On October 1, the 39th US President Jimmy Carter celebrated his 100th birthday. In our opinion, this ex-president personifies a very interesting and, judging by some details, irretrievable bygone era. An era from which lessons can be learned. Especially if we look back at the turning point, the year 1979, writes Roman Reinhardt.
Then, forty-five years ago, a number of events occurred that determined the development of international relations along several important vectors. Carter, as the head of one of the two superpowers, was not just a participant in them, but a protagonist in the full sense. His actions and the steps he took have received and continue to receive different assessments, but amid the current conditions even a brief review of them seems important and timely, and provides the key, if not to a solution, then at least to a better understanding of current problems.
Despite the fact that foreign policy, as we know, is a continuation of domestic policy, we will not dwell on the analysis of the latter. We will leave the review of Carter’s activities as governor of Georgia, his election campaign, education reform, energy policy and other things, right down to piquant details like the incident with the floating rabbit, to biographers and specialists in the relevant fields. We will focus on the image of Carter in world politics and on certain key events.
The first of these is the Camp David Accords of 1978. They served as the basis for the signing of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in Washington on March 26, 1979. Yes, there were other figures present, perhaps even of the same calibre: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. However, it is unknown how history would have turned out and whether such a result would have been achieved without Carter. After all, politics is not only the art of the possible, but also often about cooperation with inevitability. And yet, it seems that Carter’s presence as a witness at the signing of the peace treaty, which became one of the pillars of regional security, sent an important signal to the world community. The role of the United States as a sponsor of the aforementioned treaty should not be underestimated either. Hawks do not often lay dove eggs, but this was probably one of those rare cases. However, it would have been difficult to do without an incubator. Given the current situation in the Middle East, the plot, it seems, is not only interesting in itself. At that time, the American administration proved in practice that it was capable of acting, albeit with certain limitations, as one of the guarantors of peace in that region, which is exceptionally difficult from all points of view. Thus, the assertion that the US is taking a chosen position a priori in the current escalation does not seem entirely convincing. Of course, the situation was different in many ways back then. And yet, its outcome demonstrates that Washington can act differently. There is a precedent.
The second was the signing of SALT II in Vienna on June 18, 1979:a formal ceremony that ended with Mr. Carter kissing Comrade Brezhnev. Six months later, the USSR sent a limited contingent of troops to Afghanistan, which is why the US Senate never ratified the treaty. This, however, did not prevent both parties from adhering to its main provisions. It is clear that reaching this agreement, as in the case of Egypt and Israel, was preceded by many years of painstaking work. Negotiations with the Soviet side were conducted by previous administrations starting in 1972. So, in a sense, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford also had a hand in this treaty. However, the final point, or rather, the personal signature, was put on it by Carter. Slowing down the nuclear race (its stop, then or now, let’s be realistic, is only possible in mental constructs) is another topic that hasn’t lost its relevance. In turn, this precedent demonstrates the ability of the parties to adhere to the old principle of pacta sunt servanda, even despite the fact that the legal consolidation of the pact was not finalized. And it turns out that this is also possible.
Third, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China on January 1, 1979, and Deng Xiaoping’s subsequent visit to the United States. Of course, this also had a “prequel” – Nixon’s trip to China seven years earlier. Nevertheless, the institutionalisation of rapprochement occurred in the late 1970s. In addition to security issues, a bilateral agreement on scientific and technical cooperation and an agreement on cultural cooperation were signed during the Chinese statesman’s visit. Thus, it can be considered the starting point for scientific diplomacy and cultural interaction between Washington and Beijing. This is also something to remember, given the current course of American politicians towards Chinese scientists, and not only. Just look at the increase in spending on military aid to Taiwan announced by President Biden.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
