Subject: EEE会議（対イラク戦争：カーター元大統領の反対意見）
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:40:51 +0900
From: "kkaneko" <kkaneko@eagle.ocn.ne.jp>

各位殿

「ただの戦争か、正義の戦争か？」(Just War--or a Just War?) 、こ
れは、本日のNew York Timesに載ったカーター元大統領の署名論文の表題です。　こ
の中で、敬虔なクリスチャンである元大統領は、今次対イラク戦争は宗教的な意味で
も「正義の戦争」の要件に欠けるとして、つよく非難しております。　全文は以下の
とおりです。
金子熊夫
*********************************************
Just War ・or a Just War?

By JIMMY CARTER
TLANTA ・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.