Tag Archive for: Jimmy Carter

From the bookshelf: ‘American Policy Discourses on China’

In her new book, Yan Chang Bennett explores historical US views of China. They have ranged from evangelical promises of redemption to hard-nosed capitalism exploiting vast opportunities. Bennett argues that these perspectives have shaped US foreign policy for centuries and often form the bases of China policy for new administrations.

Based on examination of recently declassified foreign-policy documents, Bennett guides readers through three centuries of United States-China relations focusing on three pivotal moments: president Richard Nixon’s rapprochement with China; Jimmy Carter’s normalising of US-China relations, and Bill Clinton’s advocacy of China’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession.

Before Nixon’s presidency, China was viewed in the US as a communist foe. The administration reshaped policy and in doing so drew on 19th and early 20th century US views and sentiments. These included a mix of missionary impulse and the idea of China as an untapped economic opportunity. Nixon promoted the idea that China, if left in isolation, would be an aggrieved giant threatening global peace, whereas reintegrating it into the global community would bring advantages to the US and also to China.

Building on Nixon’s rapprochement policy, and in line with earlier notions that helping China was the US’s ‘special undertaking’, the Carter administration saw the country as a candidate for democratisation as well as a vast market for US goods. It believed that if China normalised relations with the US, its economy could move to free markets, and its system of government could become more like those of Western Europe and the US. Bennett’s historical analysis shows Carter could not have been more naive about these reform prospects when dealing with China’s then leader, Deng Xiaoping.

It was at that time the US acknowledged the Chinese position ‘that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China’, declaring, however, that the US would ‘maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan’ and that it would ‘continue to have an interest in the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.’ The US opened official diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China on 1 January 1979.

Clinton’s presidency, in turn, built on the policy steps taken by Nixon and Carter by championing China’s accession to the WTO. He too was convinced this would lead to liberalisation and democratisation. Bennett argues this enduring belief reflects those long 19th century US attitudes. They were false. At the same time these US policies were being advanced, the Chinese government held its own shrewd and pragmatic perspectives about its relationship with the US, concerned about its interests and historical contexts.

US activities to assist China’s entry to the WTO, which Clinton predicted would enable almost unlimited access to the Chinese market, were flawed on many levels. Systematic misinterpretations came from US perceptions of China that were not rooted in reality.

China did not go for fundamental economic liberalisation, and Bennett says Clinton’s China hands should not have expected any such thing from China’s authoritarian government. For example, Beijing established tighter controls over its giant state-owned enterprises and pegged its currency to the dollar at artificially low levels, ‘bestowing significant competitive advantages to Chinese exporters’.

As Bennett says, it is now clear that WTO accession granted China entry into the world economy, fuelling its astounding economic growth. But what was also clear all along is that China acted in its own economic interest, exploiting Clinton’s vocal support. Not once in Clinton’s eight years in power from 1993 did China say it would become a democracy in the likeness of the US or would make economic reforms that would lead to political liberalisation.

With China rejecting Western ideologies, Bennett advocates a pragmatic reassessment of US policy. She argues it must avoid ‘emotional rhetoric, and idealised frameworks’, such as the belief in liberalisation and democratisation which drove support for China’s accession to the WTO, even though evidence for such hope was weak.

Bennett sees an enduring nature in 19th and early 20th century US perceptions of China, with their repetition in current US policy. Present narratives continue to emphasise China as ‘buried deeply in the past’. They extend to China’s leader, Xi Jinping, who is presented in media as a ‘timeless Confucian emperor’.  In fact, since his birth after the establishment of the People’s Republic, his entire education has been steeped in Marxist-Leninist principles of governance.

Using historical data, Bennett’s book offers insights for the incoming administration of Donald Trump. Her analysis matters in a world where China charts an independent path under Xi Jinping and where Trump’s agenda of making America great again aims to counter perceptions of US decline.

Since Trump’s 2024 victory, Bennett has separately proposed six ways for the US to counter China: modernising US military capabilities; prioritising the Indo-Pacific; strengthening economic leverage; sharing the burden of global leadership; investing in technology and innovation; and building energy independence and resilience.

Jimmy Carter: a man of humanity

Former Democratic US President Jimmy Carter, who is spending the last stage of his life in home hospice care at the age of 98, will be most remembered not only for his humanity and humility but also for his handling of two highly troublesome foreign policy issues that dominated his tenure in office (1977–1981). The Iranian revolution and its outcome confronted him with a humiliating crisis, and his efforts in bringing about a peaceful resolution of the Arab–Israeli conflict failed to secure a just peace for the Palestinians.

Soon after assuming office, Carter was seriously challenged by transformative changes in Iran—one of the pillars of Pax Americana in the Middle East. The pro-Western monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah was besieged with a revolutionary uprising, resulting in its overthrow and replacement by an Islamic government, led by the Shah’s key religious opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The new leadership declared Iran an Islamic republic with an anti-US stance for its support of the Shah’s autocracy and vehement opposition to Israel for its occupation of the Palestinian lands, especially Jerusalem as Islam’s third holiest site.

Initially, Carter sought a modus vivendi with the Islamic regime, but the situation was compounded by a group of Khomeini’s militant supporters overrunning the US embassy in Tehran and taking 53 of its personnel hostage in November 1979. As Khomeini used the development for consolidating power and punishing the US, the ‘hostage crisis’ lasted 444 days or the entire remaining term of Carter’s presidency. The episode, which resulted in a total breakdown of relations between the two sides, proved very humiliating for Carter.

As a man of strong Christian faith with a committed stance for peace, Carter pursued all non-confrontational means to secure the release of the hostages, but when those efforts failed, he ordered a military rescue attempt, called Operation Eagle Claw, in April 1980. The mission ended with US helicopters crashing in the Iranian desert, which enabled Khomeini to claim it as punishment from God and could not have been more harmful to Carter. A further option was to go to war with Iran, but that was infeasible given Carter’s dedication to peace and the risk involved for the hostages.

Although both Carter and Khomeini were devotees of two Abrahamic faiths, Khomeini was not for turning as an Islamic revolutionary. After having demonstrated his power against the United States and making Carter appear as a ‘weak president’ in the eyes of the American public, Khomeini finally released the hostages on the eve of the swearing-in of Carter’s Republican successor, Ronald Reagan, on 21 January 1981.

Carter went on to further redeem himself as a very faithful and humane Christian in the service of the needy in the US and abroad. As for Khomeini, his legacy of an Islamic regime ever since his death in 1989 has progressively endured US enmity and sanctions and faced US public discontent. The regime is currently beset by widespread public unrest, with troubling times ahead.

The other foreign policy issue where Carter sought to do good, but could not achieve entirely what he wanted, concerned his role to secure the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and an independent state of their own. He managed to bring together Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat at Camp David in 1979 to negotiate peace to end the Middle East conflict. The outcome, in which he played a critical and impartial mediation, was the signing of two Camp David accords. One was to establish peace and normalise relations between the two sides. The other was to create an independent Palestinian state within five years out of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, which Israel had occupied since the 1967 Arab–Israeli War.

Israel implemented the first accord, which involved its withdrawal from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula in 1982 in return for Egypt’s formal recognition of Israel and establishment of relations between the two sides. The peace treaty that the former foes signed still holds. Jordan concluded a similar treaty with Israel in 1994, and more Arab states have since followed suit.

However, Israel reneged on the second accord, to Carter’s total disappointment. In his book The blood of Abraham, published in 1985, he castigated Israel for it. Abhorred by Israel’s repressive treatment of the Palestinians in the continued occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and blockaded Gaza, Carter came to view Israel as an ‘apartheid state’. He stood by the support of the international community, including Israel’s main ally, the United States, for a two-state solution as the best option for a lasting and just peace.

When Carter departs, he will be remembered in history as a man of great humanity and peace, despite his presidency having been seriously undercut by Middle Eastern vagaries. He will be missed in a world that badly needs more of his kind.