People Over Politics: How the Public Opinion of Jimmy Carter Wrongfully Undermined the International Accomplishments of His Tenure
Victor Stefanescu
December 12, 2018
Period 3
The Iran Hostage Crisis was a confrontation in which Iranian rebel forces captured fifty-three Americans and held them for 444 days. The hostage was an act of defiance against Jimmy Carter’s administration who allowed the controversial ex-shah of Iran to receive medical treatment in the United States. This Crisis occurred during the last moments of Carter’s first, and subsequently only term in office, and was widely known as the event which had the most debilitating effects on his quest for reelection. Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s chief of staff and the author of Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency, described the hostage situation as “fourteen months of frustration and disappointment” 1 for the Carter administration. As a result of the attempts to free the hostages, the United States lost eight soldiers and respect for its president. This crisis was a low point for the Carter Presidency, however, it should not have undermined the rest of his presidential accomplishments. Although Jimmy Carter’s handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis, as well as other international conflicts, led Americans to negatively perceive him as a president, his international policies contributed towards peace and promoted a positive perception of the United States as a whole, proving that his agenda was not simply to maintain popularity in office, but rather to work towards global unity.
Carter’s mediation in the Camp David Accords led to the de-escalation of tensions held in the Middle East during his presidency, years of international peace, and proved that he was a leader who was willing to sacrifice his public image for global progress. For years, Arab countries in the Middle East refused to recognize Israel’s statehood which created high tensions and war. The accords were conversations, facilitated by the United States, between Israel and Egypt that ultimately led to a series of treaties that would suppress decades-long conflicts in the Middle East. Carter's involvement in the accords, which is often overlooked, left the world in safer state.
Carter’s involvement in the accords prevented the conflicts in the Middle East from metastasizing into a global conflict, which likely would have led to a catastrophic war. Not only did the Camp David Accords stop the continuation of the regional fighting caused by Arab nations refusing to recognize Israel as a legitimate state, but also prevented a much bigger world war style of conflict between the Russians and the Americans.2 The book President Carter: The White House Years, written by Stuart Eizenstat, former United States Ambassador to the European Union, and Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State, describes that, “failing to capitalize on the momentum created by Sadat could have opened the way for the Soviets to return to the region,” 3 inviting war between the United States and Russia. The Cold War was by no means resolved for the United States, so the last thing Carter would have wanted to do was get into another international conflict with Russia. By initiating the talks, Carter prevented Russian involvement and facilitation of the conflicts in the Middle East, which historically speaking, would have likely escalated U.S.-Russian tensions and could have brought the two countries into another Vietnam War scenario, in which the two global powers were indirectly fighting each other.
Carter’s efforts in the Accords led to years of relative international peace. In a speech about his concerns about tensions in the Middle East in 1978, Carter expressed that his primary goal in the deliberations was to bring a state of peace in which the “nations of the Middle East can deal with each other as neighbors and equals, with the full range of diplomatic, cultural, economic, and human relations between them.” 4 The accords halted conflict and encouraged diplomacy by forming resolutions to some of the more prevalent causes of tensions in the Middle East. These resolutions set up the region for a period of relaxed relations. Albright and Eizenstat explain that the Accords created a state of peace that lasted until the turn of the century, and also acted as the foundational element of peace talks during the Clinton administration and also for another set of deliberations that occured in Norway during 1993.5 Although many believe that the talks left a legacy of peace, some believe that instead the terms of the accords marginalized Palestine. Seth Anziska, a writer for the New York Times, stated in an article forty years after the signing of the treaty that, “Camp David actually enabled the triumph of an Israeli vision that empowers a sub-sovereign Palestinian authority to help manage the occupation.” 6 If the Accords would have enabled Palestinian statehood, then Israel would have had a much more difficult time keeping a hold in the middle East. The Accords were agreed on by both Israeli and Arab leaders—both parties recognized that peace was much more important than solving the issue of Palestine at the time. The accords made many pro-Palestinian Americans have a bad impression of Carter, however, the president went on with the talks because he knew that they were necessary for bringing peace to the world.
By hosting the Accords, Carter proved that he was a president who was willing to sacrifice his public image for global progress—a quality we wish for in all our leaders. Albright and Eizenstat said that no other president had risked their prestige and reputation in such a way that Carter did with the Accords.7 Carter involved himself in one of the longest conflicts in human history: the fight over Israel. He did so because he wanted to make the world a little safer, not to advance his own political agenda. Like all treaties that involve national recognition, religion, and territory, some will feel unhappy with the results. Although some Americans were left disappointed, Carter’s dealings in the Camp David Accords created a state of unity in the Middle East that lasted dozens of years—a feat that had never been done before. Carter’s dealings in the Camp David Accords proved that he was a peacemaker rather than a political machine. Carter’s quest for peace was a common theme displayed in much of his international policy, especially in his ideas about Latin America.
Carter’s contributions towards the Panama Canal Treaties, although unpopular, promoted pro-American sentiments in Latin America, and ultimately balanced power in the Americas, proving that he could be a strong willed politician. When Carter arrived in office, the Panama Canal was still under the control of the United States. The Canal essentially divided Panama, with an unoccupied American territory, the Panama Canal Zone, between the two sections. This divide made governing Panama difficult, and Panamanians feel as if their territorial rights were being infringed upon by the U.S. The Panama Canal Treaties were a set of treaties that gave the canal and territory back to Panama.
By turning over the canal to Panama, Carter promoted pro-American sentiments in Panama and the rest of Latin America, enabling the strong relationship that the U.S. has with its continental neighbors. Panama went into the talks about the canal looking for total control of the canal zone while Carter went in simply wanting to ensure the security of the canal before and after it was handed off.8 For Panama, it was essential to regain the canal because not only did it create economic and trade division within the country, but also because American ownership of the canal degraded their national image. Panamanians viewed the U.S.’s ownership as direct authoritative overreach, creating not only an anti-American sentiment within the country itself, but also throughout the rest of Latin America. By giving Panama the canal, Carter reversed these sentiments. Albright and Eizenstat said that the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were essential in strengthening the relationship between Latin America and the United States which has since brought forth trade and economic benefits for both regions.9 Today, Latin America is not only one of the United States’ greatest trading partners, but it is also the region of the world which the U.S. has since come into the least amount of conflict with. Although the canal treaties brought forth great diplomatic benefits, the American people initially viewed them as a degradation of the American national image, giving the treaties a bad domestic reception.
The reception of the canal treaties in America was less than ideal for Carter. As put in the words of the editors of HISTORY, the canal was, “an enduring symbol of U.S. power and technological prowess.” 10 Giving this symbol of greatness away was seen by many citizens as un-American. It narrowly passed through congress, and left many Americans with the opinion that Carter was a weak leader. As depicted in a political cartoon by artist Walter Hixon, Americans thought giving away the canal was an unnecessary use of the pen on Carter’s behalf as it did not have an immediate impact on American society, which just boosted Ronald Reagan’s pro-American interests campaign that ran Carter out of office four years later. 11
The nationalist opposition during Carter’s presidency continued to grow after the canal treaties as he continued to gear his policies towards international relations. Similarly to the way he handled the Camp David Accords, Carter once again put his interests of peace and global unity above his personal agenda. Although the canal treaties were one of his greatest political downfalls, they ended up refirming his principles, and showed the American people that he was not one to back down to opposition.
By giving the Panama Canal back to Panama, Carter proved that he would be a president who puts people over politics. Carter and his administration believed that the canal treaties would ultimately bring the United States and Latin America closer together which would have carried economic and diplomatic benefits. As historian Robert Strong put it in his novel about the Carter presidency, Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy, “ most citizens did not care very much about the future of the canal; and those who did care tended to have a passionate and patriotic reaction against surrendering a symbol of American greatness to a tiny Central American nation.” 12 Carter knew that people would hate his decision, yet he still persisted on ratifying the treaty because he knew it would prove to be beneficial for Americans. He sacrificed his image, and ultimately, a second term for the success of his nation. Carter's presidency was characterized by moments where he essentially sacrifices himself to the Republicans and quick decision-making media in order to advance the national agenda. We see this political self-destruction continue when he established the Department of Energy.
President Carter sought to consolidate all of the national environmental agencies into one—the department of Energy. Before, there were many environmental departments which decentralized power, making it difficult for presidential administrations to create national environmental policies. Also, before the Department of Energy, the nuclear power of America was in the hands of the military which made the country look aggressive. Although it had a controversial and rocky start, the Department of Energy proved itself necessary because it restricted nuclear power, and promoted environmental awareness setting the U.S. on a path towards a cleaner, safer future.
The Department of Energy’s slow start, a result of lack of organization within the department, made Americans think of Carter as a president who was unable to oversee large-scale national projects. In a Washington Post article written while the department was taking shape, Carter’s environmental policies are summed up as, “use less oil and pay more for it," 13 a policy that “has outraged voters and liberal congressmen.” 14 From the beginning, Carter’s environmental policies were unpopular with Americans because they seemed to protect the planet rather than the average person’s wallet. People were not yet willing to sacrifice their money in order to create a safer future. On top of unfavorable views about his policies, the actual establishment of the department made Americans lack confidence in Carter’s ability to lead. The Washington Post described the organization of the department through the results of an independent audit which, “found that Energy's top management was poorly organized, its policy planning spotty, and its field structure was not integrated into the headquarters staff.” 15 These findings showed that initially the department was in no place to be making decisions that could affect the nation. After an incredibly weak start, the department was able to find a sense of structure, howerever, the initial panic permanently tinted Carter’s image, making him look like a president who could not control his own government.
By creating the Department of Energy, Carter de-escalated the the nuclear tension of his time, once again setting the world on a path towards a safer future. As journalist Tony Long puts it in a WIRED article, a publication that focuses on new technological and scientific findings, “it's the Energy Department, not the Pentagon, that oversees the development, testing, integrity and safety of the nation's nuclear arsenal.”16 By taking nuclear power out of the hands of the military, Carter’s administration emphasized that the U.S. was not keeping nuclear weapons as a mean of hostility and aggression, but rather as a defensive tool. The Department of Energy is responsible with taking care of the environment, so the last thing it would want to do is set off a nuclear bomb which would destroy the world. As put by Long, “ in the early years of the Atomic Age, for example, the military assumed responsibility for all nuclear-related issues.”17 The Atomic Age was the period in which the U.S. was closest to starting a earth-shattering war. During this time, the nuclear power was in the hands of the military. The Department of Energy’s handlings of nuclear power set a global precedent of putting the most destructive weapons in the hands of peaceful organizations, rather than war-makers. The Department of Energy’s handlings of nuclear weapons once again emphasized that Carter’s main priority was to keep the country safe and peaceful, even if it meant he had to slightly degrade the strong American image.
Not only did the Department of Energy take destructive weapons out of aggressive hands, but it also set forth an agenda of sustainability that made America have a more clean, promising future. The Department of Energy was the first national department to put a system of checks and balances on the way the U.S. uses energy.18 Before the solidification of the department, the United States had no national energy agenda, which made it difficult for leaders to create sweeping regulations on fossil fuels, gases which are released in the atmosphere, and pollution. After the department got its footing, it oversaw the work of thousands of governmental employees who formed legislation, created energy licensing, and investigated factories and businesses believed to be breaking environmental laws—all tasks the kept America Safe.19 The establishment of the Department of Energy can be considered the greatest accomplishment of the Carter administration because it set America towards a much more environmentally aware future. One of the greatest threats towards mankind right now is global warming, as agreed upon by many leading scientists. The establishment of the Department of Energy, created by Carter, was America’s first step in combating climate change.
President Carter’s policy actions emphasized that he was not one to be afraid to take a hit on his reputation. His thinking was not centered on staying in office for four more years, but rather on making the world safer. Almost no controversy, not even the Iran Hostage Crisis, can take away from the diplomatic fruits of the Carter presidency. During his tenure, Carter was able to establish peace in the Middle East, strengthen ties between Latin America and the United States, and establish the Department of Energy. Carter’s actions in office proved he was not a “bad president” as many Americans during his term believed, but rather a long-term thinker who ultimately set up a brighter future for the world.
Endnotes
1. Hamilton Jordan, Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency (New York: Berkley Books, 1982), 16.
2. Burgess, Heidi. "Camp David Summit Conference." In American History (2018), [Online]; available from ABC-CLIO [Online], Accessed 8 November 2018.
3. Stuart Eizenstat and Madeleine Albright, President Carter: The White House Years (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2018), 530.
4. Carter, Jimmy. “Jimmy Carter: Camp David Accords Speech (1978)," In American History (2018), [Online]; available from ABC-CLIO [Online], Accessed 1 December 2018.
5. Eizenstat and Albright, President Carter: The White House Years, 530
6. Seth Anziska, “How Israel Undermined Washington and Stalled the Dream of Palestinian Statehood,” New York Times, 7 November 2018.
7. Eizenstat and Albright, President Carter: The White House Years, 530
8. Robert Strong, Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000), 156.
9. Eizenstat and Albright, President Carter: The White House Years, 582
10. HISTORY.com editors, “Panama to Control Canal”, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ Panama-to-control-canal. (accessed November 7, 2018)
11. Hixon, Walter. “Panama Canal Treaties Arouse Nationalist Opposition,” (2000), [Online]; available from Gale Group [Online], Accessed 10 November 2018.
12. Strong, Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 156.
13. "The Creation of Energy," Washington Post, 20 May 1979.
14. Ibid
15. Ibid
16. Tony Long, "AUG. 4, 1977: All U.S. Energy Placed Under a Single Roof," WIRED, 4 August 2011.
17. Ibid
18. "Department of Energy." In American History (2018), [Online]; available from ABC-CLIO [Online], Accessed 11 November 2018.
19. Ibid
Work Cited
Anziska, Seth. "How Israel Undermined Washington and Stalled the Dream of Palestinian Statehood." The New York Times, September 20, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/opinion/israel-camp-david-anniversary-carter.html.
Burgess, Heidi. "Camp David Summit Conference." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/567299.
"Department of Energy." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/253434
Eizenstat, Stuart, and Madeleine Albright. President Carter: The White House Years. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2018.
History.com Editors. "Panama to Control Canal." HISTORY. Last modified February 9, 2010. Accessed November 7, 2018. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/panama-to-control-canal.
Hixson, Walter. "Panama Canal Treaties Arouse Nationalist Opposition." Cartoon. Gale Group. Last modified 2000. Accessed November 10, 2018. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Images&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CEJ2210036591&docType=Image&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=UHIC&contentSet=GALE%7CEJ2210036591&searchId=R2&userGroupName=sain78961&inPS=true.
"Jimmy Carter: Camp David Accords Speech (1978)." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/254009.
Jordan, Hamilton. Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency. New York: Berkley Books, 1982.
Long, Tony. "AUG. 4, 1977: All U.S. Energy Placed Under a Single Roof." WIRED, August 4, 2011. https://www.wired.com/2011/08/0804us-energy-dept-created-doe/.
Strong, Robert A. Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000.
The Washington Post. "The Creation of Energy." May 20, 1979. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1979/05/20/the-creation-of-energy/6e283b80-06b5-426b-b953-d3e492ad4020/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6eaccff9906.
Bibliography
Anziska, Seth. "How Israel Undermined Washington and Stalled the Dream of Palestinian Statehood." The New York Times, September 20, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2 018/09/20/opinion/israel-camp-david-anniversary-carter.html.
Burgess, Heidi. "Camp David Summit Conference." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/56 7299.
"Department of Energy." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/253434
Eizenstat, Stuart, and Madeleine Albright. President Carter: The White House Years. New York, N.Y.: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2018.
Fink, Gary M., and Hugh Davis Graham. The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998.
History.com Editors. "Panama to Control Canal." HISTORY. Last modified February 9, 2010. Accessed November 7, 2018. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pana ma-to-control-canal.
Hixson, Walter. "Panama Canal Treaties Arouse Nationalist Opposition." Cartoon. Gale Group. Last modified 2000. Accessed November 10, 2018. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retr ieve.do?tabID=Images&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CEJ2210036591&docType=Image&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=UHIC&contentSet=GALE%7CEJ2210036591&searchId=R2&userGroupName=sain78961&inPS=true.
"Jimmy Carter: Camp David Accords Speech (1978)." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/ 254009.
Jordan, Hamilton. Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency. New York: Berkley Books, 1982.
Larry Sanger. "Jimmy Carter." Wikipedia. Last modified October 16, 2001. Accessed October 25, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter.
Long, Tony. "AUG. 4, 1977: All U.S. Energy Placed Under a Single Roof." WIRED, August 4, 2011. https://www.wired.com/2011/08/0804us-energy-dept-created-doe/.
Nelson, Lars-Erik, and David Oestreicher. "Iranian Hostage Crisis Comes to an End in 1981." Daily News, January 20, 1981. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iranian-hosta ge-crisis-1981-article-1.2503377.
O'Brien, Steven G. "Jimmy Carter." In American History, ABC-CLIO, 2018. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/246170.
Strong, Robert A. Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000.
The Washington Post. "The Creation of Energy." May 20, 1979. https://www.washingtonpost .com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1979/05/20/the-creation-of-energy/6e283b80-06b5-426b-b953-d3e492ad4020/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6eaccff9906.
"What Was the Iran Hostage Crisis? | History." Video file. Youtube. Posted August 31, 2017. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-WgNf6mn2k.