By JIMMY CARTER (The New York Times, March 9)
|
ATLANTA — 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 basic religious principles, 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 eschatological, 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 nonviolent 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 in 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 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population
within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and
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 R. 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 terrorist 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 and political
influence that is being exerted from 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 Nations. 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.
Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United
States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel
Peace Prize.
THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE