As prepared for delivery...

Prospects for a Safer Future: Why Iraq? Why Now?

Remarks by Ambassador Michael Klosson at luncheon hosted by
Nicosia Rotary Club
March 27, 2003

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for the opportunity to join you today to discuss several important issues, including Iraq and the future of Cyprus.

I am well aware of the good work that Rotary does around the world.  Your clubs have helped build international understanding for almost a century.  The U.S. embassy not only salutes your efforts; we also support them.  Several embassy employees plan to participate in your "Cycling for Life" anti-cancer bike ride from Kykko Monastery to Nicosia to benefit the Christodoulou March Fund.

Challenging times

Today we are living in a time of challenges as well as opportunities. Pick up any newspaper, watch any newscast, and you will see them. The opportunities include the enlargement of the European Union and NATO, which are extending the benefits of security and prosperity to millions more Europeans.  Democracy and free markets are also on the march around the world.  Our challenges, however, include the war on terrorism, which is far from over, and Iraq’s defiance of the world community.  People understandably ask, why Iraq?  Why now? In a few minutes I will discuss these questions, but I want to start closer to home: Cyprus.

Cyprus Settlement

There is opportunity on Cyprus’s horizon. Cyprus will become a full member of the EU about a year from now, and will join an expanding zone of peace, prosperity and security.   Expanded business opportunities are coming. The future appears bright.

But, right now, the Cyprus story is not just about its imminent accession to the EU. The story – unfortunately -- is also about the continued lack of a solution to the Cyprus problem. Since the UN Secretary General first put forward his plan last November, events have demonstrated that – island-wide – there is great interest in achieving a comprehensive settlement.  There has been much discussion, much debate – involving everyone from political leaders and political parties to Cypriots in their workplaces and homes.

For decades the U.S. has actively supported the UN’s efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement.  We are deeply disappointed that Secretary General Annan’s meeting in The Hague earlier this month with President Papadopoulos and Mr. Denktash did not result in agreement to put his plan to referenda on both sides. That would have provided a democratic outcome for arguably the most intensive UN effort in the history of the Cyprus problem, one that brought the two sides closer than ever before.  We regret, in particular, that Mr. Denktash refused to allow Turkish Cypriots to decide for themselves on their future. Their presence -- in the thousands – in the streets of Nicosia showed they wanted that chance. Cyprus needs a solution; the status quo is not sustainable nor is it in the long-term interest of either side.

The U.S. remains committed strongly to the search for a just and lasting solution.  We believe that the Annan plan provides an excellent basis for such a settlement, addressing the legitimate interests of both sides.  We intend to keep our shoulder to that task. Ambassador Weston plans to return to the island next month to work with both sides on how to move things forward.

The United Nations Security Council is also expected to meet next month to discuss the Secretary General’s report on his Good Offices Mission, reviewing developments since 1999.  It has been an eventful period, and we hope the entire Council will take steps to ensure that the work accomplished by the UN team and progress achieved by the parties will be preserved and kept available for both sides to use when conditions are ripe.   In our book, the sooner the parties reengage on the basis of the Annan plan, the better.

In that regard, we welcome President Papadopoulos’s commitment that even after April 16 he will continue his efforts “to find a solution within the parameters of the Annan plan.”  From my discussions with many Turkish Cypriots who favor a solution, it is clear that the Annan plan remains for them the viable way forward.

War on Terrorism

Today’s opportunities and challenges, however, are not just about Cyprus.  There are other, global challenges like the war on terrorism.  The September 11 terrorist attacks in New York showed us all why the world must move swiftly to combat terrorists.  Although al-Qaida has lost its safe haven and its members are on the run, the threat has not ended.  Just recall the terror attacks in Bali last fall, recent assassinations in Jordan and Kuwait, and the al-Qaida cells rolled up in Europe.

Ever since September 11, Cyprus has been a valuable partner in the campaign to combat terrorism.  Its geographic position and regional links make it an especially important member of the international coalition. We deeply appreciate its level of commitment, just as we look to strengthen that cooperative partnership even further.

Why Iraq? Why now?

The most critical challenge today is undoubtedly Iraq. That’s because post-September 11 the nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass terror is the greatest danger of our age.  Baghdad’s possession of such weapons and its drive to acquire more threaten people in Cyprus, in Europe, in the U.S. and across the globe.

I know from my discussions with many Cypriots and views voiced by those who have visited the Embassy in recent days, people have concerns about military action against Iraq, asking why Iraq and why now.  Let me respond.

First, the Iraqi regime’s actions represented a clear and present danger to the international community, to Iraq’s neighbors, and to the Iraqi people.  For twelve years, the regime defied countless UN Security Council resolutions. It pursued weapons of mass destruction, dangerous ones like nuclear weapons, VX nerve agent and anthrax.  It established ties with known terrorist groups.  It oppressed its citizens. In fact, there has been very little disagreement in the world over the danger posed by the Iraqi regime; the debate focused on how to combat it.

Second, the world learned a lesson on September 11, 2001.  The nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction had to be broken.  The Iraqi regime’s refusal to comply with the international community’s repeated demands for disarmament could no longer go unheeded.  The risks of inaction were too great.  In view of Saddam Hussein’s refusal to comply with seventeen UN resolutions, the U.S., together with a coalition of the willing, decided as a last resort that they had to act.  We would no longer wait while the power of the Iraqi regime multiplied and its terrorist allies built up their capacity to threaten the region and the world.

That is why Coalition forces began military action on March 20 to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and to help the Iraqi people build a better life.  We are not there to occupy Iraq or control its economic resources. We are taking action to disarm Iraq, and to free its people. We recognize that our success will be judged as much by our efforts “the day after” as it will be by the conduct of our military operations.  The Iraqi people deserve a better future, free from tyranny; we are working with members of the international community to achieve it.

Ultimately, the answer to the question “why now?” is that – regrettably -- Saddam Hussein failed to take the final opportunity offered him last fall and make the strategic decision to comply with his international obligations.  Resolution 1441 – adopted by all fifteen Security Council members last November – said clearly “disarm or face serious consequences.”    As each requirement in the resolution went unheeded, it became clear that the regime was not committed to disarming voluntarily.

Some have said that all diplomatic and non-military measures should have been exhausted before resorting to military force. Over the past twelve years all non-military options were attempted. All diplomatic efforts have run their course. Since 1991 the US worked with the international community under the auspices of the UN Security Council to pass resolutions and implement inspection regimes designed to achieve the peaceful, voluntary disarmament of Iraq.  Sadly, those resolutions and inspection regimes did not disarm Iraq.

Coalition Objectives: Debunking the Theories

Much has been said and written about  the coalition’s military action and its motives. Some argue the action is illegal.  Others say our concern is driven by oil.  Still others claim it is based in religion.  Some even say imperial designs underlie our decision to take military action.  None of these theories could be further from the truth.

First, on the question of international law.   Securing a second resolution would have been politically desirable, but it was not legally necessary before commencing military action against Iraq.  Together with the UK and Spain, we introduced a draft second resolution, but even if there had been a majority of votes in its favor, its adoption was precluded by the veto threatened by one permanent member.

Nevertheless, existing UNSC Resolutions, including 1441 from last November, provide authority under international law for the use of force against Iraq.   You’ll recall that Resolution 678 in the fall of 1990 authorized the use of all necessary means to deal with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and to restore international security.  At the end of fighting in the spring of 1991, Resolution 687 imposed obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international security.  Because Iraq has materially breached these WMD obligations  -- a point noted in last November’s resolution – the basis for the ceasefire has been removed and the use of force is authorized under Resolution 678 to restore international security. Indeed, already on several occasions over the past 12 years, a material breach by Iraq of the cease-fire conditions has provided a basis for the use of force by Coalition forces.

Regarding our alleged motives, the U.S. and its allies have not used military force for economic or imperialistic gain . We have made clear that Iraq’s oil belongs to all Iraqi people.  We will respect and protect the Iraqi fields for the Iraqi people.  When Coalition forces first entered Iraq, they worked to extinguish the fires to oil wells set by Iraqi forces and secured the wells for Iraq’s future.  The revenue will help the people of Iraqi build their new state.

The United States, moreover, has defended repeatedly the rights of Muslims with American lives:  in 1991, we helped restore Kuwait to its legitimate government.  Later in the decade, we intervened to re-establish stability in the Balkans.  We helped liberate Afghanistan from terrorist control, and returned it to legitimate Muslim leaders. For many years, the United States has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan’s people.

Nor is the U.S. acting alone or unilaterally.  For the past twelve years the U.S. engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts to achieve Iraq’s disarmament through Security Council resolutions and inspection regimes.  In the end, that approach was not successful. So today the U.S. is acting together with a coalition of willing nations, a coalition that now numbers over 45 countries.  These nations too have watched the Iraqi regime try to hide weapons, hinder inspections and divide the international community. Our allies reached the same conclusion: all options to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq were exhausted but the threat remained.  Only the military option was left to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

We also believe there are a variety of things that the United Nations should do in the post-conflict situation.  The first is to ensure as soon as possible the Secretary General’s authority in the oil-for-food program.  The second is to get UN agencies on the ground which can help take care of the Iraqi people.  The third is to identify what the appropriate United Nations role will be in the process of transition to Iraqi authority and an Iraqi role.

The future of Iraq

Rather than focus solely on the suffering caused by the Iraqi regime, let’s look forward and talk about the future that the coalition hopes to see take hold in Iraq. We have a clear vision:  an Iraq that is democratic, unified, without weapons of mass destruction, at peace with its neighbors; an Iraq that is multi-ethnic and maintains its territorial integrity. In this new Iraq, the revenues of the country’s oil reserves will be used to help build a new country, with new opportunities for its people.  That is what this Coalition operation is all about.

The U.S. and other members of the international community stand ready to assist Iraq. The United States has contributed already $105 million to the UN or other international organizations, and we have provided an equivalent of $300 million in food aid through the World Food Program. We are prepared to take care of Iraqis in need, to ensure they get food and medicines, and to help those who have fled their homes to return. Iraqis will need the assistance of the entire international community as it seeks to build a democratic government that meets the needs of Iraq while incorporating aspects of its culture.

Cyprus is playing a part in the preparations for humanitarian assistance.  We welcome Cyprus’s decision to host UN relief efforts for Iraq.  This island’s strategic location in the region makes it ideal for basing operations to help the people of Iraq.   Humanitarian and other contributions after the conflict would be welcomed as well.

Coalition forces are also working hard to minimize the impact of our actions on the civilian population, even as the Iraqi regime places troops in civilian areas, trying to use innocent people as shields for its military.  Despite this, as coalition forces carry out military action, great care is taken to minimize harm to innocent civilians, to minimize damage to infrastructure and to avoid disruption of essential services.  Some people have argued that Baghdad was being destroyed, but you have seen on your TV sets that it was not being destroyed:  military targets were being destroyed.

A Region at Peace

As much as we would have preferred Iraq to disarm peacefully, the successful conduct of this campaign can have a significant, positive impact on the entire region.   The U.S. also welcomes other changes in the region that can move it toward greater peace and stability.  We watched with great interest the recent appointment of Mr. Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazin as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.

In cooperation with the EU, the UN and Russia, the United States has developed a roadmap toward Middle East peace. We have made clear that once a Palestinian prime minister is confirmed in a position of real authority, the plan will be presented formally to the Israelis and the Palestinians.  This roadmap implements the vision for peace outlined by President Bush last June, peace based on the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living alongside one another in peace, security and dignity.

In conclusion, it is difficult not to focus entirely on developments in Iraq.  But the challenges in the Middle East go far beyond the issue of Iraq.  Conflict and instability are only part of the story.  Economic weakness, unemployment and political stagnation have all contributed to a region-wide sense of disappointment and anger.  To counter this, the United States, the international community and our friends in the region must together pursue a broad, positive agenda built around the hopes and aspirations of the vast majority of the region’s people.  That’s the only effective way to counter the destructive agendas of militant minorities.  The foundations for such an approach must include counter-terrorism, Iraqi disarmament and Arab-Israeli peace as well as homegrown reform.

Thank you.