演讲稿（英文稿）2
US Pre-Eminence
First, US pre-eminence. The defining characteristic of the post-Cold War world is the pre-eminence of the US. This pre-eminence is on a scale unprecedented in modern times. It is multi-dimensional: not just military, but also economic, financial, technological and even cultural. US pre-eminence is not likely to be challenged by any country or grouping of countries for a long time.
So whether we like it or not, it is a geo-political reality that no major international issue today can be resolved without the co-operation of the US. And whatever their public rhetoric, every Asian government understands the need for a good relationship with the US. Since the end of the Second World War, the US presence has been the irreplaceable foundation of stability and growth in East Asia. Without the US presence, there would have been a destabilizing rush to fill the power vacuum. The US is also a vitally important market and source of technology and investments.
This sheer scale of US pre-eminence has evoked discomfort, even among friends of the US.
Discomfort with US pre-eminence is currently focused on the US decision to disarm Iraq through war. Asian countries with large Muslim populations are sharply critical of the war. Even non-Muslim countries are unsettled. But in these tumultuous and uncertain times, we must no lose sight of the fundamental reasons behind the war.
It was unfortunate that the UN Security Council was unable to reach a consensus on a second resolution. But this was more a political than a legal necessity for war. Iraq has been in violation of Security Council resolutions for twelve years since the Gulf War. The onus was always on Iraq to disarm completely and avoid a war.
Iraq's decade-long flouting of the UN's effort to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction assumed more threatening proportions after 9/11. Indeed, 9/11 changed the way the US looked at the world. It felt vulnerable, and re-assessed its security priorities. In this reassessment, Iraq, which the US believes to possess weapons of mass destruction, was deemed an unacceptable threat. To protect itself, the US decided to use its enormous power to remove the threat.
In the debate leading up to the current war, this was sometimes presented too simplistically as a choice between unilateralism and multilateralism.
Suppose the Security Council had been able to reach a consensus on Iraq: would it have diminished US pre-eminence?
The answer is clearly "No." But it would have preserved the stature of the UN.
On the other hand, when the UN Security Council failed to support the pre-eminent world power in enforcing previous UN resolutions, which are of vital interest to the US and the international community, multilateralism and the UN are the losers.
The moves of France, Germany, Russia and other countries to block Security Council action against Iraq also carry implications beyond the UN.
For instance, can trans-Atlantic relations return to business-as-usual? What remains of Europe's aspirations towards a common foreign and security policy? How will NATO remain relevant to European security? It will take some time for these questions to be answered definitively. But the impact of the answers is likely to be grave and profound.
Let me give you a further reason why we think action against Iraq was necessary. Weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands pose a horrific threat to all civilized states. Used against small states like Singapore, they can also mean the end of the county. If action had not been taken against Iraq, or if the US fails in Iraq, what signal will this send to extremist groups around the world? Will this make it easier or more difficult to persuade North Korea to give up its weapons of mass destruction?
Already, North Korea has taken advantage of the international pre-occupation with Iraq to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme. And if North Korea becomes a nuclear power, this will spark a strategic re-assessment in all neighboring countries.
Japan, for example, might have to re-visit its security options. China will then have to do so as well, both in response to Japan and to the possibility of a nuclear-armed, united Korea. The US must respond, and Russia too. Confidence and stability across Asia will be badly rattled.
Fortunately, there is slightly more time to deal with North Korea. We hope that the major powers - the US, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - will use this time available to defuse the situation peacefully.