Jimmy Carter's "Alternative To War"

[barbara100 at jps.net]

That's good....I always liked Carter. I shook his hand when I was 11.  Is it
unusual for ex-presidents to make statements like these? I can't recall
reading any like it. I hope it will make an impression. Where has it been
published?

----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchonoid" <pynchonoid at yahoo.com>
To: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:09 PM
Subject: Jimmy Carter's "Alternative To War"


> 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.
>
> <http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1165&submenu=news>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com