Negroponte Describes UN Agenda Following September 11

(US Ambassador to UN's speech at Georgetown University, Feb. 27)
(3930)


U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations John D. Negroponte
said, "the overarching priority at the UN now and for the foreseeable
future must be the war against global terrorism." Negroponte was
speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., on February 27.

Negroponte described how the UN responded to the September 11
terrorist attacks, and took action on September 28 with UN Security
Council Resolution 1373, instructing member states to shut down
terrorist financing.

"The Taliban and Al Qaeda had turned the phrase 'state-sponsored
terrorism' on its head," Negroponte said. "No longer were we dealing
with state-sponsored terrorism, but rather with a 'terrorism-sponsored
state.'"

Turning to Iraq, Negroponte reminded his audience that Iraq is
violating UN Security Council Resolutions. He said there must be
"unconditional compliance" by the Baghdad regime.

On the Middle East, Negroponte said that it is impossible to move
forward without a maximum security effort on the part of Chairman
Arafat, but that Israel, too, has an obligation not to cripple
Arafat's means to stop terrorists.

"Chairman Arafat requires an infrastructure to implement his orders,"
Negroponte said. "Recent actions by Israel to debilitate that
infrastructure are not conducive to a sustained, effective security
performance by the Palestinian Authority."

Negroponte noted that President Bush remains committed "to the U.S.
vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, which responds to the
aspirations of both peoples for a safe and secure future."

Negroponte said these three issues -- the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, Iraq's rejection of UN resolutions, and the war against
global terrorism -- "require our best ideas and strongest
determination."

Following is the text of Ambassador Negroponte's remarks at Georgetown
University on February 27.

(begin text)

USUN PRESS RELEASE # 26 (02)
February 28, 2002 
Oscar Iden Lecture Delivered by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on "The UN Agenda in
the Wake of September 11," at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy
of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown
University, February 27, 2002

Thank you very much for that kind introduction. It's a pleasure and an
honor to be here. Having spent virtually my entire adult life as a
diplomat, I am especially gratified by Georgetown University's
commitment to its Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, a great
resource for the international community and a tremendous asset for
the students and faculty here on campus.

I say this with some personal knowledge of Georgetown. In 1987 I
taught a workshop here on "Science, Technology and Foreign Policy" - a
great experience! Alas, I had to give it up when an Army general by
the name of Powell asked me to help him as Deputy National Security
Advisor in the Reagan White House. But it was a memorable opportunity,
and I'm glad to be here with you again to describe the challenges
facing our U.N. diplomacy at this relatively early stage in President
Bush's administration. My brief experience at the UN already has
demonstrated to me quite vividly that these are even more complex and
varied than the issues we confronted in the final years of the Cold
War.

As I prepared to go to New York late last summer, our priorities were
much different than they are today. The United Nations had just
completed a Special Session of the General Assembly designed, above
all, to attack the AIDS pandemic. Secretary Powell spearheaded the US
role, pledging our ongoing financial, scientific and diplomatic
support to addressing the greatest public health crisis since the
Black Death ravaged Europe more than 500 years ago.

In addition, the U.S. had six other important goals at the UN as we
headed into the 56th General Assembly in September:

-- We wanted to maintain UN budget discipline and continue the work of
building an effective UN through reform.

-- We hoped to enhance capacity of the UN's Department of Peacekeeping
Operations, its "Defense Ministry".

-- We sought to meet the challenge of advancing sustainable global
development, engaging in a results-oriented dialogue about what all
countries can do to accelerate economic growth.

-- We intended to call for greater attention to fundamental freedoms,
with particular emphasis on supporting democracy, protecting religious
sites, improving the administration of justice, and strengthening
human rights education.

-- We wanted to improve the safety and security of UN personnel around
the globe.

-- And as the largest contributor to UNICEF and the World Food
Program, the United States planned to reaffirm its commitment to
improve the lives of children and the hungry throughout the world.

Despite the events of September 11 and some other major challenges
about which I will speak in a moment, I think we have made progress in
each dimension of this program. Now we are deeply involved in
preparatory work for two major UN summits scheduled this year - one on
financing for development and another on sustainable development -
both of which can have some positive impact on virtually all our
goals.

But the events of September 11 did occur, and so our overarching
priority at the UN now and for the foreseeable future must be the war
against global terrorism. Global terrorism cuts across too many US
interests not to be the first and last subject addressed each and
every day.

We must face a fact: if we don't defeat global terrorism, we cannot
prevail in promoting democracy, human rights, free trade and economic
growth.

And we cannot achieve the vision of peace, prosperity, and freedom for
which, ultimately, the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy,
Georgetown University, and the American people have long stood.

So now I'd like to speak to you in some depth about the war against
global terrorism, particularly as it has affected Afghanistan, and
what we are doing through the United Nations to win it. As President
Bush has said, this will be a long, difficult war, something more like
a vast siege than a series of decisive battles. We need to be patient,
tenacious, flexible, and determined. There won't be any sudden
catharsis. All of us will have to adapt to uncomfortable levels of
uncertainty and stress because we cannot let up.

On September 11, the UN community in mid-town Manhattan recoiled along
with all other New Yorkers in the face of horrible tragedy just a few
miles away.

Twenty-four hours later the Security Council, the General Assembly,
and the Secretary-General had raised their voices in condemnation of
what they and the world had just seen. This was no instance where the
United States had to lobby for votes. Among all the issues and
problems the UN confronts, global terrorism clearly was the new
priority. Humanity was appalled; solidarity was complete.

But questions presented themselves in quick, confounding order: What
do we do? How do we fight back? How do we prevent what happened in New
York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania from ever happening again?

As you know, the UN and the Security Council had been wrestling with
events in Afghanistan for some time. The UN, like the United States,
didn't recognize the Taliban regime nor could it accept its practices.
But now an even worse reality loomed above the Taliban's repression of
women, its discrimination against non-Muslims, its general violation
of human rights.

The Taliban and al Qaeda had turned the phrase "state-sponsored
terrorism" on its head. No longer were we dealing with state-sponsored
terrorism but rather with a "terrorism-sponsored state."

That is a nightmare for an organization that comprises 189 members.
Admittedly, Afghanistan was in a weakened, vulnerable condition when
al Qaeda moved in. But there are scores of weak, vulnerable states in
this world. How could we protect them? How could we protect ourselves?

The single most powerful response the UN could take came on September
28 when the Security Council passed Resolution 1373, instructing all
member states to review their domestic laws and practices to ensure
that terrorists could not finance themselves or find safe haven for
their adherents or their operations. The Security Council further set
up a committee to monitor compliance with Resolution 1373, ably led by
the British Permanent Representative to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
Since September this committee of the whole Security Council has been
-- and will remain -- fully engaged.

President Bush himself makes it crystal clear: terrorism cannot
function without money. That's why the front organizations that raise
this terrorist money, the financial institutions that convey it, and
the entities that hide it have to be shut down - with no ifs, ands or
buts.

Now, if this policy makes sense -- as I hope you will agree it does --
a related issue arises that is worth mentioning. We sometimes read
that terrorism is bred in poverty, that poverty is its root cause and
conveyor belt, and that the best palliative would be substantial
transfers of money from the developed to the developing world. I think
we should be wary of this argument.

There are many compelling reasons to work with the developing world in
maximizing its economic potential based on its natural and human
resources. President Bush's announced participation in next month's UN
conference on Financing for Development underlines our policy on that
score. But the fact is that the man who led al Qaeda was fabulously
wealthy, and the global terrorist network has moved freely through the
modern world's commercial pipelines -- its airlines, its hotels, its
telecommunications systems -- unrestrained by expense. Terrorism as we
have known it over the last forty years hasn't been a poor man's game.
Time and again we have seen terror manifest itself in well-financed
organizations with middle and even upper class leadership that have
cleverly hijacked the impoverished, perhaps, but only to achieve
self-centered and cynical ends.

People do not suddenly lose their moral compass because they are poor,
and terrorism does not represent or benefit the poor. One look at what
terrorism did to Afghanistan's people and economy demonstrates exactly
what might be called the terrorist's ethic of social and economic
justice. We are not talking about Robin Hood and his men stealing from
the rich to give to the poor. Al Qaeda used its wealth to purchase
protection for itself in Afghanistan, not prosperity for the Afghan
people. It built training bases and safe houses, not schools and
hospitals. Doctors and professors had to become day laborers to
survive. Businesses went bankrupt. Economic and social opportunity
vanished.

Cutting off global terrorism's money makes sense because it does have
money, lots of it, and without money global terrorism possesses
neither wings nor weapons. It can't fly; it's grounded, and we can
move in more easily to seize it. That's the genius and importance of
Security Council Resolution 1373. 1373 is designed to turn every
domestic law enforcement agency, every department of the treasury,
every telecommunications ministry, and every transportation authority
against terrorism's money and movement anywhere and everywhere in the
world. It thus attacks a worldwide scourge and makes it more difficult
for those states that still see terrorism as a political instrument to
use it.

The Taliban and al Qaeda wrought such destruction in Afghanistan that
our coalition for freedom has had to do more than simply fight back.
As Secretary Powell has said, "We have an enormous obligation - not
only the
United States, but the whole international community - an enormous
obligation not to leave the people of Afghanistan in the lurch, to not
walk away as has been done in the past." At the UN we also have
focused on several critical aspects of restoring a people and a nation
to self-sufficient independence.

First, Afghanistan continued to need vast quantities of humanitarian
aid on an emergency basis. Taliban pilferage notwithstanding, this is
something the US and UN had long provided. The US, of course, was
Afghanistan's largest aid donor even before September 11. Since
October alone we have increased our aid by providing $187 million for
food, shelter, blankets and medical supplies.

Next, Afghanistan had to have, also on an urgent basis, a restoration
of legitimate government. This was --and remains -- a complex task. We
do not wish to determine who rules Afghanistan in peace -- that's for
the Afghans to decide -- but working in the UN context, we have been
gratified to see an interim government established under Chairman
Hamid Karzai. This was accomplished as a result of effective, UN
organized negotiations in Bonn, Germany, under the guidance of the
Secretary-General's personal representative, former Algerian foreign
minister Lakhdar Brahimi.

And, I cannot overstate the value of Mr. Brahimi's contributions to
this process. He has been brilliant.

No fledgling government could possibly provide security in Afghanistan
at a time like this, as recent events have confirmed. With Security
Council backing, the British therefore have coordinated the creation
of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in order to
provide sufficient stability in Kabul for the interim government to
function. The issue of long-term security for Afghanistan is a serious
one. President Bush made the decision that the US would engage in
training an Afghan army. We along with our allies and the Afghans
themselves are pursuing a security architecture for Afghanistan that
includes not only a professional army but also a viable police force.

Finally, we have just cosponsored in Tokyo a major fund-raising
conference designed to provide the Afghans with the money needed to
begin rebuilding their ravaged country. The US pledged $297 million
for 2002, a substantial sum given the costs we have borne in
conducting the military operations that freed Afghanistan of the
Taliban and al Qaeda. And the total came to more than $4.5 billion.
These funds exceed the World Bank's estimate of required resources for
the coming year and will go a long way to putting Afghanistan on its
feet under the permanent government called for by the Bonn accords.

All these efforts notwithstanding, we still are far from finishing the
job. As President Bush said in the State of the Union, "So long as
training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom
is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow
it." Global terrorism is so named because that's what it is --
terrorism that spans the globe, terrorism that has put down roots in
the developed and developing world alike. Afghanistan was its
headquarters, if you will, but we know that it secretly worked its way
into Europe, North America, Asia and Africa.

We therefore will continue to work intensely at the UN to help raise
worldwide counter terrorism standards, through implementation of
Resolution 1373 and subsequent resolutions including the most recent,
1390, on Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

And we will continue to keep close watch on states that have developed
the means to enhance the terrorists' destructive capabilities
exponentially. Iraq is very much in the news now, and we have all read
and heard a great deal about the President's characterization of the
problem. Some seem to think that the President's characterization IS
the problem. It is not. The problem is that Iraq is violating Security
Council resolutions.

The international community has been confronted by Iraq's failure to
comply for years now. Iraq's willful disregard for its obligations
does not change them. There is really nothing to discuss on this
score. The Baghdad regime must comply with the Council's resolutions,
accepting the return of weapons inspectors, fully declaring and
destroying its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and missiles,
and dismantling its weapons of mass destruction programs.

The core issue is this: Iraq remains a menace to international peace
and stability, to its neighbors, and to the Iraqi people (against whom
it has already used weapons of mass destruction). Ten years ago the
Security Council decided that Iraq should not possess weapons of mass
destruction or the missiles to deliver them. Iraq accepted that
requirement, which has not changed, and yet it has not complied with
the resolutions intended to restore the peace in the region.

Let me emphasize that we do not pursue a policy designed to injure the
Iraqi people. The opposite is the case. For years the U.S. has
supported and improved the UN Oil for Food program to address the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. It works, and would work
better if Baghdad cooperated with it instead of cynically obstructing
its benefits for the ordinary Iraqi.

In a major effort to free up trade in civilian goods, the Bush
administration and the United Kingdom proposed almost a year ago to
revamp the sanctions regime to focus more sharply on prohibited dual
use and military technologies. Iraq strongly opposes this effort,
preferring the existing regime. But we are now close to agreement on
the new Goods Review List that will guide this approach, as the
Council decided unanimously late last year. This will be of great
benefit to the Iraqi people, without permitting Baghdad to import
goods or technologies which have a military use or which can
contribute to its weapons of mass destruction programs. The deadline
for implementing this new approach is May 30.

The formula is simple: unconditional compliance with Security Council
resolutions. Six words. Nothing less is acceptable if Iraq wishes to
take the first steps towards rejoining the community of nations.
Meanwhile, as
Secretary Powell said yesterday after his meeting with Spanish Foreign
Minister Pique, we will continue to pursue with the UN the sanctions
policy with respect to Iraq, while keeping all of our options open as
to what else might be required.

Those of you who follow the Middle East will know that the Security
Council met yesterday in an Open Meeting to discuss the situation in
the region. And though it is not directly linked to the issues I have
spoken about thus far, the issue is very much on our minds. The Middle
East is a region beset with tensions that must be resolved. Perhaps
only one thing is certain: violence will not beget peace. Yet, for the
past year, our newspapers and our television screens have been filled
with stories about tragic deaths of Palestinians and Israelis
occurring every day. This situation is dangerous and could become
worse and claims that the United States has been inactive in trying to
help could not be further from the truth.

Our message to Chairman Arafat remains consistent. He is the only one
who can eliminate the danger Palestinian extremists pose - not only to
Israelis - but to the legitimate aspirations of his own people for a
safe and secure future. It is impossible to move forward without a
maximum-security effort on the part of Chairman Arafat.

Israel, too, has an obligation that must be met. Chairman Arafat
requires an infrastructure to implement his orders. Recent actions by
Israel to debilitate that infrastructure are not conducive to a
sustained, effective security performance by the Palestinian
Authority.

The UN established the principles of peace that ultimately will
resolve this conflict long ago in the form of Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338.

These resolutions, which the United States endorses, enshrine the
concept of land for peace. But the parties themselves will have to
define and embrace the specifics, that is to say: What land? What
peace? More recent Security Council discussions have been skewed, in
our view, towards endorsing Palestinian perspectives. We think
attempts at the UN to isolate Israel are counterproductive and have
used our veto to say so. The UN will not strengthen its ability to
contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Middle East
by taking sides. There will be no one-sided outcome to this conflict,
nor will there be an outcome to this conflict that comes from the
outside. The issues that matter most - in political, economic and
security terms - are embedded inside the conflict.

President Bush remains committed to the U.S. vision of two states,
Israel and Palestine, which responds to the aspirations of both
peoples for a safe and secure future. Compromises will be necessary to
get there. Here I
would note the positive contribution that Saudi Crown Prince
Abdullah's comments make to the political horizon for the region: real
peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors arising from a
comprehensive peace based on UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and the
principle of land for peace. The public support of several Arab states
for these ideas is also important. President Bush spoke with Crown
Prince Abdullah yesterday and praised his ideas regarding full
Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement can be
achieved.

And for now, the Mitchell and Tenet plans could lead in that
direction, ending the violence and preparing the way for real
political negotiations.

On the economic front, we are extremely concerned about the
Palestinians' deteriorating situation. The Administration is therefore
moving ahead with a 130 million dollar emergency response program that
includes financing for health and job creation projects. We also are
implementing over 200 million dollars in long-term infrastructure
projects to help bring clean water to hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians and contributed $88 million dollars for Palestinian
refugees.

Although no one else can bear the real burdens of peace except the
parties themselves, the benefits for Arab-Israeli relations in general
and the region as a whole could be enormous. And this, in turn, could
open up new opportunities for the United States, our European allies,
and the UN itself to cooperate in broader programs of commercial,
economic and social development.

These three issues, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq's rejection
of UN resolutions, and the war against global terrorism, are matters
that require our best ideas and strongest determination. Iraq and
global terrorism are both major threats to international peace and
security, but the greatest danger lies in terrorism's own
determination to exploit vulnerable targets or methods of destruction
that could replicate or exceed the horrors of September 11. We do not
want to see global terrorism succeed in employing weapons of mass
destruction anywhere in the world.

In closing, I would emphasize, however, this heartening fact: we do
not stand alone in the war against terror. More than 80 different
nations lost citizens on September 11. NATO, the OAS, and ANZUS
quickly invoked their treaty obligations to support the United States.
76 countries granted landing rights for US military operations. 23
countries agreed to host US forces involved in offensive operations.

These major commitments and demonstrations of solidarity came about
because global terrorism destroys global interests. As the President
said, "The attack took place on American soil, but it was an attack on
the heart and soul of the civilized world." When it is not safe to fly
or do business in a trade center, the community of nations must act as
one.

It's as simple, and painful, as that. Yes, there is another critical
agenda at the UN, but this one comes first. Fortunately, the
President's decisive stand against global terrorism makes achieving
the additional goals I have discussed more feasible. US effectiveness
at the UN rests on the clarity and purpose of US leadership in the
world. It enables us to advance our interests in the context of
tangible commitment; it persuades others that we mean to defend our
values and interests with real strength.

And right now there can be no doubt where the United States has
focused that strength - on making sure that history records the fact
that global terrorism was disabled in the early years of this century.

That's our top priority, and I am confident that we'll get it done.

Thank you very much.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)