by Jimmy Carter
There is sometimes encouraging public concern about excessive leniency in civilian courts toward rapists and a lack of concern about victims. It has been demonstrated in Montana, when a fifty-four-year-old teacher, Stacey Rambold, raped one of his fourteen-year-old students, who subsequently committed suicide. Rambold was initially ordered to complete a sexual offender treatment program. However, when Rambold violated the terms of the program, he was brought back to court for sentencing by District Judge G. Todd Baugh. At the sentencing hearing, the judge stated that the rape victim was “older than her chronological age” and was “probably as much in control of the situation” as her rapist, and sentenced Rambold to fifteen years, but suspended all but thirty days to be served in prison. The judge’s action is alleged to have violated a Montana state law specifying a minimum of two years’ imprisonment for this offense. Members of the National Organization for Women filed a complaint with the Montana Judicial Standards Commission, which has the power to sanction jurists. Petitions with over 140,000 signatures accompanied their complaint calling for removal of the judge from the bench. This altercation has not yet been resolved.
Rape trials are extremely sensitive, and care must be taken in making any kind of executive declaration. One unexpected impediment to the all too rare prosecution of accused rapists in the military occurred when President Barack Obama, as commander-in-chief, made a justified comment in May 2013 that those who commit sexual assault should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, and dishonorably discharged.” Almost immediately more than a dozen pending cases of sexual assault were challenged by both judges and defense lawyers on the grounds that there had been “unlawful command influence,” prejudicing the chance for a fair trial for accused rapists. A former judge advocate general of the Army and dean of a law school in Kansas said, “His remarks were more specific than I’ve ever heard from a commander-in-chief. When the commander-in-chief says they will be dishonorably discharged, that’s a pretty specific message. Every military defense counsel will make a motion about this.” As predicted, during the following month charges were dismissed and judges ruled against discharge in cases at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, and in two cases in Hawaii. There have been defense motions with the same allegation in a number of other cases on which final judicial decisions have not yet been made. I remember similar cases that involved the same jurisdictions when I was in the White House, but not being a lawyer I was warned repeatedly by my legal advisors against any interference, no matter how well-intentioned, that might prejudice a jury.
These continuing and largely unresolved sexual crimes in the universities and military branches of America are vivid and disturbing indications of how far we still have to go in protecting some of our most vulnerable citizens. There is a strong reluctance by responsible leaders to admit that such abuses exist within their institutions, and many victims are hesitant about becoming involved in seeking justice, with the prospect of further embarrassment and failure to see the perpetrators punished. Full use of Title IX restraints in educational institutions and action by the Congress regarding abuses in the military can help to reduce these offenses and set an example for other nations.
6 | VIOLENCE AND WAR
One of the first projects adopted by The Carter Center was to identify and honor the world’s foremost contributor to human rights each year. An accompanying award of $100,000 was made possible by the generosity of Dominique de Menil, an heiress of the fortune derived from the world’s largest petroleum services company, Schlumberger Limited. The ceremonies for the Carter-Menil Human Rights Prize were usually at The Carter Center or the Rothko Chapel in Houston and included an address by Nelson Mandela or another invited guest. I had this honor for the first ceremony, and Dominique asked that I speak about war being the greatest cause of human suffering and abuse, especially of women, children, and others who are innocent and defenseless.
This brought back memories of my early career and my inauguration week at the White House, when Rosalynn and I had a series of receptions for special groups. We were most favorably impressed when the commissioned and noncommissioned military officers came through the receiving line. I was not surprised that, unlike other guests, their comments frequently referred to a hope or prayer for peace. As a naval officer I had been fully prepared for armed combat and believed that by participating in deterring military action against my country I was helping to maintain peace. I had given a lot of thought, both then and when I was serving in elective public office with enormous influence, to the conditions under which it would be appropriate to go to war. My training in military history taught me that in more modern warfare, when there are no clearly defined battle lines in combat as there were in the American Civil War or World War I, it is impossible to discriminate between military and civilian casualties.
When is a war justified? I attempted to answer this question in my speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony as the United States was preparing to launch a second war in Iraq. I did not know at the time that the American president and the British prime minister had decided almost a year earlier to find a justification for the invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, with the invasion imminent, I wanted to address the military action by reiterating the ancient Christian standards for armed combat, and I prepared this op-ed for publication in the New York Times:
Just War, or a Just War?
Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bi-partisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation’s greatness. These 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 (final days) theology.
The preeminent criterion for a just war is that it can only be waged as a last resort, with all non-violent options exhausted. It is obvious that clear alternatives do exist, as previously proposed by our leaders and approved by the United Nations. 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 3000 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 massive bombardment.
Weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, always results in great “collateral damage.” The American field commander, General Franks, is complaining in advance about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques, and private homes.
Violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury 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 divide
d country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the U.N. 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, or China. Although Turkey may still be enticed 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 to be established must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of a panacea of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a successful military invasion will destabilize the region, and that aroused terrorists might detract from the personal safety of our people and the security of our nation. Also, to defy overwhelming world opposition will threaten a deep and permanent fracture of the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to us after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated, and increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought our country to its lowest level of international distrust and antagonism in memory. We will surely decline further in stature if we launch a war in clear defiance of U.N. opposition, but to continue using the threat of our military power to force Iraq’s compliance with all U.N. resolutions—with war as a final option—will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
Despite this and other pleas for constraint, we launched a war based on false premises that devastated Iraq, had no beneficial results, and greatly strengthened radical forces in Iran and throughout the region. A total of 4,487 U.S. soldiers have been killed and, according to the British Lancet, over 600,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians, had died by June 2006. U.S. armed forces continue to be engaged in a war in Afghanistan that is now in its thirteenth year.
There are times when the international community can work in concert to prevent atrocities and when the use of military force is justified. In Libya in 2011 and again in eastern Congo in 2013, concerted global action, approved by the UN, was taken when atrocities were occurring or threatening.
Mothers and women have suffered serious consequences from the war in Iraq. Increased rates of birth defects have, according to our research, been caused by chemical and radiological contaminants derived from depleted uranium munitions. This affects the future of everyone in our city. The international community must recognize the existence of the problem, acknowledge its size and impact, and offer effective solutions. We need immediate measures to clean the environment and provide necessary resources for the diagnosis and treatment of the many cases of congenital deformity (heart defects) that are occurring. Then the international community must focus on the most important goal of preventing more wars and banning the use of prohibited weapons.
DR. SAMIRA ALAANI, PEDIATRICIAN, FALLUJAH HOSPITAL, IRAQ
In 2002 the U.S. president announced a military doctrine of “preventive” war, which justifies armed attack or invasion of another country if it is believed that we might be threatened sometime in the future. The “war on terror” was initiated in response to the horrendous attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and has no end in sight. We have assumed the right to incarcerate foreign nationals at Guantánamo and within the United States for indefinite periods (possibly for life) without a trial or legal charges being brought against them.
Another example of this unprecedented assumption of unilateral authority to take military action is the execution of suspected evildoers, even American citizens, in foreign countries by drones or Special Forces. Human Rights Watch investigated a series of U.S. drone attacks in Yemen and reported in October 2013 that a disturbing number of the people killed were civilians. At the same time, Amnesty International assessed attacks in Pakistan and estimated that there had been as many as 374 drone strikes since 2004. These two human rights organizations reached a similar conclusion: that hundreds of civilians have been killed and that the United States may have violated international law and even committed war crimes. A separate investigation by UN officials found that 2,200 people have been killed by U.S. drones in Pakistan during the past decade, of whom at least six hundred were either civilians or noncombatants. The nonpartisan New America Foundation, which has a reputation for careful analysis, reports that between 336 and 391 civilians have been killed in Pakistan and Yemen. After these revelations, a pledge was made by the president that new policies would be implemented to make civilian casualties almost impossible. But a drone strike in Yemen in December 2013 targeted an eleven-vehicle convoy—many more vehicles than Al Qaeda would typically use—that turned out to be a wedding party traveling to the bride’s home. Top Yemeni officials acknowledged that civilians were killed and awarded compensation to the victims’ families: about $110,000 and 101 Kalashnikov rifles! Such compensation seems to imply that although each death is a tragedy, the total number is not as important as trying to balance America’s status as a champion of human rights with deterring terrorist activity.
This is not a new problem. Secret efforts by the United States to kill foreign leaders was a burning issue while I was running for president in 1976, centered on a U.S. Senate committee study conducted under Senator Frank Church (one of my opponents). Because of aroused public condemnation of the practice, President Gerald Ford prohibited assassinations by any agent of the United States, and I later strengthened this directive. It was clear to me that such a program of assassination, except in cases where the action was absolutely necessary to prevent an imminent attack against our nation, was both immoral and counterproductive.
As information becomes available about the “targeted killing” program, mostly carried out by drone strikes, we are learning that the results may be the opposite of what our government hopes to achieve. Two Yemeni citizens traveled in 2013 to Washington, D.C., one to testify before a Senate Judiciary Committee and the other to meet with policymakers. They both came to seek answers about drone strikes that devastated their villages and families. Faisal bin Ali Jaber was the uncle of an imam who was meeting with Al Qaeda members, trying to persuade them to leave terrorism behind, when he was killed in a drone strike that also killed the Al Qaeda members who must have been the target of the strike. Farea Al-Muslimi, who testified before the Senate committee, had been educated in the United States and was a sort of “goodwill ambassador” to Yemen, seeking to convince Yemenis to work together with the United States to root out Al Qaeda from their country. One week before his testimony his village was struck by a drone missile. He told the senators, who listened intently, that support for Al Qaeda has grown since this attack and their recruiting efforts have been more successful than ever before.
One of our 2013 Human Rights Defenders Forum participants, Mossarat Qadeem of Pakistan, works with mothers of radicalized youths, with the goal of helping the youths leave Al Qaeda and the Taliban. By appealing to their religious beliefs and a positive interpretation of the Koran, she has helped ninety-two young men return to productive lives. After the drone strikes, however, her job became much more difficult. Many of their relatives regard these radicals as patriotic heroes fighting against an America that is insensitive to their personal needs and national sovereignty.
It is difficult to envision how our country can regain its commitment to human rights if we remain entangled in permanent global warfare, even if it is supposed to be in the shadows. In retaliation for drone strikes in Pakistan, leading politicians there have exposed the identity of our top CIA officials in Islamabad, resulting in their replacement and heightened tensions between our two governments. There is no way to maintain secrecy with the explosion of communications technology and the eagerness of people to speak out about what they consider to be injustice.
International bombing raids and missile attacks on ci
ties engender casualties involving many women, children, and elderly, and in civil wars too it is impossible to concentrate destruction just on soldiers serving in military forces. In addition, there has always been ancillary abuse, especially of women, when the inherent brutality of war tends to remove normal inhibitions that restrain potential rapists and others who assault the weak and vulnerable. This was demonstrated vividly by Japanese soldiers in Korea and China during the 1930s and 1940s and is a source of major concern at this time in eastern Congo and in other areas of combat by militia groups. Even within civilian populations, the acceptance of violence as a normal course of action is a special cause of additional abuse of women and girls.
7 | OBSERVATIONS AS A TRAVELER
My mother was serving in the Peace Corps in India at the age of seventy, contributing her services as a registered nurse. She was stationed in the small village of Vikhroli, near Bombay (now Mumbai), that was owned by the very wealthy and fairly benevolent Godrej family. About twelve thousand people lived there and worked in the various Godrej factories. Most of them had the social status of dalits, or untouchables, and Mama fit into this category because of her work among them, her contact with human feces and other bodily excretions, and her habit of mopping floors and doing other menial work in her own living quarters. She earned a small stipend and was prohibited by Peace Corps rules from receiving money from her family back home.