Upcoming Events

National | Miscellaneous

no events match your query!

New Events

National

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link ?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb

offsite link The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?

offsite link What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by

The Saker >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link News Round-Up Sun Feb 02, 2025 00:51 | Will Jones
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Ed West: Grooming Gangs ? Britain?s Chernobyl? Sat Feb 01, 2025 17:00 | Richard Eldred
In Britain, after decades being swept under the rug, the full horror of the grooming gangs is now coming to light. Historian Ed West asks: could the fallout bring down our multicultural regime?
The post Ed West: Grooming Gangs ? Britain?s Chernobyl? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link AstraZeneca Abandons ?450 Million Vaccine Factory in Blow to Reeves Sat Feb 01, 2025 15:00 | Will Jones
AstraZeneca has abandoned?a ?450 million investment in a major UK vaccine plant powered by renewables?in a blow to Rachel Reeves who vowed this week to "kick-start economic growth".
The post AstraZeneca Abandons ?450 Million Vaccine Factory in Blow to Reeves appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Norway?s Threat to Cut Off the UK Leaves Labour?s Net Zero Plans in Tatters Sat Feb 01, 2025 13:00 | Will Jones
As Norway threatens to cut off the UK from electricity at times of low wind speeds, it's a sign of a growing energy nationalism globally that leaves Labour's short-sighted Net Zero plans in tatters.
The post Norway’s Threat to Cut Off the UK Leaves Labour’s Net Zero Plans in Tatters appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Miliband Accused of Breaking Ministerial Code Over Approval of Dale Vince Solar Farm Sat Feb 01, 2025 11:00 | Will Jones
Ed Miliband has been accused of breaking the Ministerial Code after his department approved an application for a solar farm owned by?the millionaire Labour donor Dale Vince.
The post Miliband Accused of Breaking Ministerial Code Over Approval of Dale Vince Solar Farm appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N?118 Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:57 | en

offsite link 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:16 | en

offsite link Misinterpretations of US trends (1/2), by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jan 28, 2025 06:59 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter #117 Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:54 | en

offsite link The United States bets its hegemony on the Fourth Industrial Revolution Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:26 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Just War - or a Just War? By Jimmy Carter

category national | miscellaneous | news report author Sunday March 09, 2003 15:31author by Jimmy Carter Report this post to the editors

.

March 9, 2003
Just War — or a Just War?
By JIMMY CARTER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

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.

author by Sheltapublication date Sun Mar 09, 2003 18:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jimmy, if the 'enormous political and economic' pressure of the U.S. on the UN Security Council succeeds in coercing the majority, is the war then justified?

author by aunty partypublication date Sun Mar 09, 2003 18:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

but i don't think it was really him that posted it..

author by USA Supporterpublication date Mon Mar 10, 2003 01:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If Carter were President Americans would be kneeling five times a day by now.

This inept moron disgraced the US in his time as president.

author by kokomeropublication date Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Learn your history USA supporter.

The "disgracing" of Carter was arranged by Reagan, Bush and the Israelis!

Jimmy Carter went on, despite this attempt to discredit him, to a distinguished career in international diplomacy!

Related Link: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
author by USA Supporterpublication date Mon Mar 10, 2003 13:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You better post me a link to incontrovertible proof of your conspiracy because I'm not wading through all that shit.

Why do all you conspiracy theorists publish pages so densely packed with guff that a normal person just doesn't know what's what.

Just tell it straight.

author by kokomeropublication date Mon Mar 10, 2003 16:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Here from that well known right-wing source the BBC:

"Iran delayed the release of the hostages until after the new president, Ronald Reagan, was sworn in."

Note the word delayed! Of course the BBC are a part of the anti-US consipracy ... yeah right, keep taking the pills!

Related Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2296467.stm
author by USA Supporterpublication date Tue Mar 11, 2003 04:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Is that your proof? The use of the word delayed? Hardly proof of colaboration between Iran and the Reagan administration. You're desperately reading between the lines.

Send me something that makes me sit up.

author by kokomeropublication date Tue Mar 11, 2003 15:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

From www.whitehousehistory.org hardly a left-of-centre resource ... if this is a coincidence USA supporter then pigs can fly!

"After the inauguration, a Secret Service agent pushed through the crowd at the U.S. Capitol to tell former president Jimmy Carter that at 12:33 p.m. the first plane carrying the hostages had taken off from Tehran, and the second one had left nine minutes later. President Ronald Reagan got the word at an inaugural luncheon. It was the first official announcement he would make to the American people. The hostages, on the 444th day of their captivity, were set free. The republic rejoiced!"

Read the remainder if your gnat-like attention-span, no doubt developed while channel zapping US-approved media for soundbites, allows.

LESSON 1:

Presidential Transitions - "The Torch is Passed"

Jimmy Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis

Jimmy Carter would say later, "No matter who was with me, we watched the big grandfather clock by the door." Time was running out, for it was Tuesday, January 20, 1981. The scene was the Oval Office. In just hours this president would leave it for good, and a new leader, Ronald Reagan, would move in. As the clock ticked the time away, Carter tried to resolve a crisis that had almost destroyed his presidency. He was close, very close, and as he said, "At stake were the lives of 52 precious human beings who had been imprisoned in Iran for 444 days–and almost 12 billion dollars of Iranian assets." 1

Prelude

The beginnings of this crisis preceded Jimmy Carter’s term by almost thirty years. For that long, the United States had provided political support and, more recently, massive military assistance to the government of the shah of Iran. Iran was important because it provided oil to the industrial West and separated the Soviet Union from the Persian Gulf and the oil states. The United States had an enormous stake in keeping it stable and independent. By 1979, however, when Carter had been in office three years, the shah was in trouble, reaping the harvest of years of brutal and unpopular policies, including the use of secret police that controlled dissent with arbitrary arrests and torture.2 It was clear that the shah had lost the support of his people, but the president hoped a coalition of the moderate opponents might be formed. The stability of the country, though, was being threatened by a religious fanatic, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who did not like the shah’s efforts to modernize and Westernize a fiercely religious, fundamentalist society. In January 1979, the shah fled into exile, and the theocratic regime of Khomeini took power.



Prelude (continued)

There was little informed understanding in the U.S. government about the political implications of this fundamentalist regime. Gary Sick, who was on the National Security staff, recalled a meeting in which Vice President Walter Mondale asked the Central Intelligence Agency director Stansfield Turner, "What the hell is an ‘Ayatollah’ anyway." Turner said he wasn’t sure he knew.3 In the beginning, the Carter administration made some effort to establish a relationship with the new government, but by late 1979 it seemed futile. Up until this crisis, few Americans seemed aware of the deep resentments that many Iranian people continued to harbor toward the United States, a country they considered a symbol of Western intrusion into their society.4 Part of the problem stemmed from the desire of the shah, in October 1979, to come to New York City for cancer treatment. Many Iranians remembered a time in 1953 when the prime minister of Iran had challenged the authority of the shah, who in turn, fled the country. However, with the help of a CIA-supported coup, the monarch’s power was restored.5 Now Carter understood that if he allowed the deposed shah to come to the United States., Khomeini’s government would interpret the move as another example of the West’s arrogant interference in Iran’s affairs. Though Carter understood it was a politically volatile decision, he permitted the shah to come, based on a long alliance and "humanitarian principle." American diplomats in Iran met with the prime minister of the Ayatollah’s government to test reaction to the president’s decision. Though deeply opposed to this U.S. move, the prime minister gave assurances that the Iranian government would protect the safety of diplomatic personnel in Tehran.

President Carter announces sanctions against Iran in the White House Press Room Days later, on November 4, a mob of 3,000 militants invaded the American embassy in Tehran, taking sixty-six diplomats and military personnel as hostages. The more moderate Iranian prime minister resigned in protest, and Khomeini was in full control. The militants demanded a return of the shah in exchange for the hostages. In the meantime, despite the fact that the Carter administration had arranged for the shah to leave the United States for Panama, the crisis continued unabated. In April 1980, after months of negotiations failed to result in the release of the hostages, the United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Carter approved a hostage rescue mission by an elite paramilitary unit, the American commandos led by Colonel Charles Beckwith.6 It was a dismal failure. Several military helicopters broke down in the desert, and eight commandos died when two aircraft collided during the hasty retreat. The abortive mission seemed to many Americans a symbol of U.S. military weakness in the post-Vietnam era. Carter’s popularity plunged to 20 percent, even lower than Nixon’s during the Watergate scandal.7

The Iranian hostage crisis contributed greatly to Jimmy Carter’s loss of the presidency in the 1980 election. Americans had lost confidence in their leader. It wasn’t difficult. Each night television newscasts relayed images of angry anti-American mobs outside the embassy in Tehran, shouting "Death to America," "Death to Carter."8 The creation of the television program, Nightline, devoted strictly to discussion of the crisis, was a blatant reminder of Carter’s failure to secure the hostages’ release. Each night TV news commentators posted the number of days the hostages had been held in humiliating, terrifying captivity, their president impotent in finding a way to bring them home. "This is the 325th day of the Iranian hostage crisis," the journalists would say, and on and on it went. Election day was the anniversary of the seizure, an irony that wasn’t lost on the American people, who voted for Ronald Reagan by large margins.

Now the clock was ticking inexorably toward the last moment of Carter’s time in office. He would later say that in those last weeks, the return of the hostages was almost an obsession with him. In his memoir, Keeping Faith, he explained:

Of course, their lives, safety, and freedom were the paramount considerations, but there was more to it. I wanted to have my decisions vindicated. It was very likely that I had been defeated and would soon leave office as President because I had kept these hostages and their fate at the forefront of the world’s attention, and had clung to a cautious and prudent policy in order to protect their lives during the preceding fourteen months. Before God and my fellow citizens, I wanted to exert every ounce of my strength and ability during these last few days to achieve their liberation.9

It seemed within reach. After months of negotiations the United States had agreed to release several billion dollars in Iranian gold and bank assets, frozen in American banks just after the seizure of the embassy. The government of Iran, now involved in a war with neighboring Iraq, was desperate for money and therefore seemed willing to release the hostages.10 The Iranians refused to communicate directly with the president, or any other American, so Algeria had agreed to act as an intermediary. This arrangement slowed down the negotiating process. As Carter recalled, "The Iranians, who spoke Persian, would talk only with the Algerians, who spoke French. Any question or proposal of mine had to be translated twice as it went from Washington to Algiers to Tehran, and then the answers and counterproposals had to come back to me over the same slow route."11 Much of the money involved was being held in overseas branches of twelve American banks, so Carter, his cabinet, and staff were constantly on the phone to London, Istanbul, Bonn, and other world capitals to work out the financial details.

Time Crunch


Jimmy Carter had come back to the Oval Office from a "working weekend" at Camp David that Sunday, January 18. Except for a few breaks, he remained in that office until fifteen minutes before the Reagans arrived to begin the inaugural ceremonies. Every force within the government that Carter controlled was poised to accomplish the mission, and now it seemed possible. Carter had already talked to personnel at the U. S. military hospital in Wiesbaden, West Germany, where the hostages would stay for a few days before "re-entry" into the United States. The president hoped to greet them there before his term was out.

President Carter in the Oval Office during the hostage crisis Then came a series of small, nerve-racking crises that slowed down the process. At one time that last Sunday, Lloyd Cutler, one of the White House attorneys, told the president there was a delay in the transfer of assets–the Federal Reserve Bank of New York did not have its part of the money! Fortunately, funds were shifted among the reserve banks and the problem was solved. Another difficulty concerned the time difference between Washington and Tehran. Because of the war with Iraq, the Iranian officials had blackouts of airport lights. This meant that once it got dark in Iran (about 9:30 a.m. Washington time), even if the deal had been sealed, the Algerian pilots would not take off until dawn. Thus, if the departure time passed, everyone understood that it would be another eight to ten hours before anything could happen. Work continued through a long night. About 2:00 a.m., the president ordered blankets from the White House steward, and he and Cutler each stretched out on a couch to rest while they waited for news from the negotiations.12 Sometime in the early morning, word came that the planes were on the runway in Tehran, and the hostages had been taken to the vicinity of the airport. The Algerians had even agreed to depart after dark if it was absolutely necessary. Finally, the phone call came through. "We have a deal," Jimmy Carter said, beaming. Someone popped a bottle of champagne. At 4:44 a.m. Carter went to the press briefing room to announce that with the help of Algeria the United States and Iran had reached an agreement.13 Certain "implementation" steps in the agreement needed to be settled, and the hostages would be free.

Then came another delay. The Algerian negotiator sent word that the Iranian bank officials did not agree with the terms of accountability in the banking agreements. They wouldn’t cooperate. The planes were returned to their standby position. Hours passed, and still no word came that the problem had been resolved. A Carter aide had calculated that the president would have to leave Washington no later than 2:00 p.m. Monday afternoon if he wanted to see the hostages in Wiesbaden and be back in time for the inauguration. Hamilton Jordan, White House chief of staff, asked the president if he had to go to the inauguration. Carter reminded Jordan that the inauguration was a symbol of the continuity of the government. Yes, despite the importance of the negotiations, he did need to attend! The staff soon understood that Carter’s trip to Germany to greet hostages would not occur until after the inauguration. The president switched from worrying about seeing the hostages before the end of the term, to worrying that the entire negotiation process could disintegrate. Carter talked with Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who was in communication with the Algerian foreign minister. He told Christopher to warn the Algerians that the Carter presidency would end the next day at noon. "After that," he said, "neither Christopher nor I could speak for the United States, and the entire negotiating process might have to begin anew."14

In the wee hours of Tuesday, January 20, came some promising news. The processes required to move the money through the proper channels were almost completed. Only a few small details were to be ironed out. At 6:35 a.m., Christopher sent a message: "All escrows were signed at 6:18. The Bank of England has certified that they hold $7.977 billion, the correct amount." Now the bank would send word to Algiers by telex or phone, which would notify Iran. At 7:45 a.m., with messages still coming in fast and furious, Rosalyn Carter brought her husband a razor, telling him, "You need a shave." The barber was with her, to give Carter’s hair a trim before the inaugural ceremonies. Rosalyn remembered that as she was leaving the Oval Office to go back upstairs, Jimmy answered one more call, and then yelled out for everyone to hear: "Flight 133 is loaded and ready for take-off." Once more, there came elation, cheers, and hugs. At 8:04 a.m., Algeria confirmed that the bank certification was complete, and the Algerians were notifying Iran. That was it! Every step was complete. Per the agreement, Iran would move to "immediately bring about the safe departure of the 52 nationals detained in Iran."15


Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter celebrate the news that the hostages will be released

Still Carter lingered in the Oval Office. Word had not yet come that the hostages had left the ground in Tehran. At 9:45 a.m., Christopher called one last time and told Carter takeoff would be by noon, but, as a security measure, the Iranian officials did not want the word released until the hostages were out of Iranian airspace. President Carter said the United States would comply. Then Rosalyn came to the door, and said, "Jimmy, the Reagans will be here in fifteen minutes. You will have to put on your morning clothes and greet them."16

After the inauguration, a Secret Service agent pushed through the crowd at the U.S. Capitol to tell former president Jimmy Carter that at 12:33 p.m. the first plane carrying the hostages had taken off from Tehran, and the second one had left nine minutes later. President Ronald Reagan got the word at an inaugural luncheon. It was the first official announcement he would make to the American people. The hostages, on the 444th day of their captivity, were set free. The republic rejoiced!


Related Link: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/02_learning/subs_9/frame_print_901b_c.html
Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2025 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy