The
Troubling New Face of America |
By Jimmy Carter
|
Washington
Post, September 5, 2002
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. |
|