Jimmy Carter: Just War or a Just War?

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html

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.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********