Yesterday, when it was announced that N. Korea has a nuclear weapons program, it was reported that similar conditions existed under Clinton’s administration around 1993-94. Although Clinton was on the brink of ordering air strikes, former Pres. Jimmy Carter arranged some peaceful agreement (at quite a pricetag, apparently.)
Jimmy Carter? Excuse me, but why does a former Pres have any right to meddle in world affairs??? His intentions were good, but still…shouldn’t the elected official in Office (and his staff) be working these problems out for themselves? Can I just walk up to N. Korea and say “C’mon guys…have a beer on me…let’s talk peace?”
Although it was a peaceful solution, it was short-lived and short-sighted. Perhaps, it was all just a smokescreen. And now, the world’s state of affairs is now digging us deeper into a much bigger stew than about 10 years!
Retired presidents traditionally try to find a way to make themselves useful–they don’t normally retire to a life of golf and magazines. Sometimes they write books, sometimes they go on the lecture tour circuit and talk about statesmanship and stuff like that. Jimmy was different, I think, in deciding to serve the entire Human Race, and on such a grassroots level as actually picking up a hammer and helping to build houses.
What he’s got going for him is precisely the fact that he’s totally unattached to any current administration, power structure, political organization, etc… That, added to his obvious honesty and high moral standards, make this the perfect role for him.
The Nobel was well-deserved, IMO.
Well, if you were a respected former president of the United States who drank beer, yeah, you could. Foreign governments are always willing to talk, especially if someone else is buying the beer.
Look what all of that dealmaking got us - exactly jack squat.
Carter has been a thorn in the sides of every administration since his own, and arguably a thorn there too. He has a habit of pursuing his goals regardless of our national policy, and trading on his status as a former President of the U.S.A. to do so.
His intervention in Haiti pissed the Clinton State Department off, big time.
I wish I knew who first made the observation that the former president wants everyone to remember him as a carpenter with the initials “J.C.”
So you disagree with him. That doesn’t mean he has the right to do what he thinks he can do to make things better. You don’t need a license to try to make things better from your point of view. The only difference between him and any of the rest of us is that he has a certain level of respect from people around the world and they will listen to him. He’s not doing it for money and he’s not doing it for any particular government. He has no power or authority except for his own reputation and no one has to listen to him if they don’t want to. Carter wouldn’t be able to interfere with American foreign policy if the U.S. administration had any aptitude, skill, or interest in foreign policy.
If you want to complain about it, go to the BBQ Pit. If you want to debate it, go to Great Debates. This seems like a rant and/or debate, so I almost closed this thread. In the future, if you want your question to get a factual answer, please try to tone down your emotions and make clear what your factual question is.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
I think I can tease out the factual question now:
Is it legal for a private citizen (or former President) to engage in what is essentially foreign relations with another government without permission from the U.S. government? And did Carter break such a law?
I think there is some kind of law against it that has been discussed here before. I seem to recall some discussion of whether that law was enforceable. In Carter’s case the question is moot, because he did indeed have permission from the Clinton Administration. The permission was granted reluctantly and apparently after Carter threatened to go to North Korea without permission.