Fundamental changes are taking place in thehistorical policies of the United States with regard to human rights,our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peaceprocess -- largely without definitive debates (except, at times,within the administration). Some new approaches haveunderstandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions byPresident Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to bedeveloping from a core group of conservatives who are trying torealize long-pent-up ambitions under the cover of the proclaimed waragainst terrorism.
Formerly admired almost universally as thepreeminent champion of human rights, our country has become theforemost target of respected international organizations concernedabout these basic principles of democratic life. We have ignored orcondoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort,while detaining American citizens as "enemy combatants,"incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their beingcharged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. Thispolicy has been condemned by the federal courts, but the JusticeDepartment seems adamant, and the issue is still in doubt. Severalhundred captured Taliban soldiers remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bayunder the same circumstances, with the defense secretary declaringthat they would not be released even if they were someday tried andfound to be innocent. These actions are similar to those of abusiveregimes that historically have been condemned by Americanpresidents.
While the president has reserved judgment, theAmerican people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vicepresident and other top officials that we face a devastating threatfrom Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges to removeSaddam Hussein from office, with or without support from any allies.As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and byresponsible leaders of former administrations and incumbentofficeholders, there is no current danger to the United States fromBaghdad. In the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming Americanmilitary superiority, any belligerent move by Hussein against aneighbor, even the smallest nuclear test (necessary before weaponsconstruction), a tangible threat to use a weapon of mass destruction,or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations would besuicidal. But it is quite possible that such weapons would be usedagainst Israel or our forces in response to an Americanattack.
We cannot ignore the development of chemical,biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is notthe answer. There is an urgent need for U.N. action to forceunrestricted inspections in Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, thishas become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies.Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of state, infact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirableoption.
We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets tothe rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriouslynegotiated international accords.
Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements,the biological weapons convention, environmental protection,anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals havesometimes been combined with economic threats against those who mightdisagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasinglyisolate the United States from the very nations needed to join incombating terrorism.
Tragically, our government is abandoning anysponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians andIsraelis. Our apparent policy is to support almost every Israeliaction in the occupied territories and to condemn and isolate thePalestinians as blanket targets of our war on terrorism, whileIsraeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclavesshrink.
There still seems to be a struggle within theadministration over defining a comprehensible Middle East policy. Thepresident's clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions and tosupport the establishment of a Palestinian state have beensubstantially negated by statements of the defense secretary that inhis lifetime "there will be some sort of an entity that will beestablished" and his reference to the "so-called occupation." Thisindicates a radical departure from policies of every administrationsince 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from occupiedterritories and a genuine peace between Israelis and theirneighbors.
Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to bedominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisionsof the president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that thehistorical and well-founded American commitments prevail: to peace,justice, human rights, the environment and internationalcooperation.
Former president Carter is chairman of the CarterCenter in Atlanta.
© 2002 The WashingtonPost Company