Speeches and Articles by Former Consul General James R. Keith

Iraq: The World Cannot Wait
Remarks by U.S. Consul General James Keith
To the Chinese Manufacturers Association

Hong Kong
February 20, 2003

(As prepared for delivery)

I'm honored to be here tonight. I'd like to thank President Chan, the Vice Presidents and Honorary Presidents, and the General Committee members of the Chinese Manufacturers Association for your kind invitation to speak.

I want to talk tonight about a topic that is riveting the world's attention and is also on the minds of many in Hong Kong. I'm speaking of the situation with Iraq. I want to explain U.S. policy towards Iraq and what I think the events unfolding now in the Middle East mean for Hong Kong and for you. Let me say at the outset that for the American people, the September 11 events were a watershed. From our perspective, we have been at war since that day. And we don't expect that this struggle will be short or easy.

As no doubt many of you know, the United Nations Security Council is now intensively discussing next steps on the Iraq issue. The United States is engaging fully in these discussions, as we have over the past several months. We genuinely would welcome a lasting diplomatic solution. At the same time, if that is not possible, the United Nations must stand firmly behind the demands it has made -- for many years now -- that Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction. The simple fact is that Iraq's refusal to disarm is not a new issue; it is one with which the international community has been seized for 12 years. As the Secretary has said, Iraq is further in material breach of its obligations than ever before, and the time is rapidly running out for Iraq to satisfy those obligations willingly.

Some have questioned my government's focus on Iraq and wondered whether it is a distraction from the war on terror. The United States believes that in fact the two are inseparable.

Iraq has presented a serious challenge to world peace and stability for over two decades. It invaded two of its neighbors, Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Saddam Hussein has shown a clear determination to obtain weapons of mass destruction and has even used them against opposing armies and his own people in flagrant violation of international norms.

Considering these circumstances, one can only conclude that the international community has dealt patiently with Iraq. The United Nations passed numerous resolutions over 12 years that demanded that Iraq disarm. It did not do so. The international community has also tried other methods, including sanctions, containment, and limited military strikes. Unfortunately, all have failed because they have been predicated on Iraq's cooperation and compliance with this effort. Faced now with 12 years of defiance, the United Nations must live up to its obligations and consider achieving Iraqi disarmament through other, more forceful means.

Members of the United Nations are in agreement that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Let me repeat that. Members of the United Nations are in agreement that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. How does the UN know this? It knows it because Iraq admitted to having these weapons in earlier United Nations weapons inspections during the 1990s. Unfortunately, we are not talking about small amounts of chemical and biological weapons. We are talking about huge quantities. Quantities that threaten not only the people of the region, but those of us who live far afield.

Despite Iraq's dismal record of ignoring UN Security Council resolutions, in October of last year, the United States worked with the international community to develop another resolution -- UN Security Council resolution 1441. That resolution gave Saddam Hussein one more chance to fulfill his obligations and demonstrate that he has destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. The text of that resolution warns that if he doesn't take that chance, serious consequences would follow.

The inspectors working in Iraq now are not trying to determine whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. They are there to find evidence that he has destroyed them. The onus is on Iraq to disarm and produce evidence that it has done so. Instead of doing this, and as Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out in his speech two weeks ago to the United Nations, Iraq is actively obstructing the inspectors' efforts. It has hidden documents in private homes and sent scientists who may know about these weapons into hiding. It has also removed prohibited weapons from sites that might be visited by United Nations inspectors. As long as Iraq has not made a strategic decision to disarm, and it has had three months to do so, what purpose would be served now by adding more inspectors or providing more time for the inspection process? Iraq has not lived up to its obligations and there is no escaping the conclusion that it is in material breach of resolution 1441.

You may ask, even if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, what justifies taking military action and why don't more countries support the U.S. position? The answer is that the world changed fundamentally on September 11, 2001. On that day, America and the world saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. Subsequently, and closer to Hong Kong, terrorists indiscriminately attacked and killed innocent tourists in Bali. Authorities in Singapore uncovered a terrorist cell that had been planning attacks in that country. Discoveries in Afghanistan about al-Qaeda's efforts to develop chemical and biological weapons, and the recent arrest in Great Britain of terrorists with toxic agents, leave no doubt that terrorists would use chemical or biological weapons if they can get their hands on them.

Secretary Powell showed in his United Nations speech that Iraq has clear links to these terrorists. It now harbors a terrorist network headed by an al-Qaeda operative with known expertise in the production of toxic poisons. This network has plotted terrorist actions against European countries, including France, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. It wants to obtain nuclear weapons. Iraq and the terrorists are linked. We cannot afford to "wait and see" what potential disasters might arise from this linkage. As President Bush said recently, "We will not wait to see what terrorists could do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons." Given the threat that the international community faces, the time for the United Nations to act is now.

We would be foolish to put off or ignore this serious, long-term threat because of immediate costs we may have to pay. I'm sure you, as business people, recognize this principle. You would not ignore changing circumstances that posed serious competitive threats to your company even if dealing with those threats now might hurt this year's balance sheet. You would recognize that you must act quickly to ensure the long-term health of your business. To do otherwise would be a road to bankruptcy.

I don't mean by that analogy to de-personalize the crisis before us. The United States would prefer a diplomatic resolution to the Iraq problem. We know that there will be a monetary and, more importantly, a human cost to such a course of action. Even here at the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, some staff have family members who may find themselves in harm's way. We will do all we can to keep down the human toll of war. However, as difficult as it may be, we must not put off such a decision any longer while the enemies of peace prepare for an attack that will make September 11^th pale in comparison.

If diplomacy with Iraq fails, we will not act alone. A number of other countries have indicated that they will join us, including many of our European allies. And some of these coalition members are neighbors of Iraq, who have witnessed first hand Saddam Hussein's aggression and who appreciate the risks of inaction.

Some believe that our policy towards Iraq is motivated not by the struggle against terrorism, but by oil. This is simply not true. The United States bought only about 5 percent of its oil from Iraq last year. Iraqi oil production accounts for about only 3% of world supply. More importantly, such a view ignores the recent history of the oil market. Both sides of the oil equation, producing and consuming countries, have for some time now recognized that their interests are served by stable oil prices and oil supply. There is no good reason for oil consuming countries to worry now about an oil cutoff or that producers might at any time drive prices higher. The behavior of producing countries in recent months shows this clearly: they have stated that they will do their best to ensure stable supply in the face of the current uncertainty and any subsequent developments. The notion that America would send its sons and daughters to Iraq to fight and die for oil is more than misguided. Only those who fundamentally misunderstand the United States could believe that war in Iraq is about America's appetite for oil. We will buy or produce the oil we need, like everyone else in the world, no matter what happens in Iraq. Furthermore, we have said that Iraq's oil belongs to all of the Iraqi people. Iraqi oil continues to pump as we speak, but the sad truth is that the Iraqi people are denied the benefit of these resources while a brutal regime siphons off these resources to fund its repressive military and security apparatus - and, more ominously, continues its development of weapons of mass destruction.

I want to say a few words about North Korea because that country is frequently compared to Iraq and is geographically much closer to Hong Kong. Each situation poses a unique challenge. The United States believes that we can still address the Korean issue through diplomatic means, while Iraq has shown no deviation from its course of defiance and obfuscation -- a course that has led it to use chemical weapons against its own people and its neighbors. We are working with our allies in the region, and with North Korea's neighbors, including China, to peacefully resolve the situation. And we look forward to working with other countries in finding a multilateral solution to this difficult problem.

I want to turn now to Hong Kong's stake in the Iraq situation. It may seem that the Middle East is far away and that Hong Kong can stand apart. However, when terrorists struck the United States on September 11, their attacks were felt around the world, not just because hundreds of citizens of other nations besides the United States were among the victims of September 11^th, but because their actions were also an assault on the global free market economic system. They sought to destroy not only lives, but also our very way of life. They aimed at shattering confidence in the world economy and its pillars, the free movement of people, goods, and capital, which have brought prosperity to East Asia and elsewhere. We've seen as well how all of us can become victims of terrorism, be it in the great urban and economic centers like New York or the idyllic resorts of Bali.

As one of the world's great trading and financial centers, Hong Kong is vulnerable to the consequences of terrorist attacks, even when they occur thousands of miles away. Your import and export trades are directly linked to the world economy. Many of your hotels, restaurants, and retail trades also rely on foreign business. When transportation, communications and financing and other business services, many of which also have an international angle, are added in, probably around half of Hong Kong's economy is closely linked to the international economy. One need look no further than the non-stop activity at your world-ranked sea and airports to see the enormous stake you have in seeing that there is no disruption to globalized trading and financial systems.

Hong Kong has seen modest good news in recent months. Exports are up and visitor arrivals have risen sharply. This is a welcome development and testimony to Hong Kong's vibrancy as a trading center and tourist destination. However, if there were to be another serious terrorist attack on the United States or another country, particularly involving a weapon of mass destruction, the world economy and Hong Kong would likely suffer another serious setback.

Furthermore, over the longer term, it is hard to imagine how we can fully dispel the current international economic uncertainty and restore economic confidence unless all of us -- both government and the private sector alike -- join together in an effective and decisive effort to defeat terrorism. At the same time, we must get on with our businesses and our lives, but we should expect sacrifice along the way. This is a long-term fight. We will defeat terrorism. I am confident, but we should all realize that it will take determination and shared sacrifice.

Hong Kong has rightly considered itself among those societies that share the values of free speech and free markets, tolerance, great respect for the rule of law, and the open interchange of ideas with the rest of the world. You have prospered and built a better world for yourselves and your children because of adherence to these principles. In contrast, we can see from the Taleban and al-Qaeda regime in Afghanistan the principles that guide the terrorists: isolation, intolerance of other ideas, repression of women, and the arbitrary and brutal exercise of power. Their vision of the future is a march straight back to the Middle Ages.

It is important for all of us who share the values I mentioned a moment ago to face the challenge posed by the terrorists and regimes like those of Saddam Hussein. Even if diplomacy with Iraq fails, we also hope to share these values with the Iraqi people, who have suffered greatly as a result of their leader's actions. As they build a new society, the United States will seek a new Iraq that is democratic, unified, multi-ethnic, has no weapons of mass destruction, and is at peace with its neighbors.

Given the stakes for Hong Kong, is not surprising that your leaders have taken a number of concrete, decisive actions that demonstrate a commitment to the global anti-terror coalition. Hong Kong has an important role to play given its status as a major financial and transportation hub and it has helped lead the effort to identify and break up terrorist financial networks. Financial regulatory authorities have directed record searches for terrorist funds. Last July, LegCo passed anti-terrorism legislation designed to bring Hong Kong into line with standards set by a United Nations resolution aimed at preventing terrorists from exploiting financial systems. More legislation in this area remains to be passed to bring Hong Kong into full compliance and we hope you will support it.

Recognizing the importance of securing transportation links from terrorists, Hong Kong has also joined the Container Security Initiative. The Hong Kong shipping community is now working hard to meet U.S. requirements for the provision in advance of information about shipping containers bound for the United States. These efforts are all designed to secure the maritime transport system without obstructing legitimate trade. They aim to prevent terrorists from shipping a weapon of mass destruction. The United States expects later this year to undertake similar efforts on air cargo transport. These efforts take time and will cost some money. However, they are necessary to protect international trade and the benefits it has brought to all of us.

In closing, I would like to say that the time has come to determine whether we intend to stand up for our values and our way of life. For the United States, we have determined our answer. From our perspective, we cannot afford to fail, not just for the sake of millions of Americans, but for the sake of all of us around the world who seek peace, stability, and prosperity.

*     *     *     *     *