The opening sentence of the official Press Statement on the passing of former President Jimmy Carter (1924-2024) succinctly incapsulates the protocol, priorities and position of the global hegemon: “Jimmy Carter was a United States President, a U.S. Navy veteran, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and a humanitarian who dedicated his life to promoting peace, democracy, and human rights.” For his legions of admirers, Carter will perhaps be better remembered for his post-presidential contributions rather than the predicaments of his presidency.

The legacy of Carter, the 39th President of the US, who served for a single term between 1977 and 1981, is somewhat complicated. When he took over from President Gerald Ford, all was not well with the US. The 1970s had begun with the complete disgrace of US foreign policy in Asia, such as its support for the genocidal regime in Pakistan, indiscriminate bombardment of Laos, carpet bombing of Cambodia and multiple massacres of civilians in Vietnam. The war in Indochina had ended, but Carter was left with the task of clearing its geopolitical debris.

Things weren’t much better on the home front. The 39th Vice President Spiro Agnew had resigned when charged with tax evasion. President Richard Nixon had disgraced himself in the Watergate scandal. Hit by the oil embargo, the economy was in a tailspin with low growth and high inflation. The contempt for established authorities had created widespread cynicism. Carter’s first job was to reignite what he called “a fresh faith in the old dream” in his inaugural address.

Just as politicos of relatively weak countries are judged by their ability to resist “foreign intervention”, the leadership of powerful nations must exert power abroad to maintain their domestic legitimacy and international supremacy. Carter failed to prevent the fall of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in Iran, declined to offer him asylum and was completely unsuccessful in dealing with the 444-day hostage crisis in Tehran. The Operation Eagle Claw to rescue hostages ended in a disaster. He lost his re-election bid in November 1980 to the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan.

Compromised convictions

Realpolitik requires that principles be expended in the pursuit of permanent interests. Charged with handling the oil crisis, Carter stood firmly with Suharto in Indonesia, whose 32-year dictatorship has been labelled as “one of the most brutal and corrupt of the 20th century”. He supported the crooked dictatorship of President Ferdinand E Marcos in the Philippines.

Along with Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev, President Carter also sent a mercy appeal to Pakistani dictator Gen Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, but he had chosen not to use diplomatic and ‘other’ levers to ensure a fair trial for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He perhaps found that geostrategic interests in Afghanistan were more pressing than humanitarian concerns.

In a reluctantly critical piece “How Jimmy Carter Started America’s Afghanistan Folly”, Kai Bird, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and the author of the book The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter describes how Carter’s authorisation of aid to the Mujahideen was aimed at inducing a Soviet military intervention. A decision that was meant to be Soviet Union’s Vietnam ultimately turned out to be Vietnam 2.0 for the US too.

The role of the US in institutionalising three military regimes in South Korea remains unexposed, but it has been documented that the Carter administration supported the brutal crushing of the Gwangju uprising by military dictator Chun Doo-hwan. Even the supposed successes of his presidency, such as the formalisation of the diplomatic relationship with the People’s Republic of China on January 1, 1979, or the Camp David Accords, weren’t without negative consequences for the future of human rights, peace and democracy.

While recognition of the regime in Beijing was inevitable after the Nixon-Mao handshake of February 22, 1972, Carter’s endorsement of the earlier rapprochement pushed all possibilities of democratic transition in the communist stronghold into the background. It’s convenient to assume that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin deceived the American president, but the fact remains that the peace treaty concluded between Israel and Egypt in March 1979 had intentionally left the fate of Palestine hanging in balance.

In his later life, Carter himself came to criticise Israel for imposing apartheid on the Palestinians. Israel’s continuing “Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza” is a testimony of the failure of the Camp David Accords. The 1979 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II) had to be withdrawn before its ratification.

Carter administration’s policies on the African continent proved to be more balanced. The white-only rule in Rhodesia ultimately had to make way for independent Zimbabwe. Condemnation of the apartheid was a signal to the world that the regime in South Africa had become unsustainable.

After the ratification, the Panama treaties were rightfully claimed as an unqualified success of the Carter administration. Unfortunately, the past and forthcoming president of the US is threatening to scrap the deal.

Convenient campaigns

Carter came into his own in his post-presidency years as he embraced global campaigns for human rights, health and habitat, with the turning point being the Carter Center which he founded in 1982 together with Rosalynn Carter. Its activities made him the “best ex-president America ever had”.

His first trip to the Everest region of Nepal in 1985 was personal, but subsequent visits in 2007, 2008 and 2013 were intended to assist the ongoing peace process. The problem with high-level visits is that dignitaries are often inadequately briefed about ground realities. In an interaction in 2007, it appeared that Carter had little knowledge about the situation in Madhesh.

Only an agitated and brash interlocutor from Madhesh could have had the temerity to ask the ex-president from Plains, Georgia whether he had heard about a derisive saying on the East Coast that ‘a man from South would have sh.t on his shoes’ in a desperate attempt to draw his attention towards the plight of Madheshis. He had replied in the negative with a straight face.

Carter came from the richest family of the Plains, with a landholding of several thousand acres and a flourishing peanut business. He was ready to listen but unwilling to advocate for economic and social justice in a country on the cusp of historic transformation. He chose to ignore the subtle political engineering and conferred international legitimacy upon an extra-constitutional regime conducting the polls to form Constituent Assembly II.

At his last press meet as the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh (1932-2024) had said, “I honestly believe history will be kinder to me than the contemporary media …”. Perhaps the technocratic premier Singh had been too optimistic: History is seldom kind to anyone be it the slave-owning George Washington, the hater of Indians Winston Churchill or the peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi. At its best, history is considerate towards iconic figures.

In a period when the Soviet Union showed hope to the Third World and the US ignited desires, Carter attempted to prove that human rights mattered more. Rest in peace, the venerable moralist and vulnerable pragmatist rolled into one—the life and time of ex-President Carter shows that in a world of uncertainties, all one can do is cope with a clear mind and a compassionate heart. On that reflective note, Happy New Year 2025.