2003 Speeches
Opening Remarks by Ambassador Frank Lavin at the Center for Contemporary Islamic Studies
April 24, 2003
Thank you Ridzwan for the introduction and for organizing today's meeting. I am grateful that people could come out on a Saturday for this dialog. CCIS kindly invited me here last year and I thought it was a useful exchange of views, so I was delighted to accept your invitation to return. I propose that I take a few minutes offering comments on current topics and then we can move to a discussion. You might have some questions for me that I will do my best to answer. And I might have some questions for you as well. And since - as a reminder - this is an off-the-record discussion, I hope that will help us to speak freely and have an open discussion.
We have a lot of issues in front of us, and I am happy to expand our discussion beyond the topics I will address. Let me spend the bulk of my remarks on Iraq, but that will also allow me to touch on Afghanistan, and Israel-Palestine.
First, Iraq:
In Iraq we acted because Iraq continued to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). While there was obvious disagreement in the Security Council about what to do about this situation, it should be underlined that no one -- including France, Germany, Russia, and the UN weapons inspectors -- had any doubt that Iraq had failed to come clean about its WMD programs.
Given Iraq's history of aggression against its neighbors, Saddam's murderous use of WMD against Iran and Iraq's citizens, the lengths to which he had gone since 1991 to conceal the programs, there was every reason to be concerned that he might again use these weapons.
Terrorist Links:
Adding to these concerns were Saddam's open links with terrorists. While Saddam did not have the same kind of relationship with Al Qaeda as the Taliban, he openly supported various terrorist groups.
Coalition forces in Iraq have arrested several known terrorists in the last few weeks, and uncovered a full-fledged terrorist training facility near Baghdad, complete with an aircraft body to train hijackers. Thus, there were genuine concerns that Saddam's government might decide to provide some of these WMD to anti-U.S. terrorist groups.
WMDs:
We acted against Saddam not just in the defense of our coalition partners, and ourselves but under clear UN authority.
- In 1991, we stopped Coalition military action because Saddam agreed to disclose and dismantle his WMD programs. The Security Council then wrote these into mandatory obligations on Saddam's government.
- The Council numerous times declared that Saddam was in "material breach" of his obligations, most recently in the unanimously-adopted UNSC resolution 1441, in November last year, which gave him a "final opportunity" to comply.
Some say that other countries have dictatorial regimes, and why not attack them? But two things set Iraq apart from all other dictatorial regimes, the possession of illegal WMDs, and its continual, willful flaunting of UN resolutions.
- WMDs are such a danger that we cannot give the other person a first chance.
- Before Sept 11th our policy was that we could rely on deterrence and retaliation. That is if someone did attack the U.S., we would respond after the fact. In the age of WMDs this is no longer a viable policy option.
- We remain confident Saddam did possess WMDs. Saddam had 12 years to hide his WMD programs, and in a country which is one third larger than all of Malaysia. We will need time to look at thousands of possible WMD sites, interview and re-interview thousands of scientists and other personnel, and look at what often may appear to be wildly unrelated locations.
Going Forward:
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not so much an end for Iraq, but a new beginning. We want to make sure that Iraq is rebuilt, that its vast oil wealth builds palaces for people - hospitals, schools, and universities, and not palaces for tyrants.
We think that within a few weeks of the end of the war that basic human needs will be fully restored in Iraq, meaning water, power, food, and medical services. We are grateful Singapore is sending a medical team.
The next step is to rebuild the infrastructure - the roads, rail systems and ports that can allow people to lead normal lives.
And the hardest task is to build an open, stable, democratic society, but we are committed to that goal. We have taken an important first step by shutting down Saddam's torture chambers and his secret police.
While we will help with this vital task, the main work must be done by Iraqis. It will not take place overnight.
Afghanistan
There are some parallels with Afghanistan. With the fall of the Taliban, and the creation of an interim administration to guide the country toward a permanent broad-based government, Afghanistan's future is looking brighter.
Schools are have reopened. There is political stability. And the population is returning.
Before Afghani liberation, there were 3 1/2 million refugees. People are voting with their feet. - half of them returned in 2002, and returns have resumed as winter ends.
Afghanistan has more of a challenge than Iraq in some ways. They do not have Iraq's oil wealth, and they start as a less-developed country and a less educated population. Nonetheless, this year might be the best year in Afghanistan in 20 years by some fundamental statistics such as child mortality, access to health care and access to education. Not a bad start.
Israel-Palestine
Third, I wanted to touch on Israel and Palestine. The United States explicitly supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. And with the election of a Palestinian Prime Minister in the coming week, something the U.S. has supported from the beginning, we hope we can move closer to a peace settlement.
We are ready to publish our "road map" and, along with the UN and other governments, work long and hard with Israel and the Palestinians to help them to achieve the goal of two states and peace.
Despite all of the violence and despair in the mid-east, we should not lose sight of the fact that just two years ago the United States took Israel and Palestine to the doorway of a peace treaty that would have resulted in a Palestinian state. We should remain optimistic even in difficult circumstances.
Wrap-Up:
Let me conclude with some general thoughts about the U.S. role in the world. Over the last decade, U.S. has repeatedly put U.S. lives and resources on the line to help Muslims: Kuwait 1991, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We left all these places better than we found them. We worked with the UN when we could, such as in Kuwait. But we worked independently when we had to, such as in Kosovo and recently in Iraq.
Our vision for the Middle East has a stable government in Iraq, continued support to Afghanistan, and a resolution to the Palestine-Israel problem.
Use of U.S. power, particularly military force, stirs opposition in some quarters. Some people have open sympathy for the tyrants we are opposing. Some are troubled about the sheer scale of American military might. Some are such UN purists that they abjure any military action unless specifically authorized by that body. We should always respect and listen to differing points of view. But it is reassuring to me as an American that with all of our faults and short-comings we took no land from Europe or Japan after World War II. We took nothing from Kuwait after we freed them. And when the Philippines asked us to leave their country, we left.
So some people do not like the idea of having to be rescued by the United States. Some view it as humiliating to those rescued, or an arrogant display of power by the rescuer. Perhaps there is an element of truth to these feelings. No one likes being "shown up" in their own house. And people can have qualms about a powerful neighbor, even if the neighbor is generally well-behaved. But when we look at the pictures of the Iraqis who are free from their oppression, when we see the stories of Saddam's Gestapo and his theft his country's wealth we can conclude this: The people of Iraq agree with the people of Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan: Whatever problems that might be brought about by US actions, the problems that would otherwise be raised by US inaction would be far, far worse.