Statement
by Former U.S.
President Jimmy Carter
An Alternative to War
ATLANTA, Jan. 31 (AScribe
Newswire) -- 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 Carre, 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.
For
more information, contact The Carter Center Public Information,
404-420-5108.
AScribe - The Public Interest Newswire
510-653-9400 www.ascribe.org
