Former President Jimmy Carter, who has entered hospice care at age 98 at his home in Plains, Georgia, was a dark horse Democratic presidential candidate with little national recognition when he beat Republican incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976.
The introspective former peanut farmer pledged a new era of honesty and forthrightness at home and abroad, a promise that resonated with voters eager for change following the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.
His presidency, however, lasted only one term before Ronald Reagan defeated him. Since then, scholars have debated 바카라and often maligned바카라 Carter바카라s legacy, especially his foreign policy efforts that revolved around human rights.
Critics have described Carter바카라s foreign policies as 바카라ineffectual바카라 and 바카라hopelessly muddled바카라, and their formulation demonstrated 바카라weakness and indecision바카라.
As a historian researching Carter바카라s foreign policy initiatives, I conclude his overseas policies were far more effective than critics have claimed.
A Soviet strategy
The criticism of Carter바카라s foreign policies seems particularly mistaken when it comes to the Cold War, a period defined by decades of hostility, mutual distrust and arms buildup after World War II between the US and Russia, then known as the Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
By the late 1970s, the Soviet Union바카라s economy and global influence were weakening. With the counsel of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Soviet expert, Carter exploited these weaknesses.
During his presidency, Carter insisted nations provide basic freedoms for their people 바카라 a moral weapon against which repressive leaders could not defend.
Carter soon openly criticised the Soviets for denying Russian Jews their basic civil rights, a violation of human rights protections outlined in the diplomatic agreement called the Helsinki Accords.
Carter바카라s team underscored these violations in arms control talks. The CIA flooded the USSR with books and articles to incite human rights activism. And Carter publicly supported Russian dissidents 바카라including pro-democracy activist Andrei Sakharov바카라 who were fighting an ideological war against socialist leaders.
Carter adviser Stuart Eizenstat argues that the administration attacked the Soviets 바카라in their most vulnerable spot 바카라 mistreatment of their own citizens바카라.
This proved effective in sparking Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev바카라s social and political reforms of the late 1980s, best known by the Russian word 바카라glasnost바카라 or 바카라openness바카라.
The Afghan invasion
In December 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in response to the assassination of the Soviet-backed Afghan leader Nur Mohammad Taraki. The invasion effectively ended an existing détente between the US and USSR.
Beginning in July 1979, the US was providing advice and non-lethal supplies to the mujahideen rebelling against the Soviet-backed regime. After the invasion, National Security Advisor Brzezinski advised Carter to respond aggressively to it. So the CIA and US allies delivered weapons to the mujahideen, a programme later expanded under Reagan.
Carter바카라s move effectively engaged the Soviets in a proxy war that began to bleed the Soviet Union.
By providing the rebels with modern weapons, the US was 바카라giving to the USSR its Vietnam war바카라, according to Brzezinski: a progressively expensive war, a strain on the socialist economy and an erosion of their authority abroad.
Carter also imposed an embargo on US grain sales to the Soviets in 1980. Agriculture was the USSR바카라s greatest economic weakness since the 1960s. The country바카라s unfavourable weather and climate contributed to successive poor growing seasons, and their heavy industrial development left the agricultural sector underfunded.
Economist Elizabeth Clayton concluded in 1985 that Carter바카라s embargo was effective in exacerbating this weakness.
Census data compiled between 1959 and 1979 show that 54 million people were added to the Soviet population. Clayton estimates that 2 to 3 million more people were added in each subsequent year. The Soviets were overwhelmed by the population boom and struggled to feed their people.
At the same time, Clayton found that monthly wages increased, which led to an increased demand for meat. But by 1985, there was a meat shortage in the USSR. Why? Carter바카라s grain embargo, although ended by Reagan in 1981, had a lasting impact on livestock feed that resulted in Russian farmers decreasing livestock production.
The embargo also forced the Soviets to pay premium prices for grain from other countries, nearly 25 per cent above market prices.
For years, Soviet leaders promised better diets and health, but now their people had less food. The embargo battered a weak socialist economy and created another layer of instability for the growing population.
The Olympic boycott
In 1980, Carter pushed further to punish the Soviets. He convinced the US Olympic Committee to refrain from competing in the upcoming Moscow Olympics while the Soviets repressed their people and occupied Afghanistan.
Carter not only promoted a boycott, but he also embargoed US technology and other goods needed to produce the Olympics. He also stopped NBC from paying the final USD 20 million owed to the USSR to broadcast the Olympics.
China, Germany, Canada and Japan 바카라superpowers of sport바카라 also participated in the boycott.
Historian Allen Guttmann said, 바카라The USSR lost a significant amount of international legitimacy on the Olympic question.바카라
Dissidents relayed to Carter that the boycott was another jab at Soviet leadership. And in America, public opinion supported Carter바카라s bold move 바카라 73 per cent of Americans favoured the boycott.
The Carter doctrine
In his 1980 State of the Union address, Carter revealed an aggressive Cold War military plan. He declared a 바카라Carter doctrine바카라, which said that the Soviets바카라 attempt to gain control of Afghanistan, and possibly the region, was regarded as a threat to US interests. And Carter was prepared to meet the threat with 바카라military force바카라.
Carter also announced in his speech a five-year spending initiative to modernise and strengthen the military because he recognised the post-Vietnam military cuts weakened the US against the USSR.
Ronald Reagan argued during the 1980 presidential campaign that 바카라Jimmy Carter risks our national security 바카라our credibility바카라 and damages American purposes by sending timid and even contradictory signals to the Soviet Union바카라.
Carter바카라s policy was based on 바카라weakness and illusion바카라 and should be replaced 바카라with one founded on improved military strength바카라, Reagan criticised.
In 1985, however, President Reagan publicly acknowledged that his predecessor demonstrated great timing in modernising and strengthening the nation바카라s forces, which further increased economic and diplomatic pressure on the Soviets.
Reagan admitted that he felt 바카라very bad바카라 for misstating Carter바카라s policies and record on defence.
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 Carter바카라s presidential accomplishments. His foreign policy, emphasising human rights, was a key instrument in dismantling the power of the Soviet Union.
(The article is written by Robert C Donnelly, Associate Professor of History at Gonzaga University. It is being published via PTI from The Conversation.)
