Ladies and gentlemen, 12 years ago President Mikhail Gorbachev
received your recognition for his preeminent role in ending the
Cold War that had lasted 50 years. But instead of entering a millennium
of peace, the world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place.
The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched
by equal understanding and mutual respect. There is a plethora of
civil wars, unrestrained by rules of the Geneva Convention, within
which an overwhelming portion of the casualties are unarmed civilians
who have no ability to defend themselves. And recent appalling acts
of terrorism have reminded us that no nations, even superpowers,
are invulnerable.
It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis
on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international
consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can
best be done through the United Nations, which Ralph Bunche described
here in this same forum as exhibiting a “fortunate flexibility”—not
merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change,
without violence.
He went on to say: “To suggest that war can prevent war is
a base play on words and a despicable form of warmongering. The
objective of any who sincerely believe in peace clearly must be
to exhaust every honorable recourse in the effort to save the peace.
The world has had ample evidence that war begets only conditions
that beget further war.”
We must remember that today there are at least eight nuclear powers
on earth, and three of them are threatening to their neighbors in
areas of great international tension. For powerful countries to
adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that
can have catastrophic consequences.
If we accept the premise that the United Nations is the best avenue
for the maintenance of peace, then the carefully considered decisions
of the United Nations Security Council must be enforced. All too
often, the alternative has proven to be uncontrollable violence
and expanding spheres of hostility.
For more than half a century, following the founding of the state
of Israel in 1948, the Middle East conflict has been a source of
worldwide tension. At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis,
Egyptians and Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription
for peace: United Nations Resolu-tion 242. It condemns the acquisition
of territory by force, calls for withdrawal of Israel from the occupied
territories, and provides for Israelis to live securely and in harmony
with their neighbors. There is no other mandate whose implementation
could more profoundly improve international relationships.
Perhaps of more immediate concern is the necessity for Iraq to comply
fully with the unanimous decision of the Security Council that it
eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and permit unimpeded access
by inspectors to confirm that this commitment has been honored.
The world insists that this be done.
***
I thought often during my years in the White House of an admonition
that we received in our small school in Plains, Ga., from a beloved
teacher, Miss Julia Coleman. She often said: “We must adjust
to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles.”
When I was a young boy, this same teacher also introduced me to
Leo Tolstoy’s novel, War and Peace. She interpreted
that powerful narrative as a reminder that the simple human attributes
of goodness and truth can overcome great power. She also taught
us that an individual is not swept along on a tide of inevitability
but can influence even the greatest human events.
These premises have been proven by the lives of many heroes, some
of whose names were little known outside their own regions until
they became Nobel laureates: Albert John Lutuli, Norman Borlaug,
Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jody Williams and even
Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa. All of these and others have
proven that even without government power—and often in opposition
to it—individuals can enhance human rights and wage peace,
actively and effectively.
The Nobel prize also profoundly magnified the inspiring global influence
of Martin Luther King Jr., the greatest leader that my native state
has ever produced. On a personal note, it is unlikely that my political
career beyond Georgia would have been possible without the changes
brought about by the civil rights movement in the American South
and throughout our nation. On the steps of our memorial to Abraham
Lincoln, Dr. King said: “I have a dream that on the red hills
of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners
will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.”
The scourge of racism has not been vanquished, either in the red
hills of our state or around the world. And yet we see ever more
frequent manifestations of his dream of racial healing. In a symbolic
but very genuine way, at least involving two Georgians, it is coming
true in Oslo today.
***
I am not here as a public official, but as a citizen of a troubled
world who finds hope in a growing consensus that the generally accepted
goals of society are peace, freedom, human rights, environmental
quality, the alleviation of suffering and the rule of law.
During the past decades, the international community, usually under
the auspices of the United Nations, has struggled to negotiate global
standards that can help us achieve these essential goals. They include:
the abolition of land mines and chemical weapons; an end to the
testing, proliferation and further deployment of nuclear warheads;
constraints on global warming; prohibition of the death penalty,
at least for children; and an international criminal court to deter
and to punish war crimes and genocide. Those agreements already
adopted must be fully implemented, and others should be pursued
aggressively.
We must also strive to correct the injustice of economic sanctions
that seek to penalize abusive leaders but all too often inflict
punishment on those who are already suffering from the abuse.
***
The unchanging principles of life predate modern times. I worship
Jesus Christ, whom we Christians consider to be the Prince of Peace.
As a Jew, he taught us to cross religious boundaries, in service
and in love. He repeatedly reached out and embraced Roman conquerors,
other Gentiles and even the more despised Samaritans.
Despite theological differences, all great religions share common
commitments that define our ideal secular relationships. I am convinced
that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and others can
embrace each other in a common effort to alleviate human suffering
and to espouse peace.
But the present era is a challenging and disturbing time for those
whose lives are shaped by religious faith based on kindness toward
each other. We have been reminded that cruel and inhuman acts can
be derived from distorted theological beliefs, as suicide bombers
take the lives of innocent human beings, draped falsely in the cloak
of God’s will. With horrible brutality, neighbors have massacred
neighbors in Europe, Asia and Africa.
In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the
inhumanity of war, we find it necessary first to dehumanize our
opponents, which is in itself a violation of the beliefs of all
religions. Once we characterize our adversaries as beyond the scope
of God’s mercy and grace, their lives lose all value. We deny
personal responsibility when we plant landmines and, days or years
later, a stranger to us—often a child—is crippled or
killed.
From a great distance, we launch bombs or missiles with almost total
impunity, and never want to know the number or identity of the victims.
***
At the beginning of this new millennium, I was asked to discuss,
here in Oslo, the greatest challenge that the world faces. Among
all the possible choices, I decided that the most serious and universal
problem is the growing chasm between the richest and poorest people
on earth. Citizens of the 10 wealthiest countries are now 75 times
richer than those who live in the 10 poorest ones, and the separation
is increasing every year, not only between nations but also within
them. The results of this disparity are root causes of most of the
world’s unresolved problems, including starvation, illiteracy,
environmental degradation, violent conflict and unnecessary illnesses
that range from Guinea worm to HIV/AIDS.
Most work of the Carter Center is in remote villages in the poorest
nations of Africa, and there I have witnessed the capacity of destitute
people to persevere under heartbreaking conditions. I have come
to admire their judgment and wisdom, their courage and faith, and
their awesome accomplishments when given a chance to use their innate
abilities.
But tragically, in the industrialized world there is a terrible
absence of understanding or concern about those who are enduring
lives of despair and hopelessness. We have not yet made the commitment
to share with others an appreciable part of our excessive wealth.
This is a potentially rewarding burden that we should all be willing
to assume.
***
Ladies and gentlemen, war may sometimes be a necessary evil. But
no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We
will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s
children.
The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness
of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice.
We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together
for peace. We can make these changes—and we must.
Thank you.
This essay was
excerpted from Carter’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,
delivered in Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 10, 2002. A full version of the
address is available at www.cartercenter.org.
|