I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the Malaysian Armed Forces Defense College today.  I’d like to express my thanks to First Admiral Dato’ Mat Rabi bin Abu Samah, Commandant of the Defense College, for extending this gracious invitation.   It’s good to be back.

It is indeed an honor to address any element of the Malaysian Armed Forces, for yours is a military with a long and distinguished history of service in good causes around the world.

I noticed with great interest last year when the United Nations awarded medals to the families of Malaysian soldiers and police who had perished over the years in UN peacekeeping operations around the world, including the UN operation in Somalia.  My country will never forget how Malaysian peacekeepers came to the rescue to imperiled U.S. soldiers there.

The topic on which I have been asked to speak, “US Foreign and Defense Policies, Political and Economic Trends” is a broad one I will do my best to cover it.  I will first make some comments on how the U.S. sees the world in the spring of 2003 and then I would be pleased to respond to whatever questions you may have.

Iraq

First let me turn to Iraq.  I know we are all following events there very closely.
Perhaps the primary lesson from the events of September 11 is that threats to international stability and world peace cannot be allowed to fester and spread.  Instead, they must be dealt with early so that the world community does not suffer the consequences of inaction.  This is what guides U.S. policy on Iraq.

This is not a new problem.  There has been no rush to judgment.  I can assure you that the U.S. and its coalition partners did not take the decision to use military force in Iraq lightly.

In the last twelve years, there have been sixteen previous UN resolutions calling on Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction.  Last fall’s UN Security Council Resolution 1441, painstakingly negotiated for almost two months by Security Council members and then unanimously adopted, was the seventeenth resolution in this regard.  As Secretary Powell pointed out in his comments to the UN Security Council on February 14, Resolution 1441 was not only about letting in inspectors.  Resolution 1441 put the burden on Iraqi to carry out disarmament – full, voluntary disarmament of its horrific arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.  And this, Iraq refused to do.

Hans Blix reported improvements in Iraqi cooperation on several issues of process but there was no improvement on issues of substance.  The burden was not on the inspectors to find WMD but on the Iraq regime to come clean on what it had done with the massive amounts of anthrax, botulism, VX and other horrific agents it already had admitted to having.

For the United Nations to have any credibility, it could not continue to allow Iraq to blithely ignore UN resolutions.  In particular, the UN could not allow Iraq to escape the “serious consequences” which 1441 clearly stated would be the result of Iraqi non-compliance.  In February and March, the United States worked hard to obtain the so-called “second resolution,” which would have expressed the judgment of the Council that Iraq was not complying with Resolution 1441.  There our efforts were unsuccessful.  But that had no practical effect on  Resolution 1441, which is still in effect, and which clearly authorizes military action in Iraq.

As you all know, the military aspect of our campaign in Iraq began March 20 and now appears to be winding down, with the capture of Baghdad and other key cities.  Like all wars, this one has brought the inevitable civilian casualties and hardships, though the coalition forces have done all they could to minimize civilian deaths.  I believe a final analysis will show both military and civilian casualties have been lighter than feared, and fortunately the worst part of the fighting seems to have been contained to just three weeks.  But the situation is still evolving, and much remains to be done.  There are many  challenges which face us in the next few months in Iraq.

In the joint statement issued after their meeting in Belfast last week, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were quite explicit on the future of Iraq and the role of the UN.  They emphasized that the goal of the Coalition is to help the people of Iraq build a nation that is whole, free and at peace with itself and its neighbors.  We support the aspirations of all of Iraq's people for a united, representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.  We will protect Iraq's natural resources, which should be used only for the benefit of the Iraqi people themselves.

As the Coalition proceeds with the reconstruction of Iraq, we will work with our allies, other bilateral donors, and with the United Nations and other international institutions.  The United Nations has a vital role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq.  We welcome the efforts of U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations in providing immediate assistance to the people of Iraq.  We plan to seek the adoption of new UN Security Council resolutions that will affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq.  We also welcome the appointment by the United Nations Secretary General of a Special Adviser for Iraq.

We firmly believe that the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly. As early as possible, we support the formation of an Iraqi Interim Authority, a transitional administration, run by Iraqis, to take charge until a permanent government is established by the people of Iraq.  The Interim Authority will be broad-based and fully representative, with members from all of Iraq's ethnic groups, regions and Iraqis returning from overseas. The Interim Authority will be established first and foremost by the Iraqi people, with the help of the members of the Coalition, and working with the Secretary General of the United Nations.  As coalition forces advance, civilian Iraqi leaders will emerge who can be part of such an Interim Authority.  The Interim Authority will progressively assume the functions of government.  It will provide a means for Iraqis to participate in the economic and political reconstruction of their country from the outset.

Humanitarian assistance is already coming into Iraq.  The international community is providing over 1 million metric tons of food to feed the Iraqi people.  The U.S. government is making available an estimated 670,000 metric tons of food worth $549 million.  Last week my government announced an additional $200 million contribution to the UN World Food Program to procure food in the region.

We have also allocated over $246 million on essential relief supplies and priority reconstruction activities.  Over $20 million of this will go through NGOs.  Additionally, nearly $125 million has gone to the United Nations and other international organizations for pre-positioning and early response.  Additional assistance is in the pipeline in the form of multi-million dollar U.S. contributions to, among others, the World Food Program, the UNHCR, the International Red Cross, UNICEF and the World Health Organization.  This represents a massive commitment on the part of the U.S. government to the future of Iraq and the people of Iraq.

Terrorism

All our efforts in Iraq grow out of our overriding concern about the global menace of terrorism, which continues to be the basic underpinning of U.S. foreign policy.

Is terrorism is a threat to world peace?  Obviously, if we look at how the world has changed since September 11, 2001, the answer is a resounding “yes.”   But, there is still a debate in some quarters over exactly what constitutes terrorism.  Let me offer a definition of terrorism, drawn from a new U.S. counter-terrorism strategy recently announced in Washington, that makes a great deal of sense:  “Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

It would be difficult to overstate how the events of September 11, 2001 have changed the United States.  What happened that day has caused us to take a hard look at our foreign policy and national security objectives around the world.  Moreover, with the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, the United States has undertaken its largest government reorganization since World War II.

Americans understand that we are not alone in the struggle against terror. Terrorists have left their mark in some way upon every country in the world. Too many nations around the world have had the fundamental fabric of their societies torn by endemic terrorism.  It is important to remember that citizens from some 90 countries died in the attacks of September 11.   Moreover, last fall’s bombings in Bali brought home to all of us that terrorism is lurking in Southeast Asia as well.   As Secretary of State Colin Powell recently stated: “In the global campaign against terrorism, no country has the luxury of remaining on the sidelines.  There are no sidelines.  Terrorists respect no limits, geographic or moral.  The frontlines are everywhere and the stakes are high.”

Although terrorism is a centuries-old scourge, it has adapted itself to our new, globalized world.  Al-Qaida exemplifies how terrorist networks have twisted the benefits and conveniences of our increasingly open, integrated, and modernized world to serve their destructive agenda.  The al-Qaida network is a multinational enterprise with operations in more than 60 countries.  Its camps in Afghanistan provided sanctuary and its bank accounts served as a trust fund for terrorism.  Its global activities are now coordinated through the use of personal couriers and communication technologies emblematic of our era -- cellular and satellite phones, encrypted e-mail, Internet chat rooms, videotape, and CD-ROMs. Like a skilled publicist, Usama bin Laden and al-Qaida have exploited the international media to project his image and message worldwide.

How do we respond to such an opponent?  First, by defining who and what we are fighting.  The enemy is not one person.  It is not a single political regime.  Certainly, it is not a religion.   Rather, we fight those who, regardless of their specific secular or religious objectives, strive to subvert the rule of law and effect change through violence and fear.  We fight those who share the misguided belief that killing, kidnapping, extorting, robbing, and wreaking havoc to terrorize people are legitimate forms of political action.

Second, we respond with a variety of methods.  Of course, there is military action -- which, for example, was necessary in Afghanistan to eliminate the al-Qaida infrastructure and the repressive government which had shielded the terrorists.  The United States believes, however, that most terrorist threats will be countered through patient, painstaking diplomatic, law enforcement and intelligence efforts and through the coordination of all these efforts with friendly and allied nations around the world.

Malaysia is a shining example of this.  We have always had close law enforcement and intelligence ties with Malaysia but these have increased since September 11, to our mutual benefit.  The fruits have been tangible.  To cite but one example, you will recall that last fall your government allowed U.S. agents to interview a Malaysian being held under the Internal Security Act in connection with the U.S. prosecution of al-Qaida member  Zacarias Moussouai.  We greatly appreciated that opportunity.

The United States and Malaysia have also worked together very effectively on the diplomatic front in the fight against terrorism.  Our two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on counter-terrorism when Prime Minister Mahathir was in Washington almost a year ago.  Subsequently, drawing from that text, the U.S. and ASEAN signed a declaration on counter-terrorism at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in August.  The United States was honored to co-host with Malaysia last month in Sabah the ARF Intersessional Meeting on Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crime.  Finally, the United States plans to play a constructive role in the regional Counter-Terrorism Center, which Malaysia has agreed to host.  These examples illustrate that, while the U.S. and Malaysia do not always agree on all issues, we have found extensive common ground on counter-terrorism and will continue to seek ways to expand on this shared interest.

The United States currently lists seven state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. We are firmly committed to removing countries from the list once they have taken the necessary steps under our law and policy.  A checkered past does not foreclose future membership in the coalition against terrorism or in the world community, as some countries have demonstrated.

Victory in the war on terrorism will occur when our children can live free from fear and when the threat of terrorist attacks no longer hangs over our daily lives.

As we all unite against terrorism, let us remember that although political violence may be endemic to the human condition, we cannot tolerate terrorists who seek to combine the powers of modern technology and WMD to threaten the very notion of civilized society.  The war against terrorism, is not some sort of "clash of civilizations."  Rather, it is a clash between civilization and those who would destroy it.

There is much talk these days of the “root causes” of terrorism.  While the United States recognizes that there are many countries and people living with poverty, deprivation, social disenfranchisement, and unresolved political and regional disputes, those conditions do not justify the use of terror.  We all must work to address these underlying conditions that provide fertile ground for terrorists to plant their seeds.  Thus ongoing U.S. efforts to resolve regional disputes, foster economic, social, and political development, market-based economies, good governance, and the rule of law, contribute to the campaign against terrorism.

My country has been accused of waging a war against Islam.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Indeed, the United States has fought to defend many imperiled Muslims in the past -- in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo, to name a few.  And the long-suffering people of Iraq – whose former leader Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of millions of Muslims, inside and outside his country – will soon live in peace and prosperity thanks to the efforts of our Coalition.
 
Finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent objective.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance to Muslims around the globe.   There can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides.  America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security.  Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices.  The United States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.  The U.S. can play a crucial role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them.
The Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful and democratic state that abandons forever the use of terror.  The Government of Israel must take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable and credible Palestinian state, and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement.  As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.  And the Arab states must oppose terrorism, support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly that they will live in peace with Israel.
This moment offers a new opportunity to meet these objectives. After its recent elections, the nation of Israel has a new government.  And the Palestinian Authority has created the new position of Prime Minister.  Israeli and Palestinian leaders and other governments in the region now have a chance to move forward with determination and with good faith.  As President Bush has stated, we look forward to implementing the road map toward peace so that Arabs and Israelis can live as they deserve to live, in dignity under free and honest governments.

The World Economy

Let me turn now to the world economic situation, which we are all watching closely in light of the war in Iraq and the recent outbreak of SARS.  We know how important a strong global economy is for our Asian partners, and the U.S. economy is an important part of that.

The U.S. and Malaysian economies are closely intertwined:

--  The United States is Malaysia's largest export market.  We absorb one-quarter to one-third of all Malaysian exports.

--  Malaysia is our 11th largest trading partner in the world.  In 2002, the U.S. imported $24 billion from Malaysia, while Malaysia imported $10.3 billion from the United States.

--  The United States is Malaysia's largest foreign investor. According to AmCham, at least 100,000 Malaysians are employed by U.S.-affiliated companies.  American electronics companies alone provide at least 55,000 jobs, the bulk of them based in Penang, Johor, and the Klang Valley.

I'm sure you'll agree, therefore, that it is good news that the U.S. economy continues to show economic growth.  The Conference Board predicts 2.5-3 percent growth in 2003; other economists predict 1-2 percent growth.  Though it appears that we are now in an economic lull, low interest rates combined with President Bush's $75 billion supplemental spending package should provide additional stimulus to the economy.

Most economists have cited "uncertainty," including high oil prices and the conflict in Iraq, as the main factor delaying investment and consumption decisions and stalling the broad economic recovery we had been expecting.  SARS will also undoubtedly have a negative effect on the world economy.  Nevertheless, the U.S. Federal Reserve, under its Chairman Alan Greenspan, decided to leave interest rates unchanged at its March meeting.  The Fed believes that low interest rates and continuing productivity growth should provide sufficient support to bring about an improving economy.  We do expect a return to stronger economic growth later this year.

Malaysia and the United States both stand to gain from reductions in barriers to world trade.  The ongoing World Trade Organization talks are an extremely important vehicle to reach that goal.  The United States remains committed to working with our trading partners around the world to open markets and continue trade liberalization.  We are working with a number of developing countries to open agricultural markets and to reduce agricultural subsidies around the world.  Success in that effort will provide an important stimulus to both Malaysian and American exports.

We are also working to improve protection of intellectual property rights and to open financial markets.  Success will have an important impact here since knowledge industries and financial services are target growth industries in Malaysia and in other rapidly developing economies.

International economic cooperation is especially evident in the oil industry where Malaysia developed its petroleum resources with the help of Exxon Mobil and other international oil companies.  Malaysia is now an important source of petroleum products, and Petronas is a top-flight international company.  More recently, Petronas, in cooperation with the U.S. firm Union Carbide, built downstream facilities in Kerteh, Terengganu.  Malaysia is now an important producer of higher value-added petrochemicals.  International cooperation has paid valuable dividends for Malaysia and its foreign partners.

Global trade and investment has also been instrumental in making Malaysia an international center for electronics manufacturing.  U.S. firms like Texas Instruments, Intel, and Dell invested in Malaysia, built successful businesses here, and now sell Malaysian-made goods throughout the world.  Open markets and continuing trade liberalization have made the Malaysian economic transformation possible.

Looking to the future, greater openness in trade in services and increased foreign investment in areas such as telecommunications, banking, insurance should lead to new economic growth and stronger industries in Malaysia.

On the regional front, the United States Trade Representative is working with his counterparts in ASEAN countries to conclude a U.S.- ASEAN regional Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, or TIFA.  The ASEAN-wide TIFA will serve as forum for discussing ways to expand trade and how to resolve problems of trade barriers.
The United States has also offered to conclude a bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with Malaysia.

To protect and extend Malaysian trade with the United States, much of which is transported by ship, U.S. and Malaysian Customs are cooperating in the Container Security Initiative to help make container trade safer.  We’re pleased that Malaysia has signed on as a partner in the CSI program.  This is an area in which our trade and security interests intersect.

Asia

Now I would like to address the situation in Asia, the neighborhood of most interest to us all.  The U.S. relationship with China continues to balance our differences over Taiwan and human rights with strong counter-terrorism cooperation and expanding commercial opportunities.  Our security and economic ties with Japan remain strong, and we are grateful for Japanese support in our current undertaking in Iraq.  As you know, we continue to enjoy a wide range of mutually beneficial ties with ASEAN as an organization and with individual ASEAN member states, although we continue to be concerned about the situation in Burma.

But without any doubt the Asian issue with the direst potential for all of us is the nuclear situation in North Korea.  As you know, this issue is of such great concern that it was referred to the UN Security Council in February by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

We are working very hard to promote a multilateral approach to confronting North Korea over its violation of international nuclear safeguards.  North Korea would prefer to discuss this issue with us bilaterally, but that will not work because many other countries are also affected by its actions.

In fact, the U.S. tried the bilateral approach with Pyongyang 10 years ago, when we negotiated the U.S.-D.P.R.K. Agreed Framework.  We agreed to organize an international consortium to provide the light water reactor project and to finance heavy fuel oil shipments, in exchange for the North’s agreeing to freeze and eventually dismantle its graphite-moderated nuclear program.

Late last year we found the North could not be trusted.  Despite our agreement, Pyongyang had gone ahead with its nuclear program.  This time, a new and more comprehensive approach is required. The stakes are extremely high.  No one wants a nuclearized Korean peninsula.  North Korea's programs for nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them at increasingly longer range, pose a serious regional and a global threat.

A nuclear North Korea could change the face of Northeast Asia -- undermining the security and stability that have underwritten the region's economic vitality and prosperity, and possibly triggering a nuclear arms race that would end prospects for a lasting peace and settlement on the Korean Peninsula.

Achieving a multilateral approach to eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons program will take time. The key states in Northeast Asia -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- all share the common goal of seeking a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.  They all have a stake in the outcome of the diplomatic process and want to be consulted and engaged in achieving a resolution.  For that reason, all of them support the principle of multilateral dialogue.

North Korea will have to make a choice.  Over the past 10 years, Pyongyang has been in pursuit of two mutually exclusive goals.  The first is nuclear weapons. The second is redefining its place in the world community -- and its access to international assistance -- by broadening its diplomatic and foreign economic relations.  The D.P.R.K. needs to accept that it cannot do both.  The international community is doing its best to impress on the North that it is in its own best interest to end its nuclear arms program.

President Bush has repeatedly said we seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution with North Korea, even though he has taken no option off the table.  The President has also stressed that we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of North Korea.

U.S. – Malaysia Relations

Finally, and I’ve saved the best for last, let me turn to the bilateral U.S.-Malaysia relationship.  Obviously, the ties between our two nations run deep across a broad range of areas.  While I do not subscribe to the notion that relations between Kuala Lumpur and Washington were ever “bad,” it is important to note that even in periods when political ties were cool, this did not prevent vibrant cooperation in areas like trade, education, investment and military cooperation.  You will all recall the warm, friendly visit of Secretary of State Colin Powell to Malaysia last summer.  To state the obvious, however, we are in a very challenging period in the bilateral relationship now.  We understand and respect the fact that your country fundamentally disagrees with U.S. actions in Iraq.  As I stressed in a recent Bernama interview, both of our sides have made clear that despite these fundamental differences on Iraq, our mutual interest in beneficial bilateral relations continues.  I firmly believe that no one issue, be it Iraq or anything else, should be allowed to derail the vibrant, comprehensive bilateral relationship we share.

No doubt the aspect of our bilateral relationship that most interests you is the military cooperation.  Both my Defense Attache Office and our Office for Defense Cooperation maintain exceptionally vibrant relationships with their counterparts within the Malaysian Armed Forces.  And for that I must thank the MAF leadership, to include you here within the Defense and Staff College.

It is this international cooperative spirit that allows us to pursue our diplomatic and military goals on a daily basis.  The entire purpose of this endeavor is to strengthen our bilateral ties and professional cooperation, and to increase the bonds of friendship between our two great countries, all within the context of pursuing our policy objectives.  This effort has many facets, including VIP visits between Malaysia and the U.S., military academic and training exchanges, equipment sales, multi-national conferences, subject matter expert exchanges, and combined exercises.

We have enjoyed a very amiable relationship over the years.  Much of that is attributable to the high number of senior officers who have exchanged visits between our countries.  In the past year alone, that has included such noteworthy personages as Admirals Blair and Fargo, Commanders of our Pacific Command; a visit by the Pacific Command J2; the Commander of the Seventh Fleet; the Bilateral Training and Consultative Group (BITACG), which is the longest standing bilateral exchange that Headquarters, Pacific Command has; the Commander of Navy Logisitics in the Western Pacific; as well as the Eighth United States Army Commander.

An impressive number of Malaysian military figures have visited the U.S. this past year, including Defense Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak; Chiefs of the Air Force General Suleiman and General Abdullah; and the Deputy Director General of Defense Intelligence.  All these visits demonstrate that there is no substitute for personal relationships between our leaders, for it is these bonds that allow us to understand and trust one another, and to work with each other to pursue mutual objectives.

The United States and Malaysia have maintained a very strong military training relationship over the past three decades, which I believe has benefited both of our militaries.  Most familiar to you may be the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, which serves as the cornerstone of our training programs.  In addition, we also maintain a Student Exchange program between the MAF Staff College and the US Army Staff College at Fort Leavenworth Kansas, and regularly send our officers and noncommissioned officers to receive expert training in jungle survival at the Malaysian Army’s Jungle Warfare Training Center in Pulada.  The Malaysian Army sends a team of jungle trainers to Hawaii each year to run a jungle tracking and survival course for US military based there.  Malaysia also receives technical training, such as pilot training and the Defense Resources Management Institute MTT here at the Defense College, under the Foreign Military Sales program.

The benefit of these training programs extends far beyond the tactical or technical skills that are acquired at in the courses.  They provide an opportunity at all grade levels for our soldiers, sailors and airmen to forge relationships and gain insights into the culture, history and aspirations of our two societies.  Additionally, they learn the basic principles of military doctrine, ethics, and policies that direct our forces, and they gain greater insight into the strengths and challenges that confront our militaries.  What is often discovered is that we are more alike than we are different, and that the Malaysian Armed Forces and the United States military share many of the same basic principles that define a modern military.

By understanding each other’s doctrine and policies we are better able to work together in areas of mutual interest like humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, anti-piracy, anti-terrorism, or any other challenges.

We are actively engaged with Malaysia in a host of seminars and conferences that span a wide range of subject areas, from humanitarian relief to cooperative planning, and from medical conferences to civilian educational endeavors.  I note that the Army Pacific Military Medicine Conference will convene in just a few weeks.  And there are numerous other seminars, such as those regarding military doctrine, military law, multi-national operational planning, logistics, submarine, and tactical airlift operations, to name a few.

Our two militaries also maintain a robust bilateral exercise program that encompasses all branches of service, as well as the National Police.  Many of you have probably joined in as our Armies participate in Exercises Balance Mint and Keris Strike, our Navies in CARAT, SEACAT and PASKAL, and our Air Forces in Exercises Cope Taufan and Cooperative Cope Thunder.  In addition to these programs, the U.S. military is actively engaged with the Royal Malaysian Police through Exercise Vector Balance Mint, and the drug enforcement agencies through Exercise Baker Mint.  We value these exercises and strongly desire to maintain these ties.

You will often hear people speak about interoperability between our forces.  Certainly fundamental to our ability to work effectively together is obtaining a common understanding of doctrine, policies, and command and control systems.  Equally important, though, is having communications systems that will allow us to coordinate operations; logistic systems that will facilitate cross-servicing support agreements; and compatible weapons systems that allow for synchronization and economy of force in an area of operations.  Malaysia has long capitalized on its access to U.S. defense hardware and incorporated advanced weapons systems to enhance the capabilities of the Malaysian Armed Forces.  Most notable was the acquisition of the F/A-18/D aircraft stationed at RMAF Base Butterworth and the Royal Malaysian Navy’s LST.  Malaysia has received solid performance from its previous procurement of F-5 fighters and S-61 (Nuri) Helicopters.  This commonality of equipment significantly enhances our ability to work effectively together to support continued peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region.

Conclusion

I have tried today to give a brief overview of how my country sees the world in the spring of 2003 and what we are trying to accomplish in our foreign policy.  It has been an honor to have this opportunity and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much.