Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Jimmy Carter

  • Jimmy Carter on Morality and Nuclear Weapons

    In January 2010 the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations working for a world free of nuclear weapons, held a consultation at the Carter Center in Atlanta on the May 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  A highlight of the meeting was a session with President Carter in which he expressed his views on the need for stronger efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and prevent nuclear proliferation.  In the question and answer period that followed his remarks, I posed a question to the former president about his own strong moral standards and his preparedness to use nuclear weapons in a counterattack against the Soviet Union.  Douglas Roche, the chair emeritus of the Middle Powers Initiative, called President Carter’s response “the most poignant moment I have ever experienced at an MPI meeting.”  The question and President Carter’s response follow.

    Q: President Carter, thank you so much. I was struck when you said in your remarks that you were prepared to launch a counterattack against the Soviet Union.  Knowing you as a deeply moral individual – this is a personal question – I wonder how you could in your own mind take your moral, religious, spiritual values and contemplate retaliation with nuclear weapons with all the results and consequences that this would have.

    President Carter: The most difficult issue I’ve ever had to face as a human being is what to do if a nuclear threat materialized when we were in the midst of the Cold War. I prayed constantly that I would not be faced with this decision. I didn’t see the rationality—it is difficult for me to talk about it. I couldn’t sit acquiescently and let the Soviet Union destroy my country without a response when we had the capability to do so.

    I had been a submarine officer and military professional. I was ready to take action that would take human life to protect the integrity of my country. At the same time, I did everything I could to avoid it. I bent over backwards to understand the partially paranoid concerns of the Soviet leaders. I would sit sometimes in my White House office—I had a large globe there and I would deliberately turn the globe to Moscow and I would imagine myself as Brezhnev.  I would imagine what things might cause me to resort to nuclear use and what might cause me to avoid it. We began to work with the Soviet Union in many ways, including on human rights.

    I can’t say in good conscience now that my decision to respond would have been the correct one. It would have cost millions of American lives if we were subject to attack and it would have cost millions of Russian lives if we attacked. I cannot answer your question adequately. It is incompatible with my basic Christian beliefs to do that. What Jesus Christ would have done, I don’t know. When I took the oath of office of President, before God, I took the oath to defend my country.  I felt that was the way I could prevent further destruction of my country. The fact that the Russians believed I would respond was the essence of the mutual deterrence.  If I made any sort of public insinuation that the Russians could attack us with nuclear weapons without being the recipient of a response—that would have been unacceptable, unimaginable for me to do.

  • An Unecessary War

    This article first appeared in the Washington Post

    I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

    After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

    Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

    We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

    Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

    After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

    Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

    We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel’s unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

    On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.

    After 12 days of “combat,” the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.

    The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.

     

    Jimmy Carter was President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a non-governmental organization advocating peace and health worldwide, in 1982.

  • A New Chance for Peace?

    I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

    It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the “road map” for peace developed by the “quartet” (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

    The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

    These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

    Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

    Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

    A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

    Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

    I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

    Published by The Washington Post.

     

    Jimmy Carter was the 39th US President and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

  • This is Not the Country That I Once Knew

    Former President Jimmy Carter believes that a warring America is abandoning its fundamental values.

    In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

    These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

    Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

    At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organisations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements, including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

    Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of ‘pre-emptive war’, an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavoury regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

    Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by US leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world. These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation’s tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of ‘you are either with us or against us’ has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

    Another disturbing realisation is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimise public awareness of casualties.

    Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

    Of even greater concern is that the US has repudiated the Geneva accords and supported the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition programme. It is embarrassing to see the President and Vice President insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate ‘cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment’ on people in US custody.

    Instead of reducing America’s reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them and, therefore, abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms-control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of ‘first use’ of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

    Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation’s global environmental policies.

    Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favours to the rich, while neglecting America’s working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialised nations).

    I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

    As the world’s only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

    It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have promoted during the last 230 years.

    Jimmy Carter was the 39th President of the United States. His latest book, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, is published this month by Simon & Schuster.

    This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

  • Erosion of Nonproliferation Treaty

    As the review conference of the Nonproliferation Treaty convenes in New York this month, we can only be appalled at the indifference of the United States and the other nuclear powers. This indifference is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs.

    In the run-up to the conference, a group of “Middle States” had a simple goal: “To exert leverage on the nuclear powers to take some minimum steps to save the nonproliferation treaty in 2005.” Last year this coalition of nuclear-capable states – including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and eight NATO members – voted for a new agenda resolution calling for implementing NPT commitments already made. Tragically, the United States, Britain and France voted against this resolution.

    Preparatory talks failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the non-nuclear movement, whose demands include honoring these pledges and considering the Israeli arsenal.

    Until recently, all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals – some more than others. As far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals.

    The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including antiballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating “bunker buster” and perhaps some new “small” bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

    Some corrective actions are obvious:

    The United States needs to address remaining nuclear issues with Russia, demanding the same standards of transparency and verification of past arms control agreements and dismantling and disposal of decommissioned weapons. With massive arsenals still on hair-trigger alert status, a global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the cold war. We could address perhaps the world’s greatest proliferation threat by fully securing Russia’s stockpiles.

    While all nuclear weapons states should agree to no first use, the United States, as the sole superpower, should take the lead on this issue.

    NATO needs to de-emphasize the role of its nuclear weapons and consider an end to their deployment in Western Europe. Despite its eastward expansion, NATO is keeping the same stockpiles and policies as when the Iron Curtain divided the continent.

    The comprehensive test ban treaty should be honored, but the United States is moving in the opposite direction. The administration’s 2005 budget refers for the first time to a list of test scenarios, and other nations are waiting to take the same action.

    The United States should support a fissile-materials treaty to prevent the creation and transport of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

    The United States should curtail development of the infeasible missile defense shield, which is wasting huge resources, while breaking our commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without a working substitute.

    Act on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, an increasing source of instability. Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Nonproliferation Treaty. At the same time, we fail to acknowledge how Israel’s nuclear status entices Iran, Syria, Egypt and other states to join the community of nuclear-weapon states.

    If the United States and other nuclear powers are serious about stopping the erosion of the Nonproliferation Treaty, they must act now on these issues. Any other course will mean a world in which the nuclear threat increases, not diminishes.

    Jimmy Carter is a former president of the United States and founder of the Carter Center in Atlanta. This comment was distributed by Tribune Media Services for Global Viewpoint.

    Originally published by the International Herald Tribune

  • Saving Nonproliferation

    Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs. A recent United Nations report warned starkly: “We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation.”

    A group of “Middle States” has a simple goal: “To exert leverage on the nuclear powers to take some minimum steps to save the non-proliferation treaty in 2005.” Last year this coalition of nuclear-capable states — including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and eight NATO members — voted for a new agenda resolution calling for implementing NPT commitments already made. Tragically, the United States, Britain and France voted against this resolution.

    So far the preparatory committee for the forthcoming NPT talks has failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the nonnuclear movement, whose demands include honoring these pledges and considering the Israeli arsenal.

    Until recently all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals — some more than others. So far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals.

    The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating “bunker buster” and perhaps some new “small” bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.

    Some corrective actions are obvious:

    • The United States needs to address remaining nuclear issues with Russia, demanding the same standards of transparency and verification of past arms control agreements and dismantling and disposal of decommissioned weapons. With massive arsenals still on hair-trigger alert status, a global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War. We could address perhaps the world’s greatest proliferation threat by fully securing Russia’s stockpiles.

    • While all nuclear weapons states should agree to non-first use, the United States, as the sole superpower, should take the lead on this issue.

    • NATO needs to de-emphasize the role of its nuclear weapons and consider an end to their deployment in Western Europe. Despite its eastward expansion, NATO is keeping the same stockpiles and policies as when the Iron Curtain divided the continent.

    • The comprehensive test ban treaty should be honored, but the United States is moving in the opposite direction. The administration’s 2005 budget refers for the first time to a list of test scenarios, and other nations are waiting to take the same action.

    • The United States should support a fissile materials treaty to prevent the creation and transport of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

    • Curtail U.S. development of the infeasible missile defense shield, which is wasting huge resources, while breaking our commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without a working substitute.

    • Act on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, an increasing source of instability in that region. Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, we fail to acknowledge how Israel’s nuclear status entices Iran, Syria, Egypt and other states to join the community of nuclear weapons states.

    These are vital questions, and the world will know the answers during the NPT conference in May.

    Former president Carter is founder of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

  • On the Future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY PERSONAL GRATITUDE FOR THIS MIDDLE POWERS INITIATIVE TO PROTECT, OR REVIVE, THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, WHICH IS DEEPLY WOUNDED AND WHOSE VERY LIFE IS THREATENED.

    FIVE YEARS AGO I MADE A SIMILAR SPEECH AT A SIMILAR MEETING IN THIS SAME PLACE, IN ADVANCE OF THE 2000 ROUND OF NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY DISCUSSIONS AT THE UNITED NATIONS. LATER, WITH YOUR HELP, I PREPARED AN EDITORIAL IN THE WASHINGTON POST OUTLINING THE PROBLEMS RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.

    I READ THEM BOTH LAST NIGHT, AND IT IS DISTURBINGLY OBVIOUS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO IMPROVEMENT OVER THE SITUATION AS IT WAS DESCRIBED IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETING. IN FACT, PROLIFERATION AND THE BEHAVIOR OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES WITH REGARD TO DISARMAMENT HAVE WORSENED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

    I AM WILLING TO PREPARE ANOTHER EDITORIAL IF YOU THINK IT HELPFUL, AND WILL SAVE MY NOTES FOR POSSIBLE REPETITION IN 2010. HOPEFULLY, THERE WON’T BE A GLOBAL CATASTROPHE BEFORE THEN.

    A RECENT UNITED NATIONS REPORT STARKLY WARNED: “WE ARE APPROACHING A POINT AT WHICH THE EROSION OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION REGIME COULD BECOME IRREVERSIBLE AND RESULT IN A CASCADE OF PROLIFERATION.”

    PROSPECTS FOR THIS YEAR’S DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT ENCOURAGING. I HAVE HEARD THAT THE PREPCOMM FOR THE FORTHCOMING NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY TALKS HAVE SO FAR FAILED EVEN TO ACHIEVE AN AGENDA BECAUSE OF THE DEEP DIVISIONS BETWEEN THE NUCLEAR POWERS WHO SEEK TO STOP PROLIFERATION WITHOUT MEETING THEIR OWN DISARMAMENT COMMITMENTS, AND THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT, WHOSE DEMANDS INCLUDE FIRM DISARMAMENT COMMITMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ISRAELI ARSENAL.

    THE MIDDLE POWERS INITIATIVE APPROACH REMAINS AN EFFORT TO BUILD A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE NEW AGENDA COALITION COUNTRIES ( BRAZIL, EGYPT, IRELAND, MEXICO, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA AND SWEDEN) AND THE EIGHT NATO STATES THAT VOTED LAST YEAR FOR A NEW AGENDA RESOLUTION CALLING FOR IMPLEMENTING COMMITMENTS ALREADY MADE TO THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY. TRAGICALLY, BRITAIN, FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES ALL VOTED AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION.

    OUR COMMON GOAL IS SIMPLY STATED: “TO EXERT LEVERAGE ON THE NUCLEAR POWERS TO TAKE MINIMUM STEPS TO SAVE THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY IN 2005.” PROSPECTS FOR SUCCESS ARE NOT GOOD, BECAUSE OF THE DIRE STATE OF LONG-STANDING TEDIOUSLY NEGOTIATED INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS AND THE PRESENT INDIFFERENCE AMONG NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES TO THEIR DECLINE OR DEMISE.

    ALL OF US AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, FROM EISENHOWER TO GEORGE BUSH, SR., WERE AVIDLY SEEKING TO RESTRICT AND REDUCE NUCLEAR ARSENALS – SOME MORE THAN OTHERS. THIS WAS ONE OF MY HIGHEST PRIORITIES. SO FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE NO SINCERE EFFORTS UNDERWAY BY ANY OF THE NUCLEAR POWERS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE CRUCIAL GOALS.

    THE MOSCOW TREATY WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE U.S. AND RUSSIA IN 2002 DID NOT MANDATE ANY MEANS OF VERIFICATION, AND “ARMS CUTS” NO LONGER REPRESENT CONFIRMED DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSAL BUT SIMPLE STORAGE, WITH RAPID REDEPLOYMENT UNDERSTOOD TO BE PERMITTED.

    THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS TO BE UPHOLDING ARTICLE VI, BUT YET ASSERTS A SECURITY STRATEGY OF TESTING AND DEVELOPING NEW WEAPONS RE STAR WARS AND THE EARTH PENETRATING “BUNKER BUSTER,” AND HAS THREATENED FIRST USE, EVEN AGAINST NON-NUCLEAR STATES, IN CASE OF “SURPRISING MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS” AND “UNEXPECTED CONTINGENCIES.”

    SOME CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE OBVIOUS:

    • THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES LEFT UNRESOLVED FROM THE TREATY OF MOSCOW. IT SHOULD DEMAND THE SAME STANDARDS OF TRANSPARENCY, VERIFICATION AND IRREVERSIBILITY OF PAST ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS AND PLEDGE TO DISMANTLE AND DISPOSE OF ANY DECOMMISSIONED WEAPONS.
    • “NO FIRST USE” HAS NOW SLIPPED OFF THE AGENDA FOR ALL OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES. RUSSIA RENOUNCED THIS POLICY IN 1993 AND NATO CONTINUES TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DEPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS AS A CORNERSTONE OF ITS POLICY. THE COMMITMENTS AGAINST FIRST USE NEED TO BE RE-ADDRESSED AND HOPEFULLY REWRITTEN AS BOTH INDIA AND PAKISTAN HAVE FOLLOWED THE OLDER NUCLEAR POWERS AND RESERVED THE RIGHT TO STRIKE FIRST FOR THEMSELVES. WHILE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES SHOULD AGREE TO NON-FIRST USE, AS THE SOLE SUPERPOWER THE UNITED STATES SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD ON SUCH ISSUES.
    • THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO DE-EMPHASIZE THE ROLE OF ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN NATO AND POSSIBLY CONSIDER AN END TO THEIR DEPLOYMENT IN WESTERN EUROPE. DESPITE THE EASTWARD EXPANSION OF THE ORGANIZATION, NATO IS KEEPING THE SAME STOCKPILES AND POLICIES AS IT DID WHEN THE IRON CURTAIN DIVIDED THE CONTINENT, AN ODD STANDARD FOR THE WEST’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES TO BE SETTING.
    • BOTH AMERICA AND RUSSIA REMAIN ON HAIR TRIGGER ALERT STATUS. THIS IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO GLOBAL SECURITY AND DRASTICALLY INCREASES THE CHANCES OF AN ACCIDENTAL OR UNPROVOKED LAUNCH. WE MUST REMEMBER THAT A GLOBAL HOLOCAUST IS JUST AS POSSIBLE NOW, THROUGH MISTAKES OR MISJUDGMENTS, AS IT WAS DURING THE DEPTHS OF THE COLD WAR.
    • THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO RETURN TO THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY, BUT IS UNFORTUNATELY MOVING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. THE ADMINISTRATION’S 2005 BUDGET REFERS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, TO A LIST OF TEST SCENARIOS. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO SET; CHINA IS HOLDING OFF ON ITS DECISION REGARDING NUCLEAR TESTING FOLLOWING THE US SENATE’S FAILURE TO RATIFY, AND INDIA AND PAKISTAN ARE ALSO WATCHING AND WAITING.
    • THE ISSUE OF A FISSILE MATERIALS TREATY TO PREVENT THE CREATION AND TRANSPORT OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) AND PLUTONIUM HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ALSO LEAD IN THE CREATION OF SUCH A TREATY WITH FULL VERIFICATION MEASURES.
    • THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFEASIBLE MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD (STAR WARS) HAS ALREADY WASTED A HUGE AMOUNT OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS’ MONEY, IN ADDITION TO THE $40 BILLION SPENT ANNUALLY ON THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THEIR DELIVERY SYSTEMS. THIS FAILED EXPERIMENT HAS BROKEN ITS COMMITMENT TO THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY WITHOUT REPLACING IT WITH A WORKING SUBSTITUTE.
    • AT A MUCH LOWER COST, WE COULD ADDRESS PERHAPS THE WORLD’S GREATEST PROLIFERATION THREAT BY FULLY SECURING RUSSIA’S STOCKPILES.

    NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS AN INCREASING SOURCE FOR INSTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. IRAN HAS REPEATEDLY HIDDEN ITS INTENTIONS TO ENRICH URANIUM WHILE CLAIMING THAT ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BEFORE, BY INDIA, PAKISTAN, AND NORTH KOREA, AND HAS LED TO WEAPONS PROGRAMS IN ALL THREE STATES. IRAN NEEDS TO BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT AND HELD TO ITS PROMISES UNDER THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.

    • THE IRANIAN CASE ALSO REMAINS A PRIMARY EXAMPLE OF THE NEED TO BAN HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM FOR ANY PURPOSE. MEANWHILE, ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE CONTINUES TO EXIST UNACCOUNTED FOR AND ITS REACTOR AT DIMONA IS NOT SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE IAEA BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS NOT SIGNED THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.

    WHILE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS JUSTIFIED IN EXERTING STRONG PRESSURE ON IRAN TO COMPLY WITH THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, THERE IS NO PUBLIC EFFORT OR COMMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OR EUROPE CALLING FOR ISRAEL TO COMPLY WITH THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY OR SUBMIT TO ANY OTHER RESTRAINTS. AT THE SAME TIME, WE FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT A POWERFUL INCENTIVE THIS IS TO IRAN, SYRIA, EGYPT, AND OTHER STATES TO JOIN THE NUCLEAR COMMUNITY.

    THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT SUBJECT THAN THE ONE YOU ARE ADDRESSING, AND ILLOGICAL APPROACHES TO RESOLVING THE PROBLEM THREATEN WORLD PEACE. THE TRAGIC AND UNNECESSARY IRAQI INVASION WAS BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM, AND THE THREAT OF WAR IN KOREA IN 1994 WAS NARROWLY AVERTED AFTER KIM IL SUNG ANNOUNCED THE EXPULSION OF INTERNATIONAL INSPECTORS WITH THE PROSPECT OF REPROCESSING NUCLEAR FUEL. SINCE THEN, THE KOREAN SITUATION HAS DETERIORATED BADLY. MORE RECENTLY, HIGH OFFICIALS HAVE MADE PUBLIC INSINUATIONS OF AMERICAN OR ISRAELI MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN IRAN.

    I USED THE WORDS “ILLOGICAL APPROACHES” BECAUSE THE LAUNCHING OR THREAT OF MILITARY INVASIONS BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY BECAUSE THE FIVE HISTORIC NUCLEAR POWERS, PAKISTAN, INDIA, AND ISRAEL REFUSE TO INITIATE OR RESPECT RESTRAINTS ON THEMSELVES WHILE, AS BRAZIL HAS DESCRIBED IT, “RAISING HERESY CHARGES AGAINST THOSE WHO WANT TO JOIN THE SECT.” THIS IS, INDEED, AN IRRATIONAL APPROACH.

    IN CLOSING, LET ME SAY THAT YOUR SUSTAINED, COURAGEOUS, AND SOMETIMES FRUSTRATING EFFORTS ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE. WE AT THE CARTER CENTER ARE EAGER TO HELP WITH YOUR WORTHY CAUSE.

    Jimmy Carter is former president of the United States. This speech was presented at a meeting of the Middle Powers Initiative, “Atlanta Consultation II: On the Future of the NPT,” held at The Carter Center, January 26-28, 2005.

  • Just War — Or A Just War?

    Originally published in the New York Times

    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.

  • Back to the Framework

    There is an eerie case of deja vu in Korea. Nearly nine years ago, President Kim Il Sung expelled international inspectors and threatened to process plutonium from spent fuel at an old graphite-moderated nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. The Clinton administration had rejected negotiations with North Korea, was contemplating a military strike to destroy the nuclear facility and was seeking U.N. Security Council economic sanctions. The North Koreans announced that such sanctions would be considered an act of war. It was clear the United States and South Korean militaries could prevail, but there would be massive casualties from the formidable ground forces of North Korea.

    As now, the isolated and economically troubled nation was focused on resolving basic differences with the United States. Deeply suspicious and perhaps paranoid, the North Koreans were demanding assurances against a nuclear attack and opportunities for normal bilateral relations.

    At the invitation of Kim Il Sung, and with the approval of the White House, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated directly with the man known as the “Great Leader.” He agreed to freeze the nuclear situation at Yongbyon and permit international inspectors to monitor the agreement. In return, the United States was to pledge that nuclear weapons would not be used against North Korea and that two modern light-water reactors would be built to replace the Yongbyon facility. In the meantime, a monthly supply of fuel oil would help provide electrical power. The subsequent death of Kim Il Sung, who was replaced by his son, Kim Jong Il, interfered with the more rapid timetable that we envisioned, but these nuclear proposals were accepted officially in the Agreed Framework, also involving South Korea and Japan.

    Kim Il Sung wanted to discuss long-term issues, with the goal of achieving normal relations between the Koreas and with America. He agreed to an immediate summit meeting with South Korea’s president to discuss cross-border visitation among Korean families and the implementation of general principles adopted in 1992 regarding reunification. His suggestions for future talks with the United States included cooperation in recovering the remains of U.S. soldiers, a step-by-step reduction of Korean armed forces to 100,000 men on each side, with U.S. troops to be reduced in the same proportion, withdrawal of long-range artillery and other aggressive military forces from near the demilitarized zone, and mutual inspections to ensure the de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

    Although the promised light-water reactors were not built, substantial progress was made between North Korea and the United States, illustrated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s successful discussions in Pyongyang.

    The Bush administration brought a change in relationship with both Koreas.

    Rejection of the “sunshine policy,” which had earned the Nobel Peace Prize for South Korean President Kim Dae Jung; announcements that North Korea, like Iraq and Iran, was part of an “axis of evil”; public statements that the new “Great Leader” was loathed as a “pygmy” who deliberately starved his own people, that America was prepared to fight two wars at the same time, and that our missile defense system was a shield against North Korea — all this helped cause many in that country to assume that they were next on America’s hit list after Iraq.

    With evidence that Pyongyang was acquiring enriched uranium, in direct violation of the Agreed Framework, President Bush announced that there would be no discussions with North Korea until after its complete rejection of a nuclear explosives program, and the monthly shipments of fuel oil were terminated.

    Now, once again, international inspectors have been expelled, and the North Koreans have announced they will no longer be bound by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or an agreement to forgo testing of ballistic missiles. This is a serious threat to regional and world peace. North Korea has offered inspectors from the United States access to its nuclear sites to confirm that they are not developing weapons, but only complete international monitoring can determine whether they have decided to develop a nuclear arsenal or are using threats as a ploy to promote bilateral agreements with the United States.

    It is clear that the world community cannot permit the North Koreans to develop a nuclear arsenal. They must be convinced that they will be more secure without nuclear weapons, and that normal diplomatic and economic relations with the United States are possible.

    The announced nuclear policies of North Korea and the American rejection of direct talks are both contrary to regional and global interests. Unfortunately, both sides must save face, even as the situation deteriorates dangerously.

    To resolve this impasse, some forum — perhaps convened by Russia or China — must be found within which these troubling differences can be resolved. The principles of the Agreed Framework of 1994 can be reconfirmed, combined with North Korea’s full and verifiable compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a firm U.S. declaration of nonaggression against North Korea, so long as all agreements are honored.

    Then perhaps the more far-reaching proposals discussed with Kim Il Sung can be implemented and a permanent peace can come to the reconciled Koreas.
    *Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

  • The Troubling New Face of America

    Originally Published in the Washington Post

    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