[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E18-E19]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PRESIDENT CARTER'S NOBEL LECTURE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 7, 2003

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my 
colleagues to the powerful and eloquent lecture former President Carter 
delivered upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last December.
  With the establishment of the Carter Center in 1982, President Carter 
embraced one of the humanity's loftiest and most widely shared goals--
the alleviation of human suffering. The Carter Center has worked to 
virtually eliminate the crippling Guinea worm disease in Africa and 
treat millions of others who suffer from river blindness and trachoma. 
The Center's efforts to promote peace and democracy throughout the 
world are also well-known, monitoring elections in emerging democracies 
such as Sierra Leone and East Timor while promoting peaceful conflict 
resolution in places like the Sudan.
  There is certainly little doubt that Jimmy Carter has earned the 
title of elder statesman and has become a voice of authority on foreign 
policy issues. His Nobel lecture was an affirmation of the principles 
that have guided his efforts for so many years. He articulated his 
vision of a world sharing the goals of ``peace, freedom, human rights, 
environmental quality, the alleviation of suffering, and the rule of 
law.'' But he also sounded a stern warning, a reminder that we live in 
a dangerous time that requires international cooperation and resolve, 
rather than preemptive unilateral action.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of President 
Carter's Nobel lecture, delivered December 10, 2002, be placed in the 
Record.

                             Nobel Lecture

                           (By Jimmy Carter)

       Your Majesties, Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, 
     Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
       It is with a deep sense of gratitude that I accept this 
     prize. I am grateful to my wife Rosalynn, to my colleagues at 
     The Carter Center, and to many others who continue to seek an 
     end to violence and suffering throughout the world. The scope 
     and character of our Center's activities are perhaps unique, 
     but in many other ways they are typical of the work being 
     done by many hundreds of nongovernmental organizations that 
     strive for human rights and peace.
       Most Nobel laureates have carried out our work in safety, 
     but there are others who have acted with great personal 
     courage. None has provided more vivid reminders of the 
     dangers of peacemaking than two of my friends, Anwar Sadat 
     and Yitzhak Rabin, who gave their lives for the cause of 
     peace in the Middle East.
       Like these two heroes, my first chosen career was in the 
     military, as a submarine officer. My shipmates and I realized 
     that we had to be ready to fight if combat was forced upon 
     us, and we were prepared to give our lives to defend our 
     nation and its principles. At the same time, we always prayed 
     fervently that our readiness would ensure that there would be 
     no war.
       Later, as President and as Commander-in-Chief of our armed 
     forces, I was one of those who bore the sobering 
     responsibility of maintaining global stability during the 
     height of the Cold War, as the world's two superpowers 
     confronted each other. Both sides understood that an 
     unresolved political altercation or a serious misjudgment 
     could lead to a nuclear holocaust. In Washington and in 
     Moscow, we knew that we would have less than a half hour to 
     respond after we learned that intercontinental missiles had 
     been launched against us. There had to be a constant and 
     delicate balancing of our great military strength with 
     aggressive diplomacy, always seeking to build friendships 
     with other nations, large and small, that shared a common 
     cause.
       In those days, the nuclear and conventional armaments of 
     the United States and the Soviet Union were almost equal, but 
     democracy ultimately prevailed because of commitments to 
     freedom and human rights, not only by people in my country 
     and those of our allies, but in the former Soviet empire as 
     well. As president, I extended my public support and 
     encouragement to Andrei Sakharov, who, although denied the 
     right to attend the ceremony, was honored here for his 
     personal commitments to these same ideals.
       The world has changed greatly since I left the White House. 
     Now there is only one superpower, with unprecedented military 
     and economic strength. The coming budget for American 
     armaments will be greater than those of the next fifteen 
     nations combined, and there are troops from the United States 
     in many countries throughout the world. Our gross national 
     economy exceeds that of the three countries that follow us, 
     and our nation's voice most often prevails as decisions are 
     made concerning trade, humanitarian assistance, and the 
     allocation of global wealth. This dominant status is unlikely 
     to change in our lifetimes.
       Great American power and responsibility are not 
     unprecedented, and have been used with restraint and great 
     benefit in the past. We have not assumed that super strength 
     guarantees super wisdom, and we have consistently reached out 
     to the international community to ensure that our own power 
     and influence are tempered by the best common judgment.
       Within our country, ultimate decisions are made through 
     democratic means, which tend to moderate radical or ill-
     advised proposals. Constrained and inspired by historic 
     constitutional principles, our nation has endeavored for more 
     than two hundred years to follow the now almost universal 
     ideals of freedom, human rights, and justice for all.
       Our president, Woodrow Wilson, was honored here for 
     promoting the League of Nations, whose two basic concepts 
     were profoundly important: ``collective security'' and 
     ``self-determination.'' Now they are embedded in 
     international law. Violations of these premises during the 
     last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly 
     demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer 
     Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
       After the second world war, American Secretary of State 
     Cordell Hull received this prize for his role in founding the 
     United Nations. His successor, General George C. Marshall, 
     was recognized because of his efforts to help rebuild Europe, 
     without excluding the vanquished nations of Italy and 
     Germany. This was a historic example of respecting human 
     rights at the international level.
       Ladies and gentlemen:
       Twelve years ago, President Mikhail Gorbachev received your 
     recognition for his preeminent role in ending the Cold War 
     that had lasted fifty 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

[[Page E19]]

     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 Resolution 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, 
     Georgia, 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 ten wealthiest countries are now seventy-five times 
     richer than those who live in the ten 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.

                          ____________________