Speeches & Articles

Speech as delivered by U.S. Consul General George N. Sibley to the West Bengal Federation of United Nations Associations

October 24, 2002

Honorable Minister Sinha, fellow "denizens of the dais," ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here celebrating the 57th Birthday of the United Nations.

At the outset I would like to extend my sympathy to our Russian colleague regarding the hostage-taking in Moscow, and to second his hope that this act of terror may end peacefully without any further loss of life.

I remember visiting the United Nations as a child. My grandparents lived in New York and they took me on a tour. Who knows? Perhaps the seed of my becoming a diplomat was planted in me way back then? To be honest, I remember little of that tour. I was very young, but my memory is of high ceilings and large spaces, soft carpeting, and a sense of awe. And why not awe? After all, this was an organization founded on the highest principles and charged with pursuing the highest aims: Global peace; Collective security; International harmony; Human rights, for all people everywhere.

The topic "The United Nations and Terrorism" is especially relevant as we gather here, barely 409 days after the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York were reduced to heaps of smoking rubble. After all, New York was chosen to be home to the United Nations in part because it was already an international city of sorts. And the presence of the UN only made this more true. So Al-Qaida's attack on that city must be seen in the larger context - as terrorism directed against all of us who cherish the values enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
And the United Nations responded, rapidly and forcefully, with UN Resolution 1373 on September 28.

Of course, the UN had recognized terrorism as a threat to international peace and security as far back as 1963 with the ICAO "Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft." Indeed there are a full dozen treaties providing the legal framework for the suppression of terrorist acts. And the General Assembly is working on a draft anti-terrorism convention that is aimed at filling the gaps left by these sectoral treaties.

It is a sad fact, however, that the United Nations had recognized the threat of Usama Bin Ladin long before September 11, 2001. In October 1999, Resolution 1267 was adopted unanimously, setting out measures to be imposed if the Afghan faction, known as the Taliban, did not turn over Usama bin Laden to appropriate authorities in a country where he would be brought to justice.

What a shame that the Taliban did not heed the United Nations then! How different the world might be if they had! Let us imagine it: For the Taliban themselves, they might still be in power.


Well that might not be so good. Women would still be unconscionably repressed, civil war would still be raging, refugees would not have returned to Afghanistan, and perhaps other sites of global historical significance would have been desecrated.


But for others it would be very good indeed. The World Trade Center would still be standing. The 3,000 victims of some 90 different nationalities would still be alive. Their families would not be grieving; their children would not be orphans.

But all that is in a different track of history. One we did not take. That became impossible for a very simple reason: The Taliban chose to defy the United Nations and to continue harboring Usama Bin Ladin and his murderous organization.

Today, as you all know, we are grappling with how we will address another murderous regime that has chosen to defy the United Nations. We stand at the same place vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein as we did with the Taliban barely three years ago. What we do not know is what the future may hold. We do not know what this leader has planned for the civilized world in the days and weeks and years ahead.

Perhaps he has no plans. Perhaps he has learned his lesson and no longer wants to invade his neighbors, no longer wants to gas his own people, no longer wants to shelter and support terrorists, no longer wants to build the most horrific and indiscriminately destructive weapons. Perhaps he just wants to live in peace and tend his garden in his old age.
But I think we all know better. None of us knows exactly what he may have in mind, but we can all be pretty sure that it is not a peaceful retirement as a gardener.

So the question before the United Nations is urgent. Once before, on Afghanistan, we passed a resolution to address a threat. (In the case of Iraq, sadly, we have passed many more than one resolution.) Once before, in Afghanistan, we were defied and ignored. (In the case of Iraq, we have also been cheated and lied to.) And once before, in Afghanistan, the object of the United Nations Resolution staged a terrible, terrible attack against us.

So I ask you, what is the risk we face in the case of Iraq? What will we face if the United Nations does not address its aggression with a more powerful stance? At what future date may we find ourselves grieving, because we were not visionary enough, not forceful enough now?
Please understand, I sincerely and passionately believe in peace. I deeply and ardently hope that the threat of Saddam Hussein can be met by measures short of war. To me, he seems like a brutal thug, but he does not seem like a madman. I believe the threat of war, a credible threat of UN action, can deter him from continuing his defiance. But this can only be so if the United Nations is willing to act from common strength and common determination. I hope they are up to the task.

Thank you.