Posted by
mgraves on Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:01:37 PM
I was always under the impression that former President James Carter was merely a terrible President, and, later, senility made him an apologist for some of the most vicious tyrants of the last 30 years. I was wrong. President Carter has a long and disgusting history as an appeaser of tyrants.
I, thankfully, missed the Carter Administration, but, unfortunately, the rest of the world wasn't quite so lucky.
President Carter threw the Shah under the bus. Mugabe, however, President Carter (and his administration) helped gain power.
An article in the Weekly Standard from several weeks ago (I was away and now I'm trying to catch up on The Weekly Standard and NR) discusses how tyranny came to Zimbabwe.
After Zimbabwe achieved its independence from the British Crown in 1965, it did not begin to transition to majority rule until the late 1970s. Prime Minister Ian Smith vehemently opposed the idea of majority rule, but, eventually did bow to the winds of change.
After rejecting a Callaghan-Carter plan which would have incorporated Mugabe's rebels into the army, Smith and moderate Zimbabwean black leaders came up with an "internal settlement", with a transitional government formed of those moderate leaders. The settlement reserved 28 seats in the 100 seat parliament for whites. Future prime minister Muzorewa while disappointed in the plan, stated that it provided "the machinery for dismantling the structure and practices of colonialism and racism and of minority rule."
Muzorewa, an American educated minister, was elected in 1979.
President Carter, and other elements of the international left, condemned the elections as a fraud, because all parties were not represented (this would include Mugabe's ZANU, which refused to participate, on the grounds that participation would hinder Mugabe's ascension to absolute power). African dictators condemned the result also.
The U.S. Congress sought to repeal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe-Rhodesia), but the administration did not hold the elections to be free and fair because the Soviet and Chinese trained ZANU and ZAPF did not participate.
The guerrilla war continued unabated. Muzorewa was unable to secure recognition from any government for his government and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was crushed under sanctions. Zimbabwe was isolated internationally (see, it can be done, but apparently not for dangerous regimes, i.e. Iran).
A new set of negotiations was held in London, this time with the guerrillas participating. A new round of elections was held, and Mugabe used strongarm tactics to secure victory.
President Carter declared victory also and lifted sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Mugabe's 27 plus years of tyranny began, with the complicity of President Carter.
What is the difference between the Shah of Iran and Mugabe? Mugabe made his intentions of only abiding by the election if he won known. Mugabe's strongarm tactics were obvious for all to see.
The Shah supported Israel, and was likely Israel's strongest ally in the history of the Israeli republic, the U.S. included. He could also be considered a "right-wing" tyrant. Mugabe, on the other hand, while not the Soviet or Chinese agent he was feared to be, was and is definitely a "left-wing" tyrant.
President Carter will apparently excuse any excess if committed by a leftist--Chavez, Castro, Kim, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, et cetera.
President Carter apparently does not understand that the ends do not justify the means.
Pinochet and Franco were successful tyrants. They established stable nations with vibrant economies and, either provided the means for their democratic succession (Franco) or stepped down after an election. This does not, however, excuse their tyranny.
Kim, Mugabe, Castro, etc are aggressively unsuccessful tyrants, leaving behind a trail of starvation, failed stated controlled economies and brutal oppression. This does not make their tyranny more blameworthy; it merely exacerbates the human cost of their tyranny.
It's okay with President Carter, though, because they're leftists.
If there is a more reprehensible man than President Carter, I don't know who it is (there is no greater evil than that which is committed for a good cause).