Hello friends,
On this “Patriot
Day,” I feel compelled to submit some sort of commentary. I actually have a big
pile of stuff I’ve been meaning to send to you all, and soon I will, but for
today, I will content myself with sending out this one.
And though it’s a
bit late, I encourage all of you to boycott the media today while they treat
9/11 as another Super Bowl, and instead focus your thoughts on how true patriots
should respond to the world and the political stance of the U.S. at this point.
–C
Published on Thursday, September 5, 2002 in the
Washington Post
The Troubling New Face of America by Jimmy
Carter
Fundamental changes are taking place in the
historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role
in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process — largely without
definitive debates (except, at times, within the administration). Some new
approaches have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions by
President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing from
a core group of conservatives who are trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions
under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism.
Formerly admired almost universally as the
preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target
of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles
of democratic life. We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support
our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as “enemy
combatants,” incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being
charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. This policy has
been condemned by the federal courts, but the Justice Department seems adamant,
and the issue is still in doubt. Several hundred captured Taliban soldiers
remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay under the same circumstances, with the
defense secretary declaring that they would not be released even if they were
someday tried and found to be innocent. These actions are similar to those of
abusive regimes that historically have been condemned by American
presidents.
While the president has reserved judgment, the
American people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president
and other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or
without support from any allies. As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign
allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent
officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad. In
the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority,
any belligerent move by Hussein against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear
test (necessary before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon
of mass destruction, or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations
would be suicidal. But it is quite possible that such weapons would be used
against Israel or our forces in response to an American attack.
We cannot ignore the development of chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer.
There is an urgent need for U.N. action to force unrestricted inspections in
Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate
our necessary allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of
state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirable
option.
We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to
the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated
international accords.
Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements,
the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture
proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with
economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts
and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations
needed to join in combating terrorism.
Tragically, our government is abandoning any
sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our
apparent policy is to support almost every Israeli action in the occupied
territories and to condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of
our war on terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves
shrink.
There still seems to be a struggle within the
administration over defining a comprehensible Middle East policy. The
president’s clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions and to support the
establishment of a Palestinian state have been substantially negated by
statements of the defense secretary that in his lifetime “there will be some
sort of an entity that will be established” and his reference to the “so-called
occupation.” This indicates a radical departure from policies of every
administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from
occupied territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their
neighbors.
Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be
dominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the
president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that the historical and
well-founded American commitments prevail: to peace, justice, human rights, the
environment and international cooperation.
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter
Center in Atlanta.
2002 The Washington Post
Company
