Carter was Right

Jimmy Carter, when he was president, was greatly maligned by the Republicans for basing his foreign policy on human rights, rather than the simplistic anti-communism that they had pursued for years. In their view, the old phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” was a cornerstone of policy, and the idea of risking anti-communist alliances with “authoritarian states” in the name of human rights was at least foolish, if not downright treasonous. Thus the Shah of Iran, Batista, Somoza, Pinochet, Franco, Marcos, etc. Carter inherited an Iran on the brink of civil war, and the collapse of its government and the following spasms culminating in the hostage crisis were widely portrayed as a disastrous failure of his own administration, The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ended public and congressional trust in his abilities and his philosophy. After his loss to Reagan in 1980, the government returned to the job of fighting communism with any available alliance, and added the rather unusual concept of aiding various Radical Islamic factions against others, and then those against the first, and then both against communist governments, until this musical allies policy achieved its “success:” the fall of the Soviet government. Among others armed, trained, or backed by the US in pursuit of this policy are the suspects most often named as architects of the current terrorist war, Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
After the fall of the Soviet government, the conservatives with their current standard bearer, George W. Bush, continued to attack a foreign policy based on human rights by labelling it “nation building,” forgetting that it was nation building after WWII that has led to our present relations with Japan and Germany, and argueably to the EU itself. In contrast to those nations and alliances, the beneficiaries of the fight against communism are Saddam. bin Laden, the Taliban, and, in a case where US backing failed, leaving the country to the most ruthless opponent of the Shah, Iran.
Suppose, though, that Carter’s philosophy had been the guiding force in the 1980’s and 1990’s. US support would have been contingent upon the observance of human rights, and the political empowerment of individual citizens that springs from such observance. I cannot help thinking that the 2001 society in many of the above countries would have been significately more open, and that there would have been several new members in the family of nations, countries that today are outcast because Reagan and Bush the First did not bother to think about what might happen when their favored “freedom fighters” became rulers.
Of course, conservatives will say that had that course been followed, the “Evil Empire” might still exist. That is true. But how many Russian suicide bombers attacked American soil and lives between 1970 and 1990? Further, the lines of communication and influence with Russia were always open to some degree, certainly more open than those with our well-armed fellow anti-communists in Afghanistan. And because Russia aspired to a quality of life comparable to the West, Russian leaders after Brezhnev were quite aware of the failings of their system. The real end of the Soviet Union began when Gorbachev visited several Western cities, saw the quality of life there, and contrasted it with the quality of life in the USSR.
I am living in St. Petersburg, and most Russians that I talk to are much worse off now than they were under the Soviet State. Most have no illusions about the Soviet government’s own human rights record, but many believe, as do I, that the society could have developed during the Gorbachev era into a much better society than now exists. The US could have helped in that effort as well, but in the name of anti-communism did not.
Of course a couple of weeks ago Bush II told the Chinese Communists that he would stop criticizing their nuclear weapons program if they would let him have Star Wars. I guess there’s Communists and then there’s Communists.

It seems to me that had the Carter philosophy been the guiding US philosophy, we would be much better off than our current state. I am afraid, though, that President Bush will not look at history. JDM

Uh-huh.

Except:

Carter, as President, was the first to authorize funding to the Afghani resistance to the Soviet Union, which later meant training bin Laden. Unless you mean that the “Carter-like” foreign policy shouldn’t have been like Carter’s, well, there ya go.

I question exactly how much of our Middle East policy would have changed had we been “more” focused upon human rights. Israel still has the best record of any of the Middle Eastern countries, meaning we would still have funded them heavily as the bastion of human rights in the area. Of course, we would have pressured them to enter talks with the PLO and set up an independent Palestine, neither of which actually occured in the 80’s or 90’s. Oh, no, wait, it did, with George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both pushing Israel to make concessions.

Name five.

Let’s see, Arturo Cruz, Adolfo Calero, Luis Moreno, Eden Pastora, Rafael Urbina.

Not to mention former dictators Augusto Pinochet, Anastascio Somoza and Manuel Noriega.

Carter didn’t always live up to what he suggested-but he at least TRIED to do what was right, rather than what was popular-as a result, he lost. Say what you will, but I will say he was our most moral president, with more honor and integrity than many others.

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/contras.htm

I’m not blaming any one politician. Just that the idea that we are always right makes me sick. Right now, I’m very very upset about this whole thing…also, Carter is one of my heros. He may not have been a perfect president, but he is a good man. He stood up for what was right, not what was popular.

Adolfo Calero- one of the leaders of the Contras. How easily we forget how the Contra insurgency took control of the government and waged a campaign of terror upon its… no, wait, Ortega agreed to hold elections to try and gain support in his fight against the Contras and was defeated by Chamarro.

Eden Pastora- Another Contra. Same results.

The others I can’t seem to find any references upon. Or do you wish to illuminate and explain how funding the Contras in Nicaragua somehow pushed them out of the family of nations, given that they successfully established democracy in 1990?

Since apparently I wasn’t clear enough to Guinastasia, again, the specific quote I’m rebutting is this:

I am asking for five countries that became outcasts because of Reagan-Bush era actions.

Carter had some great ideas which, unfortunately, he was unable to impliment. If Carter had had Bill Clinton’s charisma, the world would have been a much better place. Carter is, IMO, without question, the best ex-president we’ve ever had. Personally, I think the only way we’re going to end terrorism is through “nation building”. I say we go into Afghanistan and build schools and police stations and hospitals and all the infrastructure that goes with it. It would be expensive and the terrorists would bomb a lot of the buildings killing innocents. But, in the long run it would be the cheapest and best way to end this terror. A generation down the road there would be enough educated afghans to stand with us in the fight. Anywhere where there is poverty and ignorance is a place where these insidious ba$tards can hide and prepare their attacks. Let us do our best to fight the ignorance all over the world. Let’s bring the power of the straight dope to all the people so that they can learn to debunk their leaders’ lies. This is the heart of what Carter was talking about. Now if we can just get congress to go along.

IIRC, Carter implemented a limited trade embargo and a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, but did not send funding to the mujahedeen. There was a small amount of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan that came from the US during his administration, but he was not the big spender that you imply. That was clearly Ronald Reagan. During the Reagan administration, the US and Saudi Arabia combined to pour over $6 Billion into Afghanistan in support of the “resistance fighters”. Reagan called it a “war of good vs. evil”. Now Bush calls Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda evil, though they were all mujahedeen resistance fighters. Did they change sides, or did Reagan have things backwards?

Actually, Ortega “successfully established democracy” in 1985 when he was elected president, in a vote hailed as “free and fair” by most observers. The fact that we (i.e. our contra army) continued to point a loaded gun at the country after this result sent a rather clear message to the Nicaraguans that any “democracy” would be on our terms only.

I’m sorry to be rude, but JDM reminds me in a way of Falwell. Falwell said the attacks were to punish America for following ACLU-type values. JDM says the attacks punish America for too few human rights abroad.

Both allegations are totally without evidence. Falwell’s is obviously looney, and JDM’s makes little sense for reasons already posted here. Michael Moore (the movie maker) had another goofy explanation – that they were trying to kill Republicans. He expressed puzzlement that they made the mistake of attacking cities with Democratic majorities.

All three of these people have simply taken something they don’t like and blamed the attack on it.

Sorry, I misunderstood, John.

Ace_Face is right that the Sandinistas-while no saints, did establish democracy quicker than 1990. And BTW, Chamorro was NEVER one of the Contras-her husband had been killed by the previous Somoza regime.

december, you’ve got to be kidding me-comparing JDM saying that perhaps we should consider more humane tactics to Falwell claiming it was the “secular humanism” which caused the attacks from god? Please tell me you’re pulling our legs?

Interesting. Late last night while I was watching CSpan2 I saw a panel discussion (The American Enterprise Institute as I recall). One of the members on the panel was Newt Gingrich and he spoke for about 10 minutes making nearly this exact point.

I wonder if there is a way to get an online transcript for Newt’s remarks. I thought they were exceptionally lucid and to the point.

Of course, he didn’t give Carter credit for the idea, and he strongly implied that the policy of supporting the Mujahadeen was Clinton’s mistake rather than Reagan’s.

I swear that man is brilliant. But he constantly detracts from the sense of his argument by digressing to attack Clinton, If only he would stick to the point I think he could win over a lot of people.

Anyway. The basic idea is that in the past, we have chosen to support regimes based on how “Stable” they were, which Is a mistake because stable regimes are usually authoritarian human rights violators. Over time, the oppressed people come to identify us with the harm done to them by their rulers. This is exacerbated by said ruler’s tendancy to blame us for their own failure to take care of their people.

Newt suggests that going forward, we should make how well a regime treats it’s people the primary consideration when choosing what sort of relations to have with them.

Carter redux, with Newt cast as the inventor of the idea. But a this point, I don’t care. He can have the credit, so long as he can get Bush to take this idea and run with it.

Anyone know how to cite a CSpan discussion?
tj

An election where the established government shut down the opposition party’s newspapers any time they deviated from the Sandinista party line is “free and fair?”

Perhaps-but Nicaragua hadn’t really had much experience with democracy in the past. Compared to the Somoza regime, this was liberty.

Later on, however, they were voted out, and Violetta Chamorro was in. She was more of a moderate, whose husband was killed by the Somosistas.

december I wish you would have said which statement that had been made here refutes JDM’s statements. So far the only legit criticism I’ve seen was that Carter was unable to impliment his ideas successfully. ‘Nation building’ was used after WWII and we now have great relations with Germany, Japan, etc… So, there is some evidence that the idea is a good one. Not exactly the same situation, I know, but similar enough that, IMO, it suggests that ‘nation building’ can work. No one has said that the attacks punish us for failing to enact this policy, merely that the attacks MAY have been prevented if we had used Carter’s ideas effectively. There is certainly room to argue that other worse effects may have taken place instead, but I personally don’t believe it.

Comparing someone to Falwell is rude and insulting and you did so little in your post to actually contribute to this discussion I can only look at it as name calling. This is a forum for debate. Rather than apologizing and then going ahead and doing it, take the name calling to the pit. You actually damage your own argument by representing yourself in this unflattering manner. I would think that those who want to argue against the OP would step up and denounce your words so that the onus would not reflect on all of them.
Ok, on to other things. Do we all agree that supporting the mujahedeen was a mistake? Seems like John Corrado said that Carter did it, implying that it was a mistake. And then, Ace_Face said that no Carter did not, Reagan did. So, do we argue who did it or do we argue whether it was a good idea? Or do we all agree that Reagan screwed up and that, as the OP said, Carter was right? Or at least, that Reagan was wrong? Maybe they were both wrong.

I seem to remember that there was some limited support during the Carter regime, but that Carter opposed it. So, maybe it’s a mixture here. Who’s got the facts? I did a quick web search and found too much material with no substance. People are posting all kinds of crap right now. A web search on the same subject two weeks ago probably would have yielded a small number of relevant articles rather than a large mass of meaningless rhetoric.

I’ll agree whole-heartedly about fighting ignorance, but I don’t think your solution of nation building stands a chance if the nation’s Government doesn’t give a hoot about the people. Israel has built quite a bit for the Palestinians, but the people “representing” Palestinians don’t give a hoot, they have their own priorities (ie, get rid of Israel). Many Palestinians hold jobs in Israeli towns (given, not the best of jobs, but jobs they took volutarily), but their “representatives” don’t care much about that either.

Their standard of living could be quite good in a peaceful co-existance with Israel, but they (again, the “leaders”) really don’t care much about co-existance. So, nation building here, including a Palestinian State, does not seem to do it. Not until leadership can truly take that direction. Same goes for Taliban. Same goes for any government that blames others for their problems while systematically destroying any chance for making life better.

Under the circumstances, yes.

This site says it better than I could. A quote:

This article compares Nicaraguan press censorship with our own wartime censorship.

BTW, the elections were held in 1984, not 1985. My mistake.

Sorry, “our” of course means “U.S.” I realize SDMB is an international community.

*Originally posted by december *

[/QUOTE]
**I’m sorry to be rude, but JDM reminds me in a way of Falwell. Falwell said the attacks were to punish America for following ACLU-type values. JDM says the attacks punish America for too few human rights abroad.

Both allegations are totally without evidence. Falwell’s is obviously looney, and JDM’s makes little sense for reasons already posted here. Michael Moore (the movie maker) had another goofy explanation – that they were trying to kill Republicans. He expressed puzzlement that they made the mistake of attacking cities with Democratic majorities.

All three of these people have simply taken something they don’t like and blamed the attack on it. **
[/QUOTE]

I was going to snip this, but I just had to leave it all in, since it’s the first time I have ever been compared to Jerry Falwell. Usually it’s Mel Gibson they compare me to. I wonder if I could hit Jerry up for some money, to help me spread the word here in Russia, using your post as a reference.

There are a couple of conceptual errors in your post. First, Falwell’s position is not that the attacks were directly intended to punish America for its liberal ways, which could even be a defensible position (many radical Muslims do see America as evil and degenerate- see this, for example. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/19/international/middleeast/19EGYP.html), although I don’t think it is the main “grievance”
held by bin Laden et. al. Falwell’s position is that because of America’s alleged degeneracy, God has lowered the magical, mystical shield that He had placed over America to protect it. That is indeed a looney position (although I am sure that in his “mind” it gives a heavenly legitimacy to Star Wars.). My position at least has a cause and effect relationship involving real people and societies. It could be wrong (I don’t think so, of course) and is therefore falsifiable (using the term coloquially).

Further, I’m not thinking in terms of “punishment,” or even that the problem behind the present situation is “too few human rights abroad.” My point instead is that by pursuing a foreign policy based only on anti-communism without caring about the intentions of the allies in that policy, we have ended up with a world where any looney can be in power, as long as he “fought the communists.” We also ended up with situations like Iran, where our support for an autocratic government made any democratic development impossible, and crushed the more moderate opposition to the Shah. So we got Khomeini. A human rights based policy would have been a check on that. If we had been more concerned with the human rights records and intentions of our allies, I believe that we would have made better choices in them. Had we nudged the Shah and other authoritarians toward democracy, or at least an expansion of human rights, the more moderate voices in those countries might still be heard. And the extremists would be much poorer, and less well armed. And I think that a more democratic world would have been a very strong defense against the Soviet Union.

As regards Nicaragua, it should be pointed out that all of the Contra’s terrorism, and all of the legal and illegal backing of them by Reagan and Bush the First did not drive out the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas are out because they had an election That’s called democracy. Maybe they would have had an election sooner if there hadn’t been a war going on. (Did Jimmy Carter help set up the election and monitor its operation? I don’t remember.) When he was voted out, Ortega left. Marcos and Noriega (those good anti-communists), on the other hand…JDM

My thoughts on fighting igmorance are long term. If we do a good job of teaching the children of a culture, those children can then govern themselves in the future. If the Afghan public were skilled and educated people, we could possibly enforce a general election, give them some help getting started, and allow them to govern themselves. These are the people who are being repressed by the Taliban and who, I believe, would never choose to remain under such leadership if given the choice and knowledge of other options.

So, tradesilicon, I agree that my plan would have a limited initial effect on countries with oppressive governments. My plan assumes that eventually, when you have a generally well educated populace with the backing of the U.S., you will end up with less oppressive governments. I have no strong eveidence of this, only a strong sense that knowledge is power. Give this power to all the people and you limit the power of any small group while increasing the power of the whole.

Aha! I understand now. The election was free and fair because only the party backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union was permitted to print freely, not the party backed by the U.S. :rolleyes:

In the David Kairys editorial (not article) that you linked to, there is not a single example of any time in U.S. history where the U.S. government closed down the newspaper of the opposition party. Republican-backed and owned papers printed freely throughout the Vietnam War; Democratic newspapers did the same throughout the Gulf War. Incidentally, to my knowledge, La Barricada was never censored by the Chamorro government; it was freely available at all times while I was there.

There have been times where government turned a blind eye to a mob closing down a newspaper by violence. See circa 1812.