[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 2/1/03 ]
Carter statement: Bush hasn't made case for war
Here
is a statement issued Friday by former President Jimmy Carter, arguing
that the Bush administration has not made a case for going to war
against Iraq.
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.