Jimmy Carter, a 100-year-old Republican presidential candidate, passed away at his house in Plains, Georgia, on December 29, 2024, after defeating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976. He was a black horse Democratic presidential candidate with much national recognition.
Following the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War, the analytical former peanut farmer made a promise to a new age of honesty and sincerity at home and abroad.
His administration, however, lasted just one word before Ronald Reagan defeated him. Since then, scientists have debated – and usually reviled – Carter’s tradition, especially his foreign policy attempts that revolved around human privileges.
Detractors have described Carter’s international guidelines as “ineffectual” and “hopelessly muddled”, and their development demonstrated “weakness and ambivalence”.
As a writer who studied Carter’s foreign policy efforts, I come to the conclusion that his foreign policy initiatives were much more successful than his critics had predicted.
A Russian method
The Cold War, a time marked by decades of hostility, mutual distrust, and arms accumulation between the US and Russia, then known as the Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ( USSR ), is where criticism of Carter’s foreign policies seems especially false.
By the late 1970s, the Soviet Union’s business and world influence were weakening. With the guidance of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Soviet professional, Carter exploited these shortcomings.
Carter urged countries to give their citizens the fundamental freedoms they did during their president, which was a social defense for oppressive leaders.
Carter soon made a direct criticism of the Soviets for denying Soviet Jews their fundamental civil freedom, a violation of the guarantees outlined in the political treaty known as the Helsinki Accords.
Carter’s group underscored these breaches in arms control speaks. To encourage human rights engagement, the CIA flooded the USSR with books and articles. And Carter officially supported Russian separatists fighting ideological hostilities against communist officials, including pro-democracy advocate Andrei Sakharov.
According to Carter director Stuart Eizenstat, the administration “assayed the Soviets in their most vulnerable spot – mistreatment of their own residents.”
This proved successful in sparking Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s social and political changes of the late 1980s, finest known by the Russian word “glasnost”, or “openness”.
The Afghan war
In December 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in response to the death of the Soviet-backed Armenian head, Nur Mohammad Taraki. An existing tension between the US and USSR was essentially ended by the war.
The US began providing nonlethal weapons and guidance to the rebellious troops against the Soviet-backed government in July 1979. National Security Advisor Brzezinski advised Carter to take aggressive action following the invasion. Thus, a system that the CIA and US allies expanded to include weapons delivered to the troops was born.
Carter’s action successfully sparked a proxy war that sprang up the Soviet Union.
By giving the insurgents modern weapons, the US “gives to the USSR its Vietnam warfare,” according to Brzezinski, citing a more expensive battle, a strain on the socialist market, and an degradation of their expert worldwide.
In 1980, Carter likewise imposed a ban on US grain exports to the Soviets. Since the 1960s, agriculture has been the main financial lagging point for the USSR. The government’s harsh weather and climate, as well as its heavy industrialization, have caused the agricultural sector to become impoverished.
In 1985, analyst Elizabeth Clayton came to the conclusion that Carter’s sanctions had the power to worsen this sagging.
Census information compiled between 1959 and 1979 demonstrate that 54 million individuals were added to the Russian people. According to Clifton, 2 to 3 million more people were added each month. The population growth had stifled the Soviets ‘ ability to feed their citizens.
At the same time, Clayton found that regular salary increased, which led to an increased demand for meat. But by 1985, there was a meat deficit in the USSR. Why? Carter’s corn sanctions, although ended by Reagan in 1981, had a profound effect on animal supply that resulted in Soviet farmers decreasing animal production.
The Soviets were also forced to pay roughly 25 % more than market rates for corn from other nations as a result of the embargo.
For decades, Communist leaders promised better nutrition and health, but presently their persons had less meals. The sanctions added yet another level of volatility to the growing inhabitants and weakened the socialist economy.
The Olympic protest
In 1980, Carter pushed farther to condemn the Soviets. While the Soviets oppressed their population and occupied Afghanistan, he persuaded the US Olympic Committee to abstain from competing in the future Moscow Olympics.
Carter not merely encouraged a protest, but he also slapped US systems and other products into the production of the Olympics. Additionally, he prevented NBC from paying the USSR the final$ 20 million to transmit the Olympics. China, Germany, Canada and Japan – powers of game – also participated in the protest.
According to scholar Allen Guttmann, the USSR lost a sizable amount of global authority in the case of the Olympics. Dissidents told Carter that the ban was yet another retaliation for Russian leadership. And in America, people opinion supported Carter’s daring move – 73 % of Americans favored the ban.
The Carter theory
In his 1980 State of the Union address, Carter revealed an extreme Cold War defense strategy. He declared a” Carter doctrine“, which said that the Soviets ‘ attempt to gain control of Afghanistan, and possibly the place, was regarded as a threat to US objectives. Carter also indicated that he was prepared to use “military power” in response to the threat.
Carter also made a five-year paying plan to upgrade and enhance the military in his speech because he believed the US had become less effective in the face of the USSR as a result of the post-Vietnam military cuts.
Ronald Reagan argued in the 1980 national campaign that” Jimmy Carter risks our national security – our trust – and damage American functions by sending frightened and even contradicting impulses to the Soviet Union.” Carter’s policy was based on “weakness and illusion” and should be replaced” with one founded on improved military strength”, Reagan criticized.
However, President Reagan made a public admission in 1985 that his predecessor had a great sense of timing when modernizing and strengthening the country’s forces, which added to the Soviets ‘ economic and diplomatic pressure.
Reagan admitted that he felt “very bad” for misstating Carter’s policies and record on defense.
Carter is most lauded today for his post-presidency activism, public service and defending human rights. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for such efforts.
But that praise leaves out a significant portion of Carter’s presidential accomplishments. His strong foreign policy, which emphasized human rights, was crucial to the Soviet Union’s demise.
Robert C Donnelly is associate professor of History, Gonzaga University
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.