"An Alternative To War"
By President Jimmy Carter   31 Jan 2003

Jimmy Carter's "Will We Just Wage War--Or A Just War?"  (March 12, 2003) is below.
If you like having this kind of information available, you should subscribe to The Achievement Digest® It's easy. Just click here.

Atlanta…..Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.

Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carré, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of TIME magazine. The question was "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's character, and America is not inclined to let foreign voices answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.

The world will be awaiting Wednesday's presentation of specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation, his message will carry enormous weight in shaping public opinion. But even if his effort is successful and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.

With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost.

In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.

In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited "road map" that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.

Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.

Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States and winner of the Nobel Prize, is chairman of The Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that advances peace and health worldwide.

 Subscribe to The Achievement Digest® It's easy. Just click here.

Will We Just Wage War--Or A Just War?

"Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness.

These commitments have been predicated on respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint.  Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.

This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel, based on escatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all non-violent options exhausted.  In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.  These options--previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations--were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday.

But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments of the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.

The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.   Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in 'collateral damage.' Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.  Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 attacks have been unconvincing. 

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.  The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade.  For these objectives, we do not have international authority.  Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic political influence that is being exerted by Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. 

Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.  Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.  Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region?  The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.  American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nation.  But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions--with war as a final option--will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice."

(An Article Written For The New York Times Reprinted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune   March 12, 2003)