Speeches and Articles by Former Consul General James R. Keith

A Sense of Urgency

By U.S. Consul General James Keith

(The Chinese version of this article was published and translated by Apple Daily on February 18, 2003, and this article is not for commercial use.)

When discussion here in Hong Kong turns to Iraq and the U.S. war on terror, I've been surprised by the perception among some in Hong Kong that the events now unfolding in the Middle East and around the world are far removed from their lives. When I'm asked if I believe the U.S. will go to war, my response is that, in fact, the U.S. is already at war.

From here in Hong Kong, it is hard to convey the profound force of the September 11 attacks on the American people. As a nation, we lost more than just our loved ones with the fall of New York's twin towers. We are much more aware of our vulnerability now, and we have grown stronger. We came together to stand up for the fundamental values that define us. And so, from September 11, 2001, America has been on a war footing.

Why Iraq?

Some have disputed the focus on Iraq, suggesting it is a distraction from the war on terror. They are wrong. The United States has had serious concerns about Iraq in the 12 years since the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN and international law, its determination to develop weapons of terror, and its established ties with known terrorist groups are the reasons for the international debate over Iraq. The international community has known Iraq has biological and chemical warfare agents as a result of earlier UN weapons inspections that ended in 1995. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq in November 2002, did not charge the inspectors with finding these weapons. It charged Iraq with providing evidence of these weapons' destruction. Iraq has failed to produce this evidence. Moreover, inspectors have found chemical warheads and other equipment not previously acknowledged by Iraq. The regime has gone to great lengths to deceive inspectors and has not by any stretch of the imagination lived up to its obligations; it is, in other words, in material breach of the resolution.

The world has a stake in the successful resolution of Iraq's non-compliance with international law. That is why the UN Security Council voted unanimously for Resolution 1441.

Why now?

The international community has tried together to resolve this issue for12 years through diplomacy, sanctions, containment, limited military strikes, and weapons inspections. Let us be candid: all these measures have failed. After 12 years, Iraq remains in defiance of its international obligations. In his February 14 report to the UN Security Council, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix further emphasized Iraq's pattern of deception. Noting that Iraq's December 7 declaration 'missed the opportunity to provide fresh evidence' that it was disarming, Mr. Blix called this lack of disclosure 'perhaps the most important problem we are facing.' Mr. Blix noted that Iraq had still not accounted for many proscribed weapons and other items, that Iraq maintained prohibited missile systems, and that UNMOVIC still faced difficulties arranging private interviews with Iraqi scientists. In other words, Iraq continues to refuse to comply with the force of international law and the unanimous demand of the UN Security Council.

The international debate on Iraq is inseparable from the war on terror. In his February 5 address to the Security Council, Secretary Powell confirmed that Iraq has open channels and ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. On September 11, 2001, America saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We must not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states can do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. We have a solemn obligation to our own citizens and to the rest of the civilized world to prevent the use of WMD by terrorists. One way to do so is to ensure that Iraq disarms. The disarming and, if necessary, rebuilding of Iraq will not end the terrorist threat to our way of life, but it will take us all a step closer to that overriding objective. Conversely, failure to stand up to Iraq 's threat to world peace and stability would set us back. It would be a setback that we would regret in the most profound way imaginable if it proved to be the beginning of the road to terrorists ' use of biological or chemical weapons to strike out at the civilized world. Given that potential outcome, who would argue for accommodation with Iraq? And for how long? A month? A year? Until Baghdad has developed nuclear weapons to supplement its other weapons of terror?

Why Hong Kong?

Hong Kong has supported strongly the international war on terror, leading the Financial Action Task Force and signing up early to the Container Security Initiative. This time the decision is much tougher. Hong Kong citizens are cautious about military action against Iraq, with good reason. No American President could consider lightly the fearsome responsibility of weighing in the balance the interests of the American people, the UN, and the global trading system against the interests of potential innocent victims in Iraq. War is a last resort. This is why the President and his senior advisors have tried so hard to elicit Iraq 's peaceful disarmament. We have left no stone unturned in this effort. But let us place the burden of responsibility where it belongs. The world has demanded that Iraq disarm and it has declined to do so. That is unacceptable. After all, it can be done. South Africa, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan have done it.

And let us consider carefully the costs of inaction. Hong Kong depends on world stability and the integrity of the global trading system. Without a credible international commitment to these fundamental building blocks of the global economy, what fate would befall Hong Kong? Moreover, as the tragedy of the Bali bombing illustrated all too clearly, none of us is safe in the war on terror. We are all in this together, and confrontation with Iraq will not be the last of the difficult choices put before us. If we are to eradicate terrorism, we must commit ourselves to a sustained, long-term effort. As difficult as this current decision is, we must choose to face down despotism that defies international law and threatens to ally itself with international terror. Iraq must disarm or face serious consequences. That was our commitment in UNSCR 1441. The time has come to determine whether we intend to stand up for our way of life. For our part, we Americans have determined our answer. From our perspective, we cannot afford to fail.