[wordup] A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War

[Adam Shand]

I heard an interview with Jimmy Carter on NPR a couple months ago.  I 
wasn't very old when he was president so it was the first time I'd 
really heard him speak at length, and I was quite impressed.

I think the below article is fairly sensible though I still think the 
idea of a "war on terrorism" is at best misguided and at worst pouring 
fuel on the fire.  In my mind in order to have a war you have to have a 
goal, since we are never going to purge the world of every terrorist 
with anything short of genocide the it concerns me that we're declaring 
a war that we can never win.  Regardless ...

Adam.

From: http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1165&submenu=news

A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War
By  Jimmy Carter
31 Jan 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.