| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2002 9:22 am Post subject: Former President Jimmy Carter Wins Nobel Peace Prize (2002) |
| washingtonpost.com
The Troubling New Face of America
By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, September 5, 2002; Page A31
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.
new york times
April 21, 2002
America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace
By JIMMY CARTER
TLANTA — In January 1996, with full support from Israel and responding to the invitation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Carter Center helped to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well organized, open and fair. In that election, 88 members were elected to the Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own government, with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.
When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused to accept this proposal. Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace and hope, and there was no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations. The legal status of the Palestinian people has not changed since then, but their plight has grown desperate.
Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.
There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he was free and enjoying the full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted control over Hamas and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their goal. Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare denunciations of violence have been spasmodic, often expressed only in English and likely insincere. He may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.
Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens. The abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they discredit the Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.
The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of Israelis from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many Israelis, having been accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel, responded by establishing full diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of the Suez canal. This set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other Arab nations. Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.
East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy places, and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number of displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay this cost.
With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international community, the United States government can bring about such a solution to the existing imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and balanced that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond with approval, and an international force can monitor compliance with agreed peace terms, as was approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian territory.
There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion. One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war, and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.
The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal diplomatic efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.
Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter Center, which works worldwide to advance peace and human health. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2002 9:44 am Post subject: Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize |
| http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/11/nobel.peace/index.html
Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 5:32 AM EDT (0932 GMT)
Carter came close to winning in 1978 for his Middle East peace efforts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSLO, Norway (CNN) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his work for peace and human rights around the world.
Carter, Democrat president from 1977 to 1981, has won praise for tireless work as an ex-president in trying to bring peace to everywhere from Haiti to North Korea.
He has been repeatedly nominated for the prize, worth $1 million, and came close to winning in 1978 when he brought Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat together at Camp David and his presidency faltered and ultimately failed under the weight of the Iran hostage crisis.
The peace prize announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday caps a week of prizes, with the awards for literature, medicine, physics, chemistry and economics already announced in Sweden's capital, Stockholm.
Carter won from a record field of 156 candidates -- 117 individuals and 39 groups -- vying for the prize named after Alfred Nobel, a Swedish philanthropist and inventor of dynamite. The list remains secret for 50 years, but those who nominate sometimes announce their choice.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, also a candidate for the prize, was one of the first people to congratulate Carter and said he was happy to be among the candidates.
"After the 23 years of war and disaster in Afghanistan, to be known for peace is really nice and enjoyable, but I believe President Carter deserved it," Karzai said, minutes after the official announcement.
"[Carter] had many, many years of work for peace in a very concerted way, in a very human way, and I congratulate him, he deserved it better than I. I'll try for next year," Karzai added.
Born James Earl Carter Jr., he was universally "Jimmy," a politician with the common touch right down to his blue jeans in the Oval Office on weekends and a fondness for the music of Bob Dylan.
After winning the 1976 race for the White House, the nation's 39th president and born-again Christian promised Americans in his inaugural address he would remain "close to" them, quoting a passage from the Bible:
"But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."
Then, he shunned the bulletproof limo and walked the 1.5 miles from the Capitol to the White House. "We got out of the car, it was so cold ... but I was numb from the excitement anyway. I don't think I even realised it was cold while I was walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. It was great!" remembers former first lady Rosalynn Carter.
When Jimmy Carter entered the world on October 1, 1924, his lineage may have hinted at future greatness but not much else did.
Researchers have traced Carter's ancestry back to British nobility, but in 1924 his father ran a farm supply store in Plains, Georgia, and was a peanut farmer and a state legislator. His mother was a nurse at the local hospital.
Carter did his chores on the family farm, got good grades in school, attended Georgia Tech, and was appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy.
After he graduated in 1946, he married his sister Ruth's best friend, Rosalynn Smith. They had three boys and a girl. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | | | Uncle Joe | | Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:59 pm Post subject: GIVE WAR A CHANCE |
| A prize for peace
Either of the two Bushes would have been more deserving of the Nobel award than Carter
By Michael Kelly
WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, explains committee secretary Geir Lundestad, intended to indicate its keen support for the former American president’s criticism of the current American president’s warlike ways. “But I am not too optimistic that we will have any influence on President Bush,” Lundestad added.
I AM NOT too optimistic that I will have any influence with the Nobel Committee, but on the grounds that one good futile gesture deserves another, I would like to suggest a more fitting recipient for this year’s peace prize — George H.W. Bush or his son, George W. Bush. Seriously.
The Nobel Peace Prize is intended to go to the individual who has done the most to further peace in the past year, although sometimes, as with Carter, the prize is more for lifetime achievement. By “peace,” the Nobellians do not, of course, mean any peace. The prize is not intended to honor the peace of the jackboot, the absence of conflict that is sustained by internal police forces and occupying armies. If such peace was worthy of honor, the committee would each year face a choice made impossible by the sheer number of worthy contenders.
NO LASTING PEACE
No, what the Nobel Committee surely means by “peace” is a “good peace”: just peace, humane peace — peace that diminishes rather than increases human suffering, peace that frees people from death and terror and oppression.
Carter ‘s great achievement as president was to broker a peace agreement in 1979 between Egypt and Israel. This was a good thing, but it did not actually result in peace.
And in these terms, what, exactly, has Carter done? His great achievement as president, in this regard, was to broker a peace agreement in 1979 between Egypt and Israel. This was a good thing, but it did not — 617 Israelis dead these past two years, 1,909 Palestinians — actually result in peace.
As an ex-president perpetually and self-proclaimedly in the pursuit of peace, Carter has put in more amiable sofa time with more despots than anyone except perhaps Kofi Annan (who, come to think of it, was last year’s peace prize winner). But what has he actually achieved — as measured in concrete terms such as the downfall of tyrannies, the liberation of peoples, actual victories over war and war’s fruit, subjugation? Very little. (See wretched, oppressed, dictator-ruled Haiti before Carter’s 1994 peace mission; see wretched, oppressed, dictator-ruled Haiti today.)
A CASE FOR THE BUSHES
Now, consider the belligerent Bushes. The first President Bush marshaled an army that reversed the gains of an illegal war and liberated 2 million people from a spectacularly vicious foreign occupation. This was not a small or ambivalent or symbolic accomplishment. One day, occupied Kuwait was a place of grand-scale, state-sanctioned murder, rape, torture and theft. The next day it was not; it was, again, a country at peace. The sole reason for this peace was the war brought by the American president.
The second President Bush marshaled an army that ousted the foreign-backed occupiers of Afghanistan and destroyed a tyranny whose entire philosophy and every action was a violation of all that is basic to human rights. Now, Bush proposes war again — to overthrow what the New Republic, in its current cover story “The Liberal Case for War,” calls “one of the most internally violent and repressive regimes on Earth.” This the Nobellians find morally objectionable.
Such is the mind of the reactionary. There are many thoughts that are unthinkable to the ideologically bankrupt establishment-left that the Nobellians exemplify. Paramount among these is that war — or, to be precise, war or the threat of war sponsored by the United States — has been the modern world’s great deliverer of peace. But there the truth sits.
WAR AND PEACE
Name, in the past hundred years, a single important triumph for peace and for liberal democracy that was purchased by the jaw-jawing the Nobellians so admire. No rush, take your time.
Now, look at what American war-war (and the threat of American war-war) won: the defeat of the fascist attempt to rule the world; the defeat of the communist attempt to rule the world; the consequent rebuilding of a Europe protected by American arms into a democratic and peaceful continent for the first time in history; the rebuilding of an American-protected Japan into a democratic and peaceful nation for the first time in history; the emergence of a world in which, for the first time in history, the peaceful values of liberal democracy are the ascendant norm.
No, no, it remains unthinkable. To imagine American force was a force for good, one would have to imagine America was a force for good. And this, the Bourbons of Oslo will never, never do.
GIVE WAR A CHANCE. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 3:40 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | One day, occupied Kuwait was a place of grand-scale, state-sanctioned murder, rape, torture and theft. The next day it was not; it was, again, a country at peace. The sole reason for this peace was the war brought by the American president.
The second President Bush marshaled an army that ousted the foreign-backed occupiers of Afghanistan and destroyed a tyranny whose entire philosophy and every action was a violation of all that is basic to human rights. |
What complete and utter crap! Neither Kuwait, nor Afghanistan are countries which are 'at peace'. This article completely ignores the human rights abuses that Kuwait continues to inflict on its people to this day and it also completely ignores the suffering and murder that the Northern Alliance is inflicting on Afghani people. | | | | Uncle Joe | | Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 4:03 pm Post subject: The truth hurts |
| | Quote: | | What complete and utter crap! Neither Kuwait, nor Afghanistan are countries which are 'at peace'. This article completely ignores the human rights abuses that Kuwait continues to inflict on its people to this day and it also completely ignores the suffering and murder that the Northern Alliance is inflicting on Afghani people. |
The world is not and never has been a Utopia and your idea of peace and harmonious interaction and discourse among all people is the real load of crap. Grow up. 1.8 millions people have returned to Afganistan. The tyranny and midevilism of the Taliban has been mostly eliminated. The war lord exists and always have but even they see that times have changed. There is hope as before there was very little. You just cannot admit the the country is better now than before, wisespread starvation minimalized and it was the war that did it, not your peace loving candle lights hand wringing phoney elightenment and smug conceit that people will see the way through idealism that does not exist.and never has. Afghanistan is better, you're right it is not perfect but definitely an improvement than before. 1.8 million Afgans can't be wrong. The greatest refugee return in 30 years. As to the Kuwaitis, Rome was not built in a day and your nitpicking for a Nirvana is naivete or just plain ideological. Wars through the confrontation do bring change sometimes for the better. You seem incapable of understanding this. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
