|
|
Jimmy Carter: Evaluation
Although Carter's belief in an American foreign policy that was "as decent and as rugged" as the American people was a refreshing change for many voters after Nixon and Vietnam, Carter entered the White House without a clear political mandate. Having defeated Ford by less than two percent, Carter faced a difficult task convincing both Congress and the American people of his new ideology. Initial foreign policy victories made it appear that Carter would pull it off. Unfortunately, several highly publicized failures in the second half of Carter's term, along with domestic concerns, sent his approval rating tumbling to 21 percent, three points lower than Nixon's during the height of Watergate and the lowest approval rating of any president since polling had begun. When Carter entered the White House, the first area he felt he could strike a major blow for human rights was in Panama. The new president immediately began probing his advisors for just how he should proceed with the negotiations. In the months that followed, Carter proved that he at least had the makings of a great negotiator and president. Not only did he bring the initially hostile Panamanians to an agreement that was quite profitable to both nations, but he also overcame opposition. When Carter first submitted the treaties to the Senate, the American public was two-to-one against ratification of the treaties. In the months that followed, Carter and his administration spread the word about the benefits of the treaties and convinced a plurality of Americans to accept the treaties and give the Canal Zone to the Panamanians. The ratification of the Panama Canal treaties exemplified what the Carter administration stood for. Not only did Carter correct what he saw as an injustice, but he also remained open to the American people. Rather than going over the heads of the public and simply wheeling and dealing with senators, Carter took the fight for ratification right to the people and let public outcry push the treaty through. But perhaps Carter‘s proudest moment came when he brought Israeli Prime Minister Begin and Egyptian President Sadat together in Camp David. After the negotiations, critics of Carter, and indeed Carter himself, pointed out that some of the most trying issues of the region, such as the question of an autonomous state for the Palestinians and Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory, remained unresolved. However, Carter's skirting of the major issues was the very thing that allowed for the peace treaty between two nations. During the talks, Carter wisely separated Begin and Sadat and worked toward abroad agreement that would be acceptable to both leaders. If handled properly my Middle East leaders, the treaty provided the framework to end 30 years of hostility between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Even this, one of Carter's greatest accomplishments, proved to have little lasting effect. In May of 1980, Begin and Sadat were once again in conflict when Begin refused to allow self-determination for the Palestinians. The Israeli Prime Minister argued that the Palestinian autonomy called for in the treaty meant limited municipal control, not the full autonomy Sadat and Carter argued for. Although Carter met with both leaders in Washington, Begin refused to budge. After the bitter conflict over the weak language In the treaty, there seemed to be little desire left for compromise of the key issues in the region, namely Israeli security and self-determination for the palestinians. The ineffectiveness of the Camp David Accords weren't to be Carter's only failure in the Middle East. Two incidents, one involving Afghanistan and one Iran, would destroy his credibility with the American people and forever mar his foreign policy record. In December of 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to gain a foothold in the oil rich Middle East. Carter's illogical reaction to the invasion proved totally ineffective. After the invasion, Carter's principal moves were to place a grain embargo on the Soviets and boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Although one could argue that these measures would certainly punish the Soviets for the invasion, Carter had absolutely no intelligence that indicated an embargo or a boycott would convince the Soviets to withdrawal from Afghanistan. Indeed, Carter's own national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who saw the Soviets as a global menace, felt a more moderate response was appropriate, one that would punish the Soviets yet leave the door open for negotiations and keep future U.S.-Soviet relations in mind. As it was, Carder's heated reaction raised the Soviets' ire and probably extended Soviet presence in the region. Although the Soviet's refusal to withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassment to the Carter administration, the Iranian hostage crisis would haunt Carter. Although Carter reacted as well as he could once the hostages were taken, his administration's actions leading up to the Iranian revolution were the real foreign policy failures. The Carter administration's blind support of the shah and the funds and military hardware the monarch received simply fueled anti-American sentiment as the Iranians saw the Americans supporting the oppressive regimes. While not Carter's fault, the administration's reaction to the revolution showed that they grossly underestimated both the influence of the Ayatollah with the people and the feelings of the Iranians in regard to America. Because of these two factors, the diplomatic steps that Carter took to ease the situation, such as freezing all Iranian assets In the US, were almost totally ineffective, considering the hatred Iran held for the United States. Most historians look back on the Carter presidency as a tragedy. The man was well-intentioned and had a great deal of foreign policy success in his term. Unfortunately, the situation he faced on entering the White House was arguably more complex and difficult than any faced by most of predecessors. Any president, especially one who could only draw on experience as a governor, would have the global situation difficult to deal with at best. |
Evaluation
|
Resources | Discussion | Teachers | About Us
This page was created as part of the 2000 ThinkQuest Internet Challenge
If you have comments or suggestions, please email the webmaster.