Because of the global interest in this matter, all member states of the UN will have the possibility to listen to the report, together with the members of the Security Council. This will improve the capacity of the international community as a whole to participate in the discussion about the resolution of the question of Iraq.

The matter at issue is more than a decade old. It concerns decisions of the Security Council that required that Iraq should be disarmed of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Some countries have charged that Iraq has failed to respect its obligations as determined by the UN Security Council. Naturally, this has led to the demand that the Security Council should take all necessary measures to ensure that Iraq complies with the Security Council decisions.

For this reason, towards the end of last year, the Security Council adopted a new resolution on Iraq. This provided for a very vigorous and thoroughgoing weapons inspection process, both to determine whether Iraq has the offending weapons, and if it has, to ensure that these are destroyed.

At the same time, the argument has been advanced that this result can only be achieved by force. Accordingly, some governments have stated their readiness to go to war against Iraq, with the additional aim of changing the government of that country. Troops are being deployed in numbers and in a manner that suggests that war against Iraq is inevitable.

It is the prospect of war that has generated the high level of global interest in the question of Iraq. In this regard, we must state our positions in the most direct terms.

Our movement is keenly interested that the objective of the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might have should be achieved. We are also firmly of the belief that Iraq should respect and implement the decisions of the Security Council, including the latest resolution of the Council.

At the same time, we are convinced that these results can, and should, be achieved by peaceful means. To this end, we have made every effort to interact with the Government of Iraq to convey our point of view. We are very pleased that, at all times during this interaction, the Government of Iraq has assured us that it agrees with the positions we have taken.

Practically, Iraq agreed to comply with the Security Council resolution. She submitted information to the Security Council, as demanded by the resolution. She allowed the weapons inspectors to return, and has not hindered their work. Where the inspectors demanded a more pro-active engagement on the part of Iraq, she has obliged.

We are not aware of any information that would suggest that Iraq has been in serious material breach of the Security Council resolution. Nothing credible has been said that any such breach has occurred to justify resort to war.

At the same time as we were speaking to the Government of Iraq, we also interacted with others in the world who occupy decision-making positions from which they have the power to decide whether the Iraq question is solved peacefully or through resort to war.

We have sought to persuade these important global players that the Iraq question should, and can, be resolved by peaceful means. We have urged them to avoid everything that would drive the world towards war over Iraq.

We have tried to state the point clearly, that the effort to eradicate any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should not be used to justify the declaration of war. Rather, this effort should target the elimination of these weapons, precisely to eliminate the necessity to go to war. The inspectors must be allowed to do their work.

Further, we have committed ourselves to do everything in our power, limited as this power might be, to persuade Iraq to give herself and the United Nations the necessary space successfully to resolve the matter at issue, peacefully and expeditiously.

From the 1950s, after the emergence of nuclear weapons, our movement has been opposed to weapons of mass destruction. This included chemical and biological weapons. This derived from the humanist convictions born of an oppressed people that had known the impact and results of the use of unbridled force by people who thought they had a God-given right to rule over others, with the sovereign right to determine the future of the oppressed.

The conscience of our people and movement rebelled against the idea that any human being should have the power and the means to wipe out humanity through the use of weapons of mass destruction. Our people and movement knew that both we, and the rest of the peoples of Africa, faced the grave danger that we could fall victim to such an outcome, if those who oppressed us laid their hands on these weapons.

Even as we campaigned for universal disarmament, our oppressors worked hard to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As we approached our liberation, the apartheid regime admitted that it had produced nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Intent that these should not be controlled by a government that represents all our people, it entered into international agreements that eliminated these weapons in our country. We supported this development, even as we knew that it was driven by a determination to ensure that the democratic government should have no access to such powerful weapons.

The reality is that, in any case, this government would have ensured that our country was free of these weapons of mass destruction. The matter went further, with the termination of the programme for the development of the missiles that would carry and deliver these weapons.

Once more, our movement agreed to this, participating in direct discussions with the major countries in the world that are preoccupied with the question of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We acted in similar fashion, to ensure the effective implementation of all agreements our country had entered into with regard to the matter of the destruction and non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction.

We are the first and only country in the world voluntarily to implement a comprehensive programme of disarmament and the destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

Because of these positions, which are central to our long-standing approach to the important issue of war and peace, we have opposed the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However, the matter does not, and cannot, end there.

The very countries that are threatening Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, themselves own large quantities of these weapons. They say nothing whatsoever against Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Of course, from their point of view, the matter has nothing to do with principle. It turns solely on the question of power. We disagree.

Proceeding from a different position, our movement has, from its inception, taken the stand that it is committed to the resolution of all disputes by peaceful means. Accordingly, we welcomed the formation of the United Nations.

This was regardless of the fact that we were represented at this historic process and event by an oppressive white minority regime that refused that our own national problems should be solved peacefully. We welcomed the birth of the UN in part because it gave the promise of a world free of war.

Once more informed by these long-established positions, we have insisted that the Iraq question must be solved through the United Nations. World peace, and not the provocation of war, is the very reason for the existence of the UN. Similarly, the UN exists because of a global commitment to regulate the power of the powerful, in the interests of international peace and justice.

We cannot accept that the powerful have a right to use their power either to marginalise the UN or disempower it, to facilitate the pursuit of their war aims. Nor can we agree that the powerful have a right to use the authority of the UN and its prestige as a peace agency, to legitimise a pre-determined decision to wage war.

And yet this is precisely what some of those who have power have sought to do. These have worked to emphasise and enhance their unilateral power, necessarily used to advance the national interests of the powers concerned, regardless of the cost to the rest of the world.

This situation demands that we intensify the struggle for the strengthening of the multilateral system of governance. The UN is at the centre of this system, and is the only guarantee that the voice of weak, such as ours, can be heard. It follows that since we insist that the UN must mediate the power of the powerful, in our interest, we must be the first to respect the decisions of this international institution.

But then, the UN must honour its own commitment truly to represent the peoples of the world, refusing to be transformed into an instrument controlled by the powerful.

The reality stares us in the face that a war against Iraq would create a situation that would threaten international peace and security. Inevitably, it would create instability both in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. It would postpone further, the long-delayed resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at great cost to both peoples.

The inevitable sharp increase in oil prices and other negative economic consequences would condemn the African continent to a deep economic crisis. It would put paid to all the high hopes raised by the NEPAD initiative and the formation of the African Union. Instead, the peoples of Africa would have to confront the reality of even further impoverishment.

The destruction of any weapons of mass destruction Iraq may have is in the interest of the masses of our people. So is the peaceful achievement of this goal. Iraq's cooperation in this regard is in the interest of the masses of our people. So is the requirement that this matter is handled by the UN and not decided through the unilateral exercise of power by the powerful.

Because the masses of our people have a direct interest in the peaceful resolution of the Iraq question, they have an obligation to stand up and join the struggle for peace. That struggle for peace in the Middle East is a struggle for peace and development in our country and continent, for a new world order of peace, development, justice and prosperity for all.

The struggle for the attainment of these goals demands that our movement must go to our people to say to them that they have an urgent obligation to stand up for peace. The situation demands that once more, the masses of our people must act together as a powerful force for peace in the world. The voice of the people must be heard.