J B Jeyaretnam response to Tan Lian Choo's letter "Singapore's support for action on Iraq prompted by wider concerns" published on June 11, Straits Times, Forum page.
J B Jeyaretnam
Press Statement: Singapore support US
The letter from the Press Secretary to Jayakumar [St 11 June] is a hotch-potch of irrelevancies suppositions and half-truths. It abysmally fails to address the very valid concern felt, not just by libertarians, but by people every where about the morality of attacking another country on a lie. It is a breakdown of international law.
Tan Lian Chao says Iraq did not comply with UNSC resolutions. US and Britain invaded Iraq without the sanction of the UNSC. Why is it right for them.
Bush and Blair were not merely stating a belief. They were positive that Iraq had WMD, ready to unleash them.
UN weapons inspectors did not find any WMD in the weeks that they were in Iraq but asked for more time to be absolutely sure. Bush did not want to give them the time. Was he afraid that he would be proved wrong and he would be prevented from attacking Iraq.
The UNSC wanted to give the Inspectors more time but Bush and Blair could not wait to unleash their destruction. They decided to invade Iraq making the question whether Iraq had WMD irrelevant.
Tan Lian Choo's letter only seeks to confirm what I said in my statement of the 10th June that Singapore's stand appears to be one of support for US and not cast any doubts on the credibility of Bush.
Tan Lian Choo pleads the security of Singapore for supporting the war. The risk of terrorist attacks has not lessened but increased as a result of US occupying Iraq.
Finally, is not Tan Lian Choo indulging in wild exaggeration to say that South-East Asia is infested with terrorists. Does the Singapore Foreign Ministry want to keep investors and tourists away from Singapore and other countries in the region. Not long ago the Senior Minister has to apologise publicly for having called Johor a hot-bed of crime.
signed
J B Jeyaretnam
17th June 2003
Straits Times 11 June 2003
Singapore's support for action on Iraq prompted by wider concerns
I REFER to Mr Tan Tarn How's commentary, 'No sign of Iraqi weapons: How now Singapore?' (ST, June 7). Mr Tan's article poses a number of questions about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Other people have asked similar questions. But the search for WMD is still ongoing. Nobody at this point in time can say conclusively that there was no WMD in Iraq.
Objectively, therefore, we should await the findings of the experts instead of passing judgment based on assumptions or beliefs. But the more disturbing assertion in Mr Tan's commentary is the implication that WMD was the sole reason which led Singapore to support the war on Iraq. This is not so.
Let me reiterate and elaborate on the Singapore Government's position. First of all, the Government is not embarrassed by what, in Mr Tan's judgment, is the so-called 'glaring failure' of the Americans to find WMD. We have taken a strong, principled and consistent position on Iraq based on Singapore's national interests.
Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar had set out Singapore's position clearly and comprehensively in his statement in Parliament on March 14, which may be accessed on the MFA website www.mfa.gov.sg He made it very clear that our support for action against Iraq hinged on wider concerns than just its WMD.
A key concern was the need for all United Nations members to scrupulously comply with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Hence, we insisted on the need for Iraq to disarm immediately and comply with all UNSC resolutions.
This position dates back to the First Gulf War when we joined the international community to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Since then, it had persistently defied the UNSC for more than 12 years, flouting 17 UNSC resolutions. Iraq obstructed the UN for many years, forcing the UN to withdraw its weapons inspectors, leaving a four-year hiatus without any inspections.
In November last year, the UNSC unanimously found Iraq in material breach of its obligations. UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002) gave Iraq a final opportunity to disarm voluntarily or face serious consequences.
Iraq failed to do so and, given its proven record of deception and defying UNSC resolutions, there was no way of being sure about what it may or may not possess without moving into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein.
Saddam made no secret of his desire to acquire WMD. He actually used chemical weapons against his own people. And the search for WMD in Iraq is not over. We should not prejudge the outcome.
Singaporeans cannot afford to strike postures fashionable with the oppositionist media in America and Britain at the expense of the security of Singaporeans.
Should we have waited until the Jemaah Islamiah exploded bombs in Singapore before acting against it? Similarly, should the US have waited until all its critics were convinced before acting against Saddam?
A small nation in terrorist-infested South-east Asia does not have this luxury of libertarian posturing.
TAN LIAN CHOO
Press Secretary
to the Foreign Minister
Sources and Links
Think Centre Singapore's stand on Iraqi war questioned
7 JUNE 2003, Straits Times, by Tan Tarn How INSIGHT: No sign of Iraqi weapons: How now, Singapore?
AFP 17 June 2003 Britain waged Iraq war on 'suggestible' data, probe told
UN WIRE British Parliament Investigates Blair's Iraq WMD Claims
Singapore MFA Jayakumar's Statement in Parliament - Iraq
