A Statement By President
Carter: An Alternative To War
By
Jimmy Carter
31 January 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Deanna Congileo
404-420-5108
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.
Former
U.S. President Jimmy Carter is chair of The Carter Center in
Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization
that advances peace and health worldwide.
|