-Aligned Summit, a number of developing country leaders expressed to me their anxiety that military action for regime change in Iraq would set a dangerous example. They are concerned that this precedent could be used also to change their regimes. America should reassure the world that such fears are unfounded.~

One can have differences over the necessity of war, but one cannot have differences about the urgent need for restoring peace. One can sometimes wage war unilaterally, if one is powerful enough, but a united enterprise is essential in the search for peace.

The international community must quickly get involved in restoring peace in Iraq, reconstruct the country and alleviate the plight of its long-suffering people. Even if the United Nations has not authorized war, it should coordinate the building of peace. We have already announced our willingness to fully participate in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq and its people. Our long-standing friendship with the people of Iraq requires this. Our standing in the international community makes it our duty to share the burden of rebuilding Iraq.

Fortunately, we have so far not received any worrying reports about the safety and morale of Indians residing in the war zone. We are keeping a vigilant eye on developments. The Ministry of External Affairs is coordinating an inter-Ministerial Crisis Management Group. We will take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of Indian nationals. Our contingency plans are ready.

Finally, we should be careful that neither our internal debate nor our external actions deflect our attention, or that of the world, away from the real source of international terrorism in our neighbourhood. The nexus between international terrorism, fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction is now being strengthened. The remnants of Al-Qaida and Taliban are being given refuge. There is a real threat of rogue nuclear activity and WMD terrorism. Action against Iraq should not dilute our focus, nor should it be allowed to erase from the international consciousness, the huge potential threat to humanity from this unholy mixture of evils.