search
Berl Falbaum

The Dark Side of Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter, who was laid to rest last week, has generally been described as the best former president in US history.

That is half right. Yes, he deserves credit for his outstanding work and commitment to humanitarian causes. He dedicated himself to assist the poor, worked to eradicate diseases and offered hands-on support for Habitat for Humanity which provided housing for the less fortunate around the world.

But the politics of his post-presidency are an entirely different matter. Not wanting to be disrespectful, I held my fire during the mourning period but history is not served by covering up the record of a former president and his use of that inherent power.

After leaving office, he meddled in international politics, undermined sitting presidents, and may very well have violated the Logan Act which criminalizes an unauthorized (private) person from engaging in negotiations between the United States and a foreign government.

We’ll start with a brief summation on Carter and Israel:

While Carter’s most prominent achievement was getting Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, the Camp David Accords, he very well may have played a major role in inciting the charge worldwide that Israel is an “apartheid” state with the publication of his book, “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.” He claimed apartheid in Israel was worse than in South Africa.

The book was so one-sided in criticizing Israel that 14 people resigned from the Carter Center, the former president’s human rights and think tank organization.

He counseled PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who introduced the world to suicide bombings, advising him to appear more moderate, even during the second intifada.

In 2008, with Bush 43 in office, Carter met with Hamas, the terrorist organization, even after being asked not to do so.

“I just don’t want there to be any confusion,” said Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state at the time. “The United States is not going to deal with Hamas and we have certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help further a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.”

North Korea and President Clinton:

As Clinton was developing his strategy to keep North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, Carter called him and advised the sitting president that he had negotiated a framework for a treaty with North Korea.

Carter had flown to North Korea — with a CNN news crew — and warned Clinton that he was about to announce the deal. Clinton was furious and, as reported in at least one book, was forced to change his policies.

Also, at a dinner with Kim Il-Sung, a powerful military leader and politician, he told the North Korean official that the US would stop pursuing sanctions at the United Nations which was false.

That was not the only time Carter angered Clinton. Clinton had sent Carter and two other officials to Haiti in efforts to force a military junta to surrender power. On his return, Carter went on CNN to discuss the results even before briefing Clinton.

Carter and the Gulf War:

After Bush 41 had given Saddam Hussein five days to withdraw from Kuwait, Carter, who opposed war with Iraq, wrote a letter to several major leaders at the UN, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, recommending that they oppose any US military action.

Carter wrote: “I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis. You may have to forego approval from the White House, but you will find the French, Soviets, and others fully supportive.  Also, most Americans will welcome such a move.”

That prompted former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to accuse Carter of violating the Logan Act.

Carter and Bush 43:

In scathing remarks, Carter labeled the Bush administration “the worst in history.”

“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

“We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that sometime in the future our security might be endangered,” Carter said. “But that’s been a radical departure from all previous administration policies.”

Carter also criticized Bush for having “zero peace talks” in Israel. He charged the administration “abandoned or directly refuted” every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

Douglas Brinkley, Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, said Carter’s criticisms were “unprecedented.”

“This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president. When you call somebody the worst president, that’s volatile.”

And Carter did not limit his denunciations to US presidents. Asked about former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Carter called him: “Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.”

It is difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the affect of Carter’s post-presidency foreign policy initiatives. They certainly angered and frustrated sitting presidents, and made their decision-making process and political lives much more difficult.  Having held that position, Carter surely should have known better.

Moreover, subverting sitting presidents and the country’s democratic process which includes respecting successors regardless of party affiliation, does little, if anything, to enhance Carter’s legacy.

It is not clear why Carter went “rogue” with such criticism of his successors. In profiles and books about of Carter, the word that frequently appears in describing him is “sanctimonious.”

His administration was generally considered a failure and perhaps he wanted to highlight the deficiencies of other presidents.

He surely must have understood that it is not possible to change the opinions people have of you to garner sympathy and support for yourself. As a religious, pious man he also must have known his vindictive actions violated the biblical principles he cherished, praised, practiced and taught at Sunday schools.

What he apparently failed to realize was that trying to enhance one’s reputation at the expense of others usually backfires.

About the Author
Former political reporter, Detroit News; have been writing political commentary for decades; taught journalism as an adjunct at Detroit's Wayne State University for 45 years; author of 12 books (two fiction).
Related Topics
Related Posts