Thank you very much, Diane [Glazer]. 

Our topic today is “What is After Saddam?” and I have to offer you my observations on what is on the list after Saddam and on the huge list on the desk of President Bush.  But before I talk about this huge agenda on the desk of Mr. Bush, I will tell you that, as Americans, you have to observe what goes on.  The United States after the 11^th of September is different from what it was.  The United States and President Bush declared war on terrorism, but simultaneously declared that America should be the preeminent, supreme reigning ruler of the world.  Consequently, the United States now is waging war on terrorism and in effect ruling the world solo, unilaterally, with all the consequences of responsibility and the consequences of resentment.  This is costly on the United States, not only financially and politically, but also in terms of nerves and in terms of a mandate that has no time frame.

The United States is at war, not with the Germans, with the fascists of the Second World War, but with a ghost, an invisible ghost, the terrorists of bin Laden and his school, who pick the time and place of their choice.  This is a war which is not only costly, but it's a war which will bring an issue, which we call “terror fatigue.”  One of my fears [about] the war on terrorism is that we waited a certain time without knowledge to fall into this trap of terror fatigue.  Now America rules the world, supreme, alone, and what are the consequences?  What are ramifications of such a solo supremacy; the supreme preeminence of the power of the United States and the fury of the power of the United States which erupted on September 11? 

I remember prior to September 11 the position of President Bush was that China may threaten the United States in 100-180 years.  All of a sudden the sense of complacency about terrorism [was shattered] with the advent of bin Laden's attack on the United States.  How was bin Laden able to reach the United States, which is protected by two great oceans?  Well, simply because he knew how to hire the expertise, the skill and the technology to cross the ocean and bring havoc on New York City.  Also, globalization.  I remember when there was smallpox in India; it never reached the shores of Arabia.  It took 30,000 years for malaria to reach from the Nile Valley to Indonesia — now, with SARS in China, within days it can reach the shores of Europe and Canada.  It is globalization and the technological revolution that bin Laden utilized in his crusade of terror and damage. 

Saddam Hussein: who is Saddam Hussein?  Well, he is no different from bin Laden to the United States.  They are both bodies of the same school and they have identical objectives—to undermine the United States and wreak havoc on its interests; to chase out America from the Gulf region and to undermine the image of the United States and keep it on the run.  Identical objectives are held by both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the theory that they are irreconcilable is not true.  I would say that the invasion by the United States of Iraq is valid legally, internationally, politically and in the interests of the United States and the interests of the Iraqi people and the interests of the Gulf and the Middle East region. 

After the liberation of Iraq, what is on the agenda now for President Bush?  First of all, in Iraq there should be a federal democratization and there should be a visible and an invisible American presence.  The threat to us in Kuwait is from the fascist and pan-Arabists, maybe the new rulers of Iraq.  The threat is from those who have aspirations for expansion at the expense of their neighbors.  Therefore, an American presence is a guarantee for the continuity of democracy, federalism, rationality, realism and moderation in Iraq.  And now Mr. Bush has a historic chance in his hands, to reshape the image of the Middle East and rewrite the map of the Middle East.  The greater goal is to have a federal democracy with an invisible American presence in Iraq.  Kuwait endorses the road map in the Middle East.  We want the success of the road map, and we think it is not only a solution to the Middle East problem but it is a road map for tranquility and prosperity.  We think that President Bush should exert pressure on all parties with a view to achieving and realizing the road map. 

Apart from the road map and the apart from the federal Iraq, third on the agenda, President Bush says, is the reconciliation with the United Nations and with the allies.  I'm heartened by the words today of the French ambassador to the United Nations, speaking after the adoption of the resolution on the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.  This is a huge job on the shoulders of the United States and France and Europe, and it is imperative to bring back this unity of the allies.  I know the reason why the French were indignant toward the United States: because of the global authority that made President Bush the sole manager of international affairs.  They want to sit on the board of that management and they want to upstage him.  They want to share and they want membership on the board of international management on which President Bush now sits alone, and I understand the resentment.  Hopefully, this chapter is closed.  The same applies to relations with both Russia and Germany and others; hopefully relations between the United States and the United Nations are back to normal.  It's very important for the United States to have good relations with the United Nations because it ensures legality and the backing of the international community and that the objectives of the United States do not clash with what the global community requires and wants. 

We have Iraq, we have the road map, we have friendship with all allies. What is this Middle East region? It is an intriguing formula.  It is political reform by the Gulf states and others.  My concern now is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the political reforms required from the GCC—democratization, human rights, the role of women, civil society, freedom of worship, the free flow of information.  We have these major elements of a reformed society and the Gulf States are grappling with these issues with a view to change and implementing required reforms.  Bahrain, a small island in the Gulf region, went ahead of my own country in reforming politically.  There is Qatar, which is a friend of the United States that just appointed a lady as a minister and voted on a constitution, and shortly there will be elections.  Saudi Arabia is receptive to openness.  The way bin Laden shook the sense of relaxation in the United States, something similar to that is taking place in Saudi Arabia—openness and determination to terminate all possible and worldwide terrorists.

Political reforms in my view are easier than economic reforms.  What is it that economic reform requires from these GCC countries, especially a country like my own?  How to dismantle the welfare state.  And it is a problem for Iraq, like my own country, where the government has no majority in the parliament.  It is what I call a crippled, paralyzed, government, which has no vote.  It has allies but it doesn't have the majority.  To dismantle a welfare state that takes care of the nationals from the cradle to the grave is impossible when we recall what it means to the parliamentarians, to the politicians—joblessness, unemployment, diminution of chances of opportunities to work, the displacement of families and disorganization of the social fabric.  And apart from privatization there is one [argument] for economic reform—it is incumbent upon these countries to liberalize and diversify.  Living on oil is unpredictable.  It fluctuates, prices go up and down and the pace of the prices is not in the hands of the producers, especially when Iraq produces [above] OPEC quota, and goes along to produce as much as it [wants] and OPEC has to reduce production.  Others, such as Algeria and Venezuela, will not accept a reduction of their own quota. 

Apart from political reform and economic reform, there are educational reform and nutritional reform needs.  There is a huge division of educational background in GCC countries and, more than that, cultural reform.  What is cultural reform?  It means interaction of people, interaction of civilizations and openness to civilization.  Through interaction we understand each other a little better and come to the conclusion that it is advantageous and useful to work together.  Bush wants us to implement and realize this in order to have prosperity and stability in the region.  But a free trade treaty is a long way off, as desirable as it is.  First of all, all the GCC should be members of the World Trade Organization with all its restrictions.  I would say that is the sticking point [to which] they cannot conform.

Then we have the phasing out of a visible.  A conspicuous American presence.   Conspicuous American presence is not in line with American interests.  So it should be replaced by what? By what we call national, or regional, security regimes in the Gulf.   It's time now after Saddam Hussein to think of phasing out American presence in the Gulf, in my country, and on the shores of Arabia by having an invisible presence, over the horizon.

Would Iran be able to cooperate with us in establishing a secure regime in Iraq?  Iran is governed by two conflicting schools, the president of the republic, who is moderate, and the radicals who are under the power of the spiritual leader, the ayatollah.  So far the Iranians are unable to put an end to their rhetoric and embrace a policy of rationality and cooperation based on mutuality of interests and coexistence, and share in the security of the Gulf.  Their argument is something I can't understand; it is a feeling of xenophobia, feelings of rage and fear.  We had a seminar in Kuwait and one of the men said to me, “Iran is the only country surrounded by five nuclear powers,” and he said, “Russia, India, Pakistan, China and the American Navy in the Gulf.” Then he said, “The only way to be a good member of the international community and establish your bonafides is to cut all rhetoric and revolutionary enthusiasm and to come to rationality and be a well informed partner.”  In other words, be a member in line with the requirements of the international community, follow the rules of behavior of the international community, and put an end to your intervention and interference.  So to Hezbollah, or to Hamas, or to others: put an end to undermining American interests in the Gulf and in the region because they are paramount. 

What about Syria, another member of the Arab League, another prospective terror in the region?  Syria wants to be on the road map when the road map is combined for the Palestinians and Israeli sectors.  So that on the agenda Mr. Bush then enlarges the road map, not to bypass Damascus but to include Damascus in order to make a peaceful settlement that is all embracing.

More than that, what is on the agenda of Mr. Bush after settlement?  What are Korea and the Israelis thinking now that President Bush’s enterprise is to prevent and abort terrorists and rogue states?  Korea is a threat. What will Mr. Bush do with Korea?  Well, he invented something which I like — diplomacy by proxy through South Korea, Japan and those who could persuade North Korea to be compliant.  One of the most dangerous threats to Mr. Bush's philosophy is Kashmir.  I went to Washington and tried to call on my friend who is now in India and Pakistan, the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage.  Mr. Armitage is a very powerful man and he went to India and Pakistan just a week ago.  Will he be able to handle this tinderbox?  This is another challenge to the global project enterprise of Mr. Bush. 

What else?  Well, there [will be] many in the future, many of those explosive situations, and Mr. Bush will work day and night in order to see to it that this philosophy be kept on track.

And finally, my last point.  Why did Mr. Bush say that Saddam Hussein had to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction?  It’s enough to go and liberate and emancipate Iraq from Saddam Hussein on the grounds of massive violations of human rights.  When a leader gasses his people and violates massively his own people and destabilizes the region and triggers a campaign against the interests of the United States, you don't need to find an excuse.  But the argument now wherever I go and speak is: “where are these weapons of mass destruction?”  In my view, Saddam Hussein was the nemesis of correctness, of good behavior, and on the grounds of huge violations of human rights [there was a] global mandate to go and bring him down.  Something like that should not be tolerated.  Once you raise the appeal and the allure of human rights, the magic of human rights, and prove that [there has been] a violation, it is incumbent on the global community to endorse [action].

Saddam is out, out of the light of day and Iraq is on the map and it is in the hands of Mr. Bush.   It's an historical opportunity in the hands of American leadership and it should not slip out.  In 1991 it slipped out from the hands of Bush's father, Bush senior, and I asked him many times after that, why did you let that opportunity slip by?  The argument was very legalistic.  In politics you cannot be legalistic.  The mandate was to liberate Kuwait and not to bring down Saddam.  When you had the whole region in your hands you cannot be deterred by moralistic consideration.  Politics is the achievement of objectives by every means.

Thank you very much for your attention.