What was the carter doctrine

Assignment 2: Current Events And U.S. Diplomacy The Carter Doctrine

U.S. DIPLOMACY: CARTER ADMINISTRATION, CAMP DAVID ACCORD 4

The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy: The Carter Administration

The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy: The Carter Administration

U.S. 39th President James Carter's greatest accomplishment during his term as the head of state. The Camp David Accord a treaty signed between the Egypt and Israel government was a turning point in the history of the two countries and America as a whole. According to Gerhard Peters and John T. Wooley (1999), it attempts to explain the level to which a point was reached that the President said at the State Union Address. Attacking the Gulf by any state would be considered an attack on the personal interests of the country and would be dealt with by force, military if need be. This said even after the treaty had been signed and an effort was being made by the president to stick to his morals. With this diplomatic move made by the head of state considering that the U.S.A. was already a superpower by then came consequences that are still felt today both positive and adverse. According to the journals on American history, in the end, President Carter’s reasons were to the best of the states’ interests. This, however, was the beginning of direct intervention by America in Persian Gulf business.

The Cold War and The United States Diplomacy: The Carter Administration- the Persian Gulf Standoff.

America began its romance with the Gulf in the 1930s. According to the Journal of American History (2012), it officially became apparent when the then United States President Frank Roosevelt hosted Abd-al-Aziz Ibn Saud the head of state of Saudi Arabia on the Quincy. From here on out a bargain was struck, the supply of cheap oil to America in exchange for protection from the superpower. This is because it is the Gulf is a region of vast and deep oil fields all concentrated in one region. During the Cold War (1947-1991), super power states such as the U.S., with interests in the Gulf, funded a lot of armament into the area. This together with a lot of internal feuds already existing within the countries eventually led to open wars and invasions (Journal of American History, 2012). The United States of America has, however, focused on maintaining friendly relations with oil producers in the region making them their allies. This would ensure the continuous supply of oil that America had now become dependent on an external source.

One of the countries that were substantially attacked by other nations in the region was Israel, a state formed in 1948 for the Jews that had had no home for hundreds of years. The Europeans decided on settling them on Israel land that they considered theirs by right. This did not go down well with the Arabs that had initially claimed that land thus creating feuds between Israel and its neighboring countries. By the year 1977, there had already been four attacks between Israel and Egypt. Egypt was the Arab country with the largest military force within what was known as the ‘Conflict Bloc.' President Carter saw this as an opportunity to be an arbitrator and bring peace to the two nations.

The negotiation of the settling of this dispute lasted 14 months and eventually led to the signing of the Camp David Accords treaty on the 26th of March 1979. The treaty was signed by the head of state of Egypt Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin who was the prime minister of Israel. The two were jointly bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize because of this act that was the first treaty signed between an Arab Country and Israel.

Effects of the Signing of the Camp Accord Treaty

The almost immediate effect of the treaty was Egypt being cut off from the rest of the Arab community. The Arabs showed open hostility to Egypt as they felt betrayed by them. The signing of the treaty meant the country with a sizeable military force had been removed from the ongoing conflict with Israel thus weakening the unified Arab opposition.

The boycott on Israel was lifted bringing stability and security to its Southern Border and allowing better use of its already limited resources.

The economic and political boycott of Egypt that led to its removal from the Arab League from the year 1979 to 1989 resulting in the struggle of Egypt's economy and eventual stagnation. The lack of economic growth led to the people taking out their frustrations on their government's leader President Sadat's assassination. Though the government was taken over by Hosni Mubarak, the country continued to suffer economically and has never fully recovered. Mubarak, however, maintained Egypt's relationship with America though his term was filled with a lot of dictatorship tendencies.

The shift of balance of power between the states allowed for Israel to invade Lebanon in the year 1982 in which Palestinians who were citizens in Lebanon were mercilessly murdered by military forces in their country who were considered Christian. This was due to the lack of properly defined autonomy on the Egyptians part. It was said it was as though the Israelites stood by and watched as the military killed innocents. It was as though it was revenge for what they had been through (Journal of American History, 2003). This was a huge political loss for Begin as his credibility and his trustworthiness as a politician and diplomat in international relations.

On the United States part, they became involved in the Iranian Revolution in November of 1979 and the almost immediate invasion of the Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in December of the same year. The invasion had been anticipated by the Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter's National Security Adviser (Brzezinski, 1983). The attacks and invasions were partially because America had funded and armed a lot of the countries that it considered its allies within the Gulf. This led to the taking of hostages and led to the dying popularity of President Carter who was considered idealistic and political naïve (President Carter's Inaugural Address, 1981). A rescue mission was however sent but failed way before it begun due to equipment breaking down. Unfortunately for Carter this led to his losing the elections for his next term and the winning though by a small margin by Ronald Reagan. The release of the hostages that were taken happened on President Reagan's first day in office.

Long Term Effects

The signing of the Camp David Accord introduced a ‘New Era' to Egypt that can be viewed in a positive way. The country was now less dependent on its surrounding Arab states as allies and had to turn internally for help or look for allies abroad. They had already gained one for free a superpower such as The United States of America.

Though Carter was viewed idealistic and thus unrealistic, he demonstrated that instead of violence negotiations and peace can be restored through diplomacy and cooperation he was against using violence against other countries as a way of negotiating peace. His emphasis on the abandoning of protecting human rights and America straying away from what was right was aptly emphasized even after the Vietnam War according to Isacoff and Widmaier (2003). Carter believed that Martin Luther King's famous speech titled ‘I have a dream' that presented ideologies that people were to respect and love each other no matter the gender, race or background was possible.

In the end, there had to be consequences for the treaty as in any action but President Carter's reasons were also for the interests of the states involved. One might be tempted to believe that even after Carter's failure to use force that violence that followed through America's backing helped. But after Carter and later Presidents the Persian Gulf has experienced up to 30 years of war not only from outside forces but regimes within the boundaries of their countries. He was an idealistic man and in this situation his stand on maintaining high moral standards and protecting each person's human rights were almost achieved in this situation.

References

Gerhard T. Peters and John T. Wooley (1999-2015), The American Presidency Project url:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33079.

Jonathan B. Isacoff & Wesley W. Widmaier (2003), Systemic Interpretations and the National Interest: Presidential ‘Lessons of Vietnam’ and Policy Deliberation, St. Joseph’s University Philadelphia USA

Journal of American History (2012) 99(1): 208-218 doi:10.1093/jahist/jas045 url:http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full#xref-fn-6-1

Zbigniew Brzezinski (1983). Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser 1977-1981 Published in New York