Speeches and Articles by Former Consul General James R. Keith

The Fight Against Terrorism: A Global Priority
Remarks by U.S. Consul General James Keith At the University of Hong Kong

November 2, 2002

(As prepared for delivery)

I'm honored to be with you for today's conference on anti-terrorism measures in Hong Kong and the region. I'd like to thank the organizers, and particularly Professor Young, for their kind invitation to speak. The recent tragic events in Bali and Moscow have clearly underlined the importance of the issues this conference will address and the urgent need for all of us to work together to defeat the menace that terrorism poses to our societies and way of life.

I'll talk today about changes in the international system that have made it easier for terrorists, and particularly those terrorist organizations with global reach, to carry out their designs. Then I'll talk about the nature of the terrorists we face and what we have done and must continue to do to meet the challenges they present to us.

Allow me at the outset a brief digression to make clear what I am talking about when I say "terrorism." Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.

I think we are all aware that the traditional international system and sovereign states, the units that comprise it, evolved considerably in the latter half of the previous century. The international system we are familiar with developed for good reasons - it provided a universal, predictable, and serviceable framework within which nations could pursue their interests, manage their inter-relationships, and seek global peace, stability, and prosperity. Of course, it did not prevent wars and dislocation, but that was more the fault of the states that comprised the system than the system itself. States have generally not sought to overturn this system, which while not perfect, has no realistic or viable alternative.

My premise is that in recent years, this traditional system has eroded from both above and below. States have ceded sovereignty by joining and participating constructively in disparate international organizations, from the United Nations, which addresses matters of war and peace, to technical groupings, such as the International Telecommunications Union, which organizes and manages global communications. In so doing, states have voluntarily acceded to the limits participation in these organizations imposes on their freedom of action. From below, greater economic, social, and cultural interaction across borders has gradually eroded state sovereignty. States have learned, for example, that if they want to prosper, they simply have no choice but to open themselves up to the relatively free movement of people and capital across their frontiers. The statesmen and politicians who first contemplated these matters probably did not envision some of the end results of the changes that have been put in motion: that facilitating trade and investment would lead to financial flows across borders that take but seconds and occur at the push of a button; or that international telephone services eventually would lead to the capability to transmit enormous amounts of data over the Internet to anyplace where there's a modem or a satellite dish.

The erosion of the state system and the outpacing of state powers I've just described have of course brought benefits in the form of increased cooperation between nations and greater global prosperity. However, the September 11 attacks in New York City painfully demonstrated the extent to which determined terrorists have been able to burrow into and take advantage of this weakening of state sovereignty and these changes in the international system. We now are well aware of the ease with which the perpetrators of the attacks crossed borders and transferred the funds they required. The challenge we face now is how to preserve and even deepen the positive interaction among countries while at the same time protecting ourselves from the menace of terrorism that preys upon the very openness that makes such interaction possible.

I would argue that the first step is to understand the terrorists we face. It is important to recognize that al-Qaeda represents a new and more deadly threat than previous terrorist groups. Through the brutal attacks he inspired just over one year ago, bin Laden wiped the slate clean of the conventional wisdom on terrorism and ushered in a new era of conflict. During the Cold War, terrorist groups generally had more focused ethnic or nationalist grievances; or they were driven by ideological imperatives. Their membership was clearer. Their objectives were easier to discover and for the most part limited.

A new terrorist generation emerged in the 1990s. These groups are harder to analyze and less cohesive at the same time that their objectives are far more ambitious. Their reach spans the globe and their members hail from a number of countries. Their more amorphous religious and sometimes millenarian aims make them more zealous and less willing to limit the lethality of their attacks. As bin Laden himself said over al Jazeera, "this is a matter of religion and creed; it is not what Bush and Blair maintain, that it is a war against terrorism ... there is no way to forget the hostility between us and the infidels. It is ideological, so Muslims have to ally themselves with Muslims."

Thus we saw that while the total number of terrorist attacks declined in the 1990s, the proportion of persons killed increased. Large scale, indiscriminate violence against an open-ended category of targets - as the Bali attacks made clear -- is no longer considered out of bounds. The indiscriminate killing of innocents from many countries also demonstrates that these groups do not fear making an enemy of much of the world's people and the great majority of the world's governments. These groups also consciously plan to attack the vulnerabilities of modern industrial societies. As the evidence shows, they do not consider even the use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians beyond the pale. These terrorists look for the seismic effect, regardless of the consequences.

Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have shown the acumen of public relations experts and businessmen. They keep their message simple and pay attention to techniques of mass communication. Bin Laden says the United States is a hegemonic, status quo power; that it is risk and casualty averse and will not be able to bear the pain of terrorist attacks. He believes that the United States is ultimately corrupt and will collapse if pushed hard. Al-Qaeda uses creative means to pay for its activities. It funds itself through global networks of crime, complex fundraising operations, and licit and illicit charitable and business operations.

Al-Qaeda has made full use of the resources available to it and has actively sought out possible collaborators and like-minded insurgents. It calibrates its activities to take advantage of local situations and uses professional cadres and amateurs. Its members have shown dedication and discipline in plotting attacks over many years that they knew would result in their own deaths. Many are well educated and for years have lived what, from the outside, appear to be normal lives as they surveilled their targets and plotted their attacks. Bin Laden has developed al-Qaeda into the focal point or umbrella organization for a worldwide network that includes a number of extremist groups and operates in more than 90 countries. He exploited a failed state in Afghanistan, propping up a brutal government that demonstrated little concern for the well being of the Afghan people. And here I would note that in the Taliban regime, we saw al-Qaeda's vision for how societies should be organized and run.

The 9/11 attacks fit the pattern of departure from secular terrorism. They inflicted casualties among thousands of innocent people to achieve their objective. They were coordinated and nearly simultaneous in a region of the world outside the previously identified maelstrom of international terrorism. In this they were like the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And like the recent attacks in Bali. They caused disquiet in parts of the globe that previously had been spared. It is now clear that no society can feel secure.

Faced with this new terrorism challenge and purposeful, premeditated murder, what must we do? I hope it is clear to everyone that we can't give in to the terrorists' agenda. We must be resolute in facing up to them and the dangers they pose.

As we develop and carry out our response, we should be mindful that terrorists seek to undermine confidence in democratic governments and create fissures in free societies. This means we have to mobilize broad sectors of our populations. We have to maintain the high ground and continue to protect human rights. We have to ensure that no one is mistreated because of his or her ethnic background or religious faith. The terrorism campaign should not be used to suppress legitimate dissent and we must pursue it in a way that respects human dignity and the freedoms we cherish. There is no inconsistency between stopping terrorism and protecting the universal human rights we all believe in. There is a balance of course that we must strike in free societies between individual liberty and the power of a state to protect the safety and security of its people. Each nation must decide on its own where to strike this balance consistent with its international obligations.

We also have to realize the extent to which democratic countries that value personal freedom and fundamental civil liberties will remain vulnerable to terrorism. We have to be realistic about what we can and cannot do in defense. As open societies, we can tighten our borders and take other measures to protect ourselves, but cannot be certain that we will be able to prevent terrorists and their chosen weapons from entering into our midst. This means that in addition to taking all necessary measures to protect our societies, we also will have to take the fight offensively to the terrorists over the long-term. This is why we have discussed options to pre-empt terrorists' actions before it is too late. As free societies, we remain vulnerable. We choose to remain free and open societies, so we must take steps to address the attendant vulnerability.

We also must remember that terrorists will adjust their tactics. As we compel them to change, as we deprive them of their physical and financial sanctuaries, they will modify their modes of operation and their weapons systems in new and possibly more deadly ways.

What are the specific steps we need to take to defend ourselves from the terrorist challenge? In the past, we focused on low-end threats such as truck bombs against buildings. September 11 and its aftermath showed that we now have to defend against a variety of conventional attacks that may use means and target infrastructure facilities that heretofore were considered safe. We also must be prepared to deal with high-end threats such as biological or chemical warfare that endanger entire societies. We cannot be omniscient, but we can respond across a broad technological spectrum of potential adversarial attacks. We must also show new vigilance in protecting the vulnerable infrastructure of our modern societies. We must prepare in advance to limit damage from any attacks.

Given the global nature of the terrorist groups with which we must contend, it is clear, and the United States has emphasized from the start, that our response must be multilateral and cooperative. It is necessary to forge coalitions with other countries that are both willing and able to participate. The effort must also be multi-faceted. We must identify and target the terrorists, disrupt their operations, put their members on the run, and then bring them to justice. We must deny them the support, safe haven, and sponsorship they need to survive. When we see countries that actively sponsor terrorism, we should isolate them and take steps to compel them to stop their support. Here, routing the Taliban and helping the formation of a new Afghan government was a critical and major step forward. We must break up terrorist support networks, de-legitimize their leaders, and disrupt control, communications, and operations throughout their systems.

The way the world responded to the 9/11 attacks shows us the way forward. Since those attacks, more than 180 nations have joined the coalition to fight terrorism; 25 are engaged in military operations; and 136 have provided some other concrete assistance, from humanitarian supplies to the use of airspace and base access rights. At the highest levels of statecraft, the United Nations adopted Security Council Resolution 1373, the most comprehensive anti-terrorism measure ever adopted. A number of regional organizations, from the OAS to ASEAN, have taken similar steps.

The anti-terror campaign has also extended to the international financial system -- a topic that you'll be covering in one of your afternoon sessions. Here, once again, given the broad reach of terrorists, we need a global response. The effort in this area has already made important progress. The international community has established norms and obligations through United Nations Security Council Resolutions and international conventions. Countries have blocked $116 million of terrorist assets. Just last week, in an impressive display of cooperation and common concern, the U.S. and 12 countries in Asia joined together to recommend that the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiya be added to the international list of entities whose assets member states are required to freeze. We suspect that "JI" may have played a role in the recent attack in Bali. The countries that made this joint appeal were Australia, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and East Timor.

Important international organizations have broadened their mandates to include the financing of terrorism. For example, the Financial Action Task Force has issued a number of special recommendations on terrorist financing to its members. Law enforcement agencies in a number of countries are also now strengthening their cooperation on this issue.

As I mentioned before, terrorists are adaptable. They have already sought to evade the international community's efforts to block their access to the formal international financial system by developing alternative approaches to accessing and transferring funds. For the future then, we will need to intensify efforts in other areas, including informal financial networks and charities.

Countries are contributing to the global anti-terror effort consistent with their capabilities. When governments are weak but willing - when they need help in combating terrorism within their own borders -- we must provide the help they require. Capacity building is essential given the long-term nature and scope of terrorism. This means working together to give nations the tools and skills to make a lasting improvement in their ability to track down terrorists and disrupt terrorist operations. It means developing best practices, working together to enhance border security, improving legislation, and sharing law enforcement information.

More broadly, like-minded nations must advance an agenda that promotes our fundamental values, aims to help alleviate poverty, political oppression, ethnic strife, and regional instability, in sum, that diminishes the underlying conditions that allow terrorism to take root and flourish. While doing this, we need to keep in mind that poverty and oppression are not the causes of terrorism. Many of those who have participated in terrorist attacks did not come from poor families. Some were well-educated university graduates. Ethnic strife and disputes between countries are also not excuses. In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. These deserve to be addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror.

Poverty, oppression, ethnic strife and regional instability can all breed the sorts of grievances that extremists can exploit for their own ends. The international community, therefore, must continue its efforts to resolve political and diplomatic problems. It should target foreign assistance to encourage economic development and sustained economic growth. It should also promote democracy and the protection of fundamental freedoms. Advancing prosperity and economic and political freedom will help turn people away from the lure of terrorism. We should remember that while the current generation of terrorists is beyond our reach, the next is not.

Finally, to defeat the ideologies that define themselves as mortal enemies of the modern nation state and globalization, we must work to counter the communication efforts of groups like al-Qaeda. It is important to de-legitimize terrorism so it is viewed in the same light as slavery and genocide. To do this, we must promote the free flow of information. We can have confidence that in the global contest of ideas, our values and freedoms will ultimately kindle the hopes and win the support of people around the world.

Hong Kong has benefited tremendously from the globalization that terrorists are at once exploiting and seeking to destroy. It is not surprising then that Hong Kong has taken a number of concrete, decisive actions that demonstrate its commitment to the global anti-terror coalition. At the October 26 APEC meeting, Chief Executive Tung made another in a series of strong statements by senior Hong Kong government officials which have shown a keen appreciation that terrorism is a challenge we all must face. Speaking of recent developments, he said that it was important for all APEC economies to work closely and resolutely together to fight terrorism, whether through sharing information, intelligence, in efforts against money laundering or other necessary steps to strengthen security while also ensuring the smooth flows of goods, capital and people crucial to the region's growth.

Hong Kong has an important role to play given its status as a major financial and transportation hub. As President of the Financial Action Task Force I just mentioned, and under the leadership of Commissioner for Narcotics Clarie Lo, Hong Kong helped lead the effort to identify and break up terrorist financial networks. It has directed financial institutions to search their records for terrorist funds. In July LegCo passed important anti-terror legislation designed to bring Hong Kong into compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and Financial Action Task Force recommendations. Most recently, Hong Kong stated its support for the Container Security Initiative, a U.S. effort to prevent terrorists from exploiting global maritime trade to transport weapons of mass destruction. At the recent APEC meeting, Hong Kong also supported a new initiative that encompasses a variety other of transportation security measures.

Much remains to be done in the campaign against those who without hesitation or remorse launch attacks on our societies. But we can draw confidence from the many impressive successes our international cooperation has already brought. Recently, we have seen officials in several countries make high-profile arrests. For example, Pakistani police captured a key figure in the 9/11 attacks. Singapore detained 21 more members of the Jemaah Islamiyah who were planning attacks against American targets in Southeast Asia. Germany indicted and put on trial a member of the Hamburg cell where Mohammed Atta, who was the leader of the 9/11 attacks, finalized his plans.

As the recent Bali attack demonstrated, the anti-terror effort will be a long struggle and we must be as tireless, innovative, and dynamic as our adversaries. We cannot let setbacks deflect our attention from the progress we have achieved nor the major challenges we face before final victory. To date, our campaign has produced unprecedented inroads against terrorism. But success will not come in one dramatic strike. Instead, it will come through the cumulative effect of patient, steady operations across all regions.

I would like to conclude my remarks today with a few words about how the U.S. sees its role and the situation with Iraq. The U.S. has been the disproportionate target of terrorists. After the 9/11 attacks, we have seen a sea change in national attitudes in the U.S. and the rise of an accompanying political will to combat terrorism systematically, globally, and without respite. That is why we are taking the lead. It is a responsibility that comes with the significant power that the U.S. enjoys today.

We do not imagine that this is our fight alone, or that we can win it alone. As President Bush has said, "The defeat of terror requires an international coalition of unprecedented scope and cooperation." At the same time, the world should not expect us to wait for September 11 to happen again, for a Bali bombing to recur in cities across the U.S. Traditional deterrence will not be effective against those who choose martyrdom over life and who target innocents with catastrophic destruction. We can't afford to wait for weapons of mass destruction to be developed in Iraq and conveyed to those who seek to murder as many Americans as possible.

Saddam Hussein and his collection of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons present a clear and present danger, not just to the people and interests of this nation but to his neighbors and all nations. President Bush said, "It is precisely the coming together of these two trends - terrorist groups who tap globalization to extend their power and reach and the possible spread of weapons of mass destruction - that poses the pre-eminent security challenge of this era."

We are working at the United Nations to produce a strong resolution that will disarm Iraq and require it to live up to the numerous resolutions that it has flouted for many years. We seek to place the burden on Iraq to make a choice: whether to comply with the will of the international community and disarm, or alternatively, to choose to persist in defiance. We aim to convince our friends and allies that a firm resolution with a tough set of conditions is the right course. We are working to that end. The reluctance of the world to consider the possibility of hostilities is understandable. No one wants war; no one seeks confrontation if there are viable alternatives. But sometimes there are none. No responsible nation can afford to shrink from battles that must be fought.

Thank you.

*     *     *     *     *