Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42498)	9/7/2002 10:08:35 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, there's no doubt that Carter dropped the ball in a number of areas of foreign policy. But he had some good days too. First of all, there's the Carter Doctrine, stating that "an attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States," to repel which the United States would employ "any means necessary, including military force." Certainly, this had been an unwritten policy previously but in announcing this in his State of the Union speech, he was drawing a clear line with the message intended for the Soviets (who had invaded Afghanistan), that this doctrine would supercede detente. This was further reinforced by a demand for greater reductions in weaponry under Salt II, the adding of missiles in Europe, direct contacts with Soviet dissidents, forging a stronger alliance (that was qusi-military )with China and ultimately asking the Senate to put off ratification of Salt II while the Soviets were in Afghanistan. The Camp David accord between Begin and Sadat was certainly a pivotal achievement; a mediation effort unrivaled by any President in my lifetime or my parents' lifetime. In light of all that's happened in the quarter century since, some would argue that the achievement is moot, but I'd call that short-sighted. The support of the government of Egypt has protected US interests and has been a buffer for Israel, despite the internal politics in that nation. I should add that the strategic decision to sell AWACS to the Saudis has also benefited us strategically and economically, as the Saudis have ever since provided a reasonable stability to OPEC oil prices. As well, our capacity to communicate and negotiate with most Arab governments was increased by Carter's efforts then and since. He remains the one American that a significant percentage of the Arab street will listen to. But even in those areas, he was not flawless. Putting idealism ahead of realism, or perhaps trying to display that he would not be blackmailed by extremist threats, he permitted the Shah to seek medical treatment here. The repercussions from that unravelled his Presidency and cost him re-election. We'll never know how different things might have been had the three copter motors not malfunctioned, a simple case of bad luck. There were flaws in his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well. I don't share the big critique of the boycott of the Moscow Olympics but symbolism was not enough. The grain embargo was certainly an error, though. The question of what more could be done, remains. Certainly, the arming of the mujahidin that the next administration undertook had longterm consequences that proved flawed, as well. The Panama Canal Treaty in 1978 brought a conclusion to our direct governance of the canal, but he botched the process of getting from A to Z by not including the Senate in the early negotiation process. The end result was okay, but his internal politics approach was flawed. Next to his Middle East successes, where he only struck out against Iran, I'd say his only other area of strength was in his dealings with China. Though he had to unilaterally revoke its 1955 treaty that defended Taiwan, his negotiations with the Communist Chinese helped thaw relations well enough to permit moderate economics-oriented party officials to build their positions in the Chinese power structure while reducing the strength of its hardliners. At the same time, despite killing the 1955 treaty, we continued to provide arms to Taiwan and have since been pretty consistent in aiding its efforts to maintain a degree of economic and social autonomy from the stricter mainland. Both in his dealings with China and the Saudis, Carter displayed a capability to put reality ahead of idealism. His final 18 months, with the Soviets invading, the Iranian revolution, the near meltdown of Three Mile Island and the miserable economy, proved too much too fast for him to get a handle on. As well, he was politically isolated at the end. He'd never well managed his outsider status in the Beltway, and after a bruising primary season against Kennedy that alienated the party's lefties, he was a sitting duck. However, I ultimately find nothing intrinsically wrong in his effort to publically convey strong support of human rights. usinfo.state.gov I think that's critically important in selling the US ideals to 'the street' in many repressive countries. Behind the scenes, diplomatic success depends on flexibility and compromise, of course, and I think by the time Carter 'got it', it was too late in the game.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42498)	9/7/2002 10:58:32 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

With respect to the issue of why we did not finish the job in Iraq back in 1991, my recollection is that Bush I thought that he was on a very short leash at the time. This is not consistent with Bush II's reading of the legalities of the situation. But, in retrospect, I think Bush II's legal eagles are doing a very good job, with respect to interpreting legal documents as they are written, without consideration of the nuances of the times. It would take a very dispassionate person to tell Bush II that Bush I screwed up, but I can handle it. He's got bigger cojones than his father did, God bless him.