[ Strategic Overview |  Singapore's National Interests | Iraq ]

In response to questions by Members of Parliament Dr Ong Chit Chung, Ms Irene Ng, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Mohd Maliki Osman, Mr R Ravindran and Mr Othman Haron Eusofe.

Minister Jayakumar

1             I thank the Members. I should first respond to Dr Ong Chit Chung who gave his own view on the state of the world and in the region, and he ended up by asking me for my reading of the prospects for the world and the region, how we position ourselves. And I like to agree with him by saying that yes indeed, there has been much bad news. I cannot recall any other period in recent history when we have to operate in such a fluid, unpredictable and turbulent environment. What I will do is to give an overview of how I see our position in the region, how Singapore is positioning itself with regards to our neighbours and major powers and then point out how we see the overall strategic landscape in which we have to operate. Members have spoken about national interest. I will state how we see our national interests which guide our policies on many foreign policy issues, including that of Iraq. Then I will respond to the specific questions on North Korea.

Relations with Neighbours

2             First, our relations with ASEAN neighbours remain a key focus of our foreign policy. On 25 January 2003, I had already spoken at length about our relations with Malaysia. Admittedly, they are not in the best state. But both sides have brought down the temperature. Our relations with other Southeast Asian countries are excellent and strengthening. With Indonesia, our ties are deep and broad. To demonstrate Singapore’s confidence in Indonesia, Prime Minister Goh visited Jakarta last December, just two months after the Bali bombings. He was the first foreign leader to do so. It was a gesture of our consistent support for President Megawati and her government. Prime Minister Goh also visited Thailand and Vietnam earlier this year. Many new initiatives were undertaken during these visits. President Nathan’s State Visits to Cambodia and Vietnam also underscored our close and warm ties with those neighbours. We will continue to make efforts to improve relations with Malaysia and at the same time consolidate our excellent ties with others in ASEAN and the rest of the region.

Our relations with other major powers are excellent

3             As regards to our relations with other countries, beyond ASEAN, we have strong and healthy relationships with all the major powers. With the United States, we concluded a FTA with the US which is now before Congress. The USSFTA is not just important for economic growth, it also has importance strategically. It will add an important new dimension to our already strong economic, military and political ties with the US. And Prime Minister Goh will visit Washington later this year.

4             China: With China, we continue to have excellent relations and we have frequent exchanges of visits by senior leaders on both sides. President Hu Jintao visited Singapore last year before assuming the top post. The new Chinese leadership is familiar to us. The Prime Minister intends to visit China in the course of this year. As China grows, our relationship with it of course will assume even greater importance. We believe that China will become an even more significant part of the regional equation. Our strong ties with Beijing are therefore, in my view, a plus.

5             Japan: With Japan, our relationship has been brought to a new height with the conclusion of the Japan-Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA). I visited Japan last year and held very fruitful discussions with the Japanese Foreign Minister on matters of mutual concern. I am glad to say that Prime Minister Goh will visit Japan in a few weeks’ time. Japan is struggling to shake off a decade of slow growth. But for all its problems, Japan is still the second largest economy in the world, and of considerable importance to Singapore and the region. We will work closely with Tokyo to enhance our bilateral relations as well as facilitate Japan’s role in ASEAN. This year marks the 30th Anniversary of the commencement of Japan-ASEAN relations. Prime Minister Goh intends to attend a special ASEAN Summit in Tokyo in December.

6             India: With India, President Nathan visited India earlier this year and Prime Minister Goh will do so in a month’s time. Our traditional ties with India are strong and we are adding to them in many ways, including the possibility of negotiating a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India. We share many common strategic interests and our economic relationship has assumed greater importance. We have also strongly supported convening of the ASEAN-India Leaders’ Summit.

7             Europe: Our ties with the European countries are also strong and healthy. The Prime Minister, the two DPMs, myself and other Ministers having visited most of the European countries.

8             Australia and New Zealand: As with Australia and New Zealand, we also have very good relations with Australia and have just concluded an FTA with them. New Zealand is a strong and reliable friend and was our first FTA partner.

Complexity of Global Environment

9             That was very truncated account of our relations with contries in the region and the major powers. What I want to stress is this: that our relations with these countries and the stability of our region and the state of health of the region do not occur in a vacuum. We must view them in the broader strategic context and global developments. Let me briefly explain the complex global environment which we are currently operating in.

End of cold war

10             The Cold War has ended. But a decade after the end of the Cold War has become very clear that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the dangerous nuclear confrontation between the superpowers really has not made for a more peaceful world. True, we no longer have the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the world’s super powers. But, we live now in a new era, which sees us facing many new challenges, and new threats to our physical security, economic well-being and social stability.

11             The post-Cold War world has proved to be a messy and dangerous place. Just to name a few major developments, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War to restore Kuwaiti independence; the collapse of countries resulting in political and humanitarian crises such as in Somalia and Haiti; genocidal violence in Rwanda; political turmoil, “ethnic cleansing” and ultimately NATO interventions in the Balkans. The Middle East was and continues to be wrecked by endemic violence.

12             Now if that was the world post 9/11, the world has become an even messier and more dangerous place. 9/11 revealed the existence of a highly organised and well-financed trans-national terrorist organisations of global scope, motivated by a radical and deviant interpretation of Islam, determined to bring down secular and moderate governments. These governments were predominantly in Muslim countries – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Even we in Singapore were not spared as the JI arrests have shown.

13             The struggle against terrorism is clearly not a struggle against Islam. But, it is an unfortunate fact that it is complicated by the campaign of the terrorists to portray it as a war against Islam. They have targeted the US and its friends because the US is the chief obstacle to their designs. The war against terrorism has also been complicated by the discomfort which many Muslims – and not just Muslims – have about US policies in the Middle East.

14             However, no one can be a bystander in this struggle. And terrorism will exist even if there is a solution to the Middle East problem. Pretending to ignore the problem will not buy greater safety.

15             Post 9/11, all countries, including Singapore, have had to reassess their security priorities and strategic interests. Singapore has been compelled to do so because Iraq’s decade-long flouting of UN efforts to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has assumed more threatening proportions. It now poses an unacceptable risk of proliferation. As members will know, North Korea has taken advantage of the Iraqi crisis to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme, creating a very dangerous situation in North Asia.

16             Fortunately, one paradoxical aspect of 9/11 has been to stabilise major power relations in the Asia-Pacific, making for a more favourable overall strategic environment.

17             In particular, I refer to relations between China and the US which have become more stable. This US-China relationship is the key bilateral relationship in East Asia. If that relationship is stable, it has a calming effect on the entire region. But when US-China relations become roiled, the entire region becomes unsettled. Good US-China relations is therefore important for a stable strategic environment.

ASEAN – regaining relevance

18             With regard to ASEAN, another interesting post 9/11 development is that China, Japan and the US are renewing their interests in Southeast Asia. So are India and Europe. Post 9/11, the major powers have also rediscovered ASEAN’s importance in maintaining stability in our region and that we are assuming a greater prominence in the global anti-terrorism campaign. The major powers are now engaging ASEAN, I would say, with greater enthusiasm, than I have seen just a few years ago. This is a plus for Singapore; is a plus for the region as a whole.

Pre eminent position of the United States

19             Terrorism and these new challenges require national, regional and international responses. We will have to structure our responses within an international system that is no longer bipolar.

20             And I would say that the key geo-political fact of the post-Cold War world is the pre-eminence of the US; a pre-eminence on a scale unprecedented in history and multi-dimensional in its scope: not just military but economic, financial and technological.

21             It is not likely that American pre-eminence can be seriously challenged by any country or combination of countries in the foreseeable future. Like it or not, it is a geo-political reality that no international issue today can be resolved without the active cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of the US.

22             Now the US is at the forefront of the war against terrorism, proliferation and the security challenge presented by Iraq and North Korea.

23             The sheer scale of US pre-eminence, of course, has provoked a degree of international discomfort, even among close US friends and allies in Europe, South Korea and Japan. That discomfort is seen now being focussed on the Iraq issue.

Singapore’s national interests

24             What are Singapore’s national interests? In the midst of all these confusing and troubled times, in the midst of an international debate in which seemingly valid points are being made by all sides, I think it is important as several Members have pointed out that we in Singapore understand what is Singapore’s national interests. And I agree with Members, Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr Maliki, that it is all the more important now for us not to be swayed by emotions or the fashion of the moment, but to carefully and calmly assess our national interests with a clear head. Let me set out some basic considerations.

25             First of all, yes, of course the world may well be better off with a more balanced structure of international power. That’s no doubt about that. But, our wishing it to be so is not going to make it happen. Would we be better off if the Cold War were still on or, worse still, if the Soviet Union had emerged triumphant? I do not think so.

26             Second, Singapore has for many years emphasised the importance of the US in providing the stability that is the irreplaceable foundation of Asia-Pacific growth since the end of the Second World War. We have stated that position of ours even at the time when it was not fashionable or politically incorrect to do so. Why? Because it was in Singapore’s fundamental national interests. A small country like Singapore can survive and prosper only when there is a stable balance of power. And the US is an irreplaceable part of any regional or international balance. And it is not statements that we have made to that effect but, within our limited means, we have done what we could to provide access to our facilities to enable the US to maintain its presence in our region. And we did that, again, because it was in our national interest to do so.

27             Thirdly, terrorism is a threat to Singapore as it is to all civilised countries. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a particular threat to a small country like Singapore where a single chemical or biological attack will have a catastrophic effect on the entire nation. A nuclear attack will also mean the physical end of Singapore. And this is not something theoretical or far fetched – only two days ago, Mr Mohamed El Baradei addressing a conference of the IAEA he warned of the reports of a terrorist plans to build radiological dispersion devices, and he said, given the inadequacies of source control, it is clear that additional security measures are urgently needed. So if action is not taken against Iraq or other countries that possess illegal weapons of mass destruction, what will be the implications internationally? This is the question that everyone must ask in Singapore. Supposing after all that has been said and done, in the end, Iraq is not disarmed, what signal will this send to extremist groups across the world? After all, after 9/11, in other words, the issue of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) proliferation has taken on an entirely new and even more threatening dimension.

28             North Korea has already taken advantage of the international pre-occupation with Iraq to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme. Singapore has expressed its deep concern over the North Korean action and called upon it to reconsider its actions. I will come back when I answer the specific questions on this later on North Korea.

29             Let me assure Members that Singapore will never flinch from doing what is necessary to advance our national interests. But we will assess each situation carefully in the light of our own interests and make our decisions based on the facts and our calculations of the long-term good of Singapore. We will not hesitate to state our own views even if it means disagreeing with other countries, whether they are a major power or not. And indeed we have had occasion to do so. But it is in Singapore’s overall interest to maintain the best possible relations we can, not just with the US, but with all the major powers.

30             Members, I hope, will trust that the government will always adopt a foreign policy based on the fundamental principles which I had just elaborated. We have earned the reputation internationally as a principled and fair country. This reputation was reaffirmed during our term as a Security Council member in the last two years.

Iraq

31             Having made those comments on overall strategic overview and having stated our key national interests considerations, let me now respond to the Members who asked about our position on Iraq.

Essence of our position

32             The essence of our position, which has been stated publicly on many occasions can be summed up as follows:

• First, the onus is on Iraq to disarm, and it is imperative that Iraq disarm immediately and comply with all United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

• Second, we have insisted on this because of the need for all UN Members to scrupulously comply with UNSC Resolutions and also, because of the grave threat to international peace and security caused by the development and spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This is not a new position

33             Let me stress that this is not a new position. Our position predates the present diplomatic standoff in the UN. It is a position we have consistently articulated in the United Nation. In fact, our position dates back many years to the Gulf War when we joined the international community then in condemning Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait as totally unacceptable under international law and the UN Charter.

34             To put matters in context, the current crisis actually stems from some important outstanding issues since the end of the Gulf War. And I think it is important to put matters in context as we often get the wrong picture when there is talk about a “second” Resolution of the Security Council. In fact this resolution would have been the 18th of the Security Council on Iraq’s non compliance and the most critical of this issue is the disarmament of Iraq’s WMD.

35             That critical aspect was central to the post-Gulf War cease-fire settlement reached between the coalition forces and Iraq and is set out in UNSC Resolution of 687 of April 1991. In other words, to put matters in context, we have to go back to 1991. In Security Council last year (Oct 2002), when we were a Member of the Security Council, we made a statement and we said:

“Regrettably, Iraq has not complied with many of the terms of Resolution 687, even though eleven and half years have passed.”

36             In other words, it is not just Resolution 1441 that we are talking about. Iraq has had a deplorable record of complying with UNSC Resolutions. Next I want to say that the UNSC unanimously decided (Res 1441, 8 Nov 2002) that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Res 687 (1991) ..” and decided “to give a final opportunity” to Iraq to comply and Iraq was warned that “it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations”.

WMD and Terrorism: Singapore’s National Interests

37             As I mentioned just now, we must take a strong stand on the threat posed by WMD particularly after 9/11 because the danger of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists, terrorist organisations or extremist groups is not hypothetical risk. In fact, as Members who have read on this know, Saddam Hussien actually used biological and chemical weapons against his own people and the people of Iran.

The current stand-off in the UN: our view on the need for Second Resolution

38             The current intense diplomatic efforts show that the Iraq issue is a very complex one which necessitates the balancing of several different considerations and unfortunately not all of them fit neatly together. The US is facing a difficult time in the Security Council. There have been global anti-war protests. No one in this Chamber or outside this Chamber likes war. But let us be clear about the facts and the equities of the case. And if you look at the fact of the case, it is very clear to us that it is Iraq, not the US and not the UN, not the international community, which is in the dock. The onus is on Iraq and if the consequence ensue and there is a use of force, it must be because of Iraq’s failure to comply.

39             Like many other countries, Singapore also favours that there be a second UNSC resolution. And we have called for a UN resolution, we have advocated Council’s unity, a point made by Mr Osman Haron. I do not want to speculate on the likelihood of a second resolution being passed. As somebody mentioned just now, things are changing day by day, hour to hour and your guess is as good as mine. The Security Council members, according to the latest email I received from our Ambassador, are still intensely deliberating over the issue.

40             However, what I would like to say here in response to Mr Sim Boon Ann, even if there is no second resolution, it does not automatically follow that action against Iraq is taken outside international law or UNSC authorisation. The UNSC Resolution 1441 has clearly pronounced that Iraq has been in material breach of Security Council resolutions for more than 12 years, from UNSC Resolution 678 of 1990 right upto UNSC Resolution 1441 last year. Singapore has said so at the UN.

41             The effects of the war? Of course, a war in Iraq, with or without a second UNSC resolution, will have a negative impact on the world and in our region. It will results in loss of lives, it will result in destruction of properties; it will affects investment sentiments, may push up oil prices; and will leave a deep scar surely on those directly involved in the war for a long time. And I think it will also be exploited by extremists and terrorists for their own purposes. We must have no illusions on the effects of such a war.

Summing Up

42             To sum up, Singapore has taken a consistent position on Iraq since UNSC Resolution 678 of 1991. Our understanding of UNSC Resolution 1441, which was adopted by consensus when we were in Security Council, was that it found Iraq in material breach of UNSC resolutions. It was intended as a final chance for Iraq and would have serious consequences if Iraq did not comply.

43             Iraq’s possession of illegal WMD is, post 9/11, an unacceptable threat. If Iraq gets away without disarming, it will send a very bad signal to extremist groups across the world. The fact that the Security Council cannot reach consensus on a second resolution cannot be taken as an excuse for inaction.

44             At the end of the day, our key consideration must be our national interest. The UN can only operate within a stable international environment and it is that stable environment that Iraq’s WMD threatens. Hence, it is in our fundamental national interest to see Iraq disarmed. This is necessary to send the right signal to extremists and other states like North Korea that are trying to develop WMD, as well as to non-state players like terrorists and extremist groups whose threat to the world will be enhanced if they get their hands on WMDs.

IS SINGAPORE BEING TOO PRO-US?

45             Now, some Members said that because of our positions on Iraq or terrorism, it may be perceived that we are too pro-US. Some MPs told me this point has also arisen in their dialogue sessions with their constituents. Perhaps I should address this.

46             We are not pro-US; we are not anti-any country. Then what are we? We are being pro-Singapore. By that I mean that when we take positions, we do so to advance Singapore’s national interests. Yes, we strongly advocate US’s continued presence and engagement in this region. Yes, we have excellent bilateral relations with the US. But that does not mean that we are subservient to the US or that we agree with everything that the US does, or says, or requests, without regard to our own national interests.

47             Those older colleagues of mine in this House need not be reminded in this regard of the Michael Fay incident, where on a matter concerning law and order, we stood for our right to enforce our laws despite immense pressure from the US. There have been many other instances where our positions have differed from the US, and where we could not go along with their requests.

48             Let me just give one example and this might also answer Mr Maliki’s question on whether I can give examples whether our positions are based on principles and how we are viewed and so on. And that example I will take is the Palestinian issue which was, and is, still a very, very heated and sensitive issue in the United Nations.

49             On the Palestinian issue, we have supported action and decisions that could advance the prospects for peace and tried to play a moderating role wherever possible. In March 2001, the US vetoed a UNSC resolution that would call for an international observer force to be sent to help restore peace in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. However, although the United States was opposed to this and urged us not to support it, Singapore co-sponsored and voted for that draft resolution because we felt that the proposal to send an impartial and neutral international presence had merits and had wide support in the UN as one way to stabilise the situation in the occupied territories. And in the first half of 2002 when we were in the Security Council, we were also closely involved in several initiatives to get Israel to comply with SC resolutions and we supported calls for an immediate cease-fire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from West Bank towns, including Ramallah.

50             In fact, our voting records in the UN on the Palestinian issue are very different from the US. Records published and circulated by the Palestinian Authority show that Singapore has voted in support of all the key 17 UN resolutions on the Palestinian issue. On this issue also we are not pro or anti any side; we have maintained a principled stand: we have maintained a constructive stand. We have said that the countries in the region must recognise the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, and that we have also said that we must also recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own.

Mr Sim Boon Ann, MP: A clarification. Will the Minister clarify whether the past resolutions of the UNSC on Iraq specifically allow the US to take unilateral action in the event of non compliance by Iraq on these resolutions? Secondly, under International law, whether it will be right for the US to take unilateral action without sanction from the UN?

Minister Jayakumar: If the Member is interested, I could send him a copy of the Resolution 1441 but as I said it is not just Resolution 1441, but we have to view the whole series of Resolutions. And that is why to view matters in context, the debate clearly ought not to be viewed as a “second” UN Resolution but as what the UN resolutions had authorised over a period of time. And as I said, the Resolution 1441 has made it very clear, it has found unanimously, the Security Council has found that Iraq has been in material breach of obligations. “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant UN Resolutions …”

51             Now, we can have a very fine debate on international law, UN Charter. Somebody mentioned Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General. Singapore and I have great respect for him. But I think these issues will be debated for a very long time and the key point I want to emphasize is, that while this debate goes on, the issue is: if there is a paralysis in the decision making of the UNSC, is international order, are the interests of peace loving countries who are concerned with WMD – are these served by inaction as a result of paralysis or are they served by ensuring that Iraq disarms? That is the dilemma. So, we can have this fine international debate, I will have to meet with my international lawyers in the Attorney-General Chambers . . . it can go on. This debate has already begun. You have read both sides of it but I would say that an argument has also been made – a very strong argument has also been made – that the legal basis for any military action may be drawn from the framework of all the UNSC Resolutions. As I have said, while we can split fine legal hairs, the key law and order dilemma for the world and for us, if war breaks out, who has been responsible for it? In our view, it is because of the failure of Iraq to disarm promptly and effectively.

Statement by Singpore's Permanent Representative to the UN at the UNSC Open Debate, 11 Mar 2003

[Strategic Overview |  Singapore's National Interests | Iraq ]