|
AMBASSADOR NICHOLSON'S REMARKS Palazzo Pallavicini, Rome February 12, 2003 Principessa Pallavicini, Professor de Mattei, Ambassador Sembler, members of the diplomatic corps, Mr. Erdmann, honored guests and friends, thank you all very much for making this evening's gathering possible. Prof. de Mattei first approached me with the idea for this conference late last fall. He was concerned that a lack of understanding about U.S. policy regarding Iraq was driving an unnecessary and potentially damaging wedge between Europe and the United States, and he wanted to take action to bridge this gap of understanding by bringing to Italy an American with in-depth knowledge of U.S. goals and objectives. I agreed with Roberto that such a forum for building understanding would be useful, and I am pleased to welcome to Rome: Dr. Drew Erdmann of the Secretary of State Policy Planning Staff. As a policy planner with responsibilities that encompass the fight vs. terrorism, Dr. Erdmann knows U.S. policy because he helps develop it. My Embassy is delighted that you are able to join us tonight to share your insights on the most vital issue facing the world community today. I want to offer a few comments, as Dr. De Mattei has indicated, to frame the issues currently under discussion between the United States government and the Holy See. The complex political and moral issues raised by Saddam Hussein’s breach of the Ceasefire Agreement he signed in 1991, and his repeated defiance of the international community over the past twelve years, has been the central issue in our discussions with the Holy See in recent months. The media has sought to portray the U.S. and Holy See as being at odds over war – the popular image is – as one poll by a major Italian Catholic magazine framed it: "Are you with the Pope and for peace or with President Bush and for war?" This misses the point, as both men hope for peace, I assure you. More important, this overly simplistic portrayal obscures the fundamental issues in the Iraq debate, which are disarmament, the security of our citizens, and the creation of a stable international order leading to lasting peace. Peace is the goal! The United States, the Holy See, and our Allies in Europe and elsewhere share this goal. The debate is about how best to achieve a just and lasting peace. The Pope has made clear throughout his Pontificate that peace must be built on a foundation of love, justice, truth, and liberty -- the "four pillars of peace," as he call them. Peace cannot be built on a foundation of sand, but on these four solid pillars. So in approaching the issue of Iraq, we have a duty to ask ourselves whether the conditions for genuine peace are present in today’s Iraq. Any objective assessment would leave little doubt that they are not. As Secretary Powell reminded us last week, Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, and on his own citizens, shows no love of others. Instead of justice, we see suppression of the Kurds, with whole families lined up in front of pits in the ground and shot. Instead of truth, we see deception of the international community and a continued and inexplicable passion to develop and hide weapons of mass destruction. Instead of liberty, we see oppression and fear. Hate, injustice, deception, and fear – these are not true foundations for peace. Recognizing the absence of the foundations for true peace, the question the international community faces is how to create from this swamp such foundations needed for lasting peace. Contrary to the simplistic characterizations that the U.S. and the Holy See are at odds on this issue, I have found a broad recognition within the Holy See of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and of the importance of ensuring he does not threaten his neighbors or, through connections with terrorists, the rest of the world. As to how that threat should be addressed, the Holy See's position has been consistent: war should always be a last resort and the international community should take responsibility for addressing the threat. Despite popular misconceptions, this is exactly the position of President Bush. While the Holy See legitimately raises the moral questions to be considered, it is the legitimate authorities with responsibility for the common good, i.e. elected leaders, who must exercise prudential judgment about going to war. Just this week, our two bilateral Embassies hosted here in Rome a series of meetings with moral philosopher Michael Novak. Novak eloquently analyzed how traditional just war theory ought to be applied to the new phenomenon of asymmetrical warfare -- of international terrorists striking "out of the clear blue sky" at the heart of civilization. September 11 proved that many of the ad bellum considerations of just war theory need to be rethought - terror cells, beholden to no nation-state, strike without warning and with devastating consequences for thousands of innocents. At the same time, rogue states develop weapons that can kill tens of thousands. All that remains is the "spark" that brings those two evils together to form an immensely greater evil, threatening whole societies. Sometimes, therefore, a military response is not only justifiable but also a moral obligation when society is confronted with evils of sufficient magnitude. This is basically the challenge confronting President Bush and the rest of the free world. As a leading voice for peace and security, the United States must seek to define a response to that evil, and one that achieves the result we all seek – a foundation for genuine peace. President Bush himself is listening carefully to the moral advice offered by our religious leaders as he forms his prudential judgment on how to respond to this new "asymmetrical" threat. The government he leads is not an amoral player; the President himself is a moral person, and a man of deep faith. At the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month he said, "We can be confident in America's cause in the world. Our nation is dedicated to the equal and undeniable worth of every person. We don't own the ideals of freedom and human dignity… But we do stand up for those ideals, and we will defend them." As Secretary Powell told the Security Council February 5, the nexus of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction poses an unacceptable risk that could kill many thousands of our people. This is a life issue that requires a resolute and united response. It presents us with a new paradigm in which to consider the traditional theories of just war. In our view, the moral response is the one that will help achieve the Pope's four pillars of peace, end the suffering of the Iraqi people, and ensure the safety and dignity of human beings throughout the world. President Bush in his State of the Union address said that we seek to resolve this crisis through persuasion and pressures short of war, but he also said that, "if war comes, we will fight a just war in a just cause, taking care to avoid civilian suffering and being sure to move quickly to provide food, and medicines, and relief to the people of Iraq." If we are forced to go to war, the only morally defensible way is to do exactly what the President of the United States has said. For the people of Iraq are suffering even now, and the rest of us are at risk. Thank you, and with that I would like to yield the floor to my good friend Mel Sembler...
|