March 9, 2003
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.
