The principal aim of my research was to uncover the relative merits and shortcomings of the human rights-orientated foreign policy advanced by the Jimmy Carter administration, between 1977 and 1981. Departing from the approach of his predecessors, Carter chose to pursue as a crucial aim of his foreign policy the improvement of human rights for people around the world. The policy was global in scale, applied in countries ranging from Rhodesia to Indonesia, and Chile to Cambodia. Through my research, I hoped to elucidate in which cases the policy of advancing human rights was successful, and in which cases it was less so. The policy was delivered in many forms, such as foreign aid restrictions and quiet diplomacy, so the research also had to assess which of these tactics were most effective.
Methodology
To conduct this research, I relied principally on existing scholarship. I collected the interpretations of over sixty scholars regarding the relative successes and failures of the policy by scouring the extensive body of literature surrounding the Carter presidency. I then aggregated these interpretations into a bibliographic essay. Finally, I compared and assessed these competing viewpoints in an eight-thousand-word essay, in which I also offered the personal conclusions that I had drawn from conducting the research.
As well as this, I travelled to the National Archives to take pictures of primary sources for the use of my mentor, Dr Roham Alvandi, who was working from the United States and was thus unable to access the Archives himself.
Results and some Conclusions
At the end of my research, I was able to draw a number of conclusions.
Firstly, I was able to summarise the myriad tools used by the Carter administration to advance its policy into four key categories: the manipulation of foreign assistance; quiet diplomacy; material inducements; and public pressure. Of these tools, foreign assistance manipulation and quiet diplomacy proved to be the most effective. A combination of these tactics produced meaningful results in many countries across Latin America, where the practice of ‘disappearing’, torturing and executing political opponents declined. Quiet diplomacy was also effective in Rhodesia, where Carter’s subtle policy succeeded in bringing an end to white majority rule and the ongoing civil conflict, which had claimed 20,000 lives.
I also found that the policy was immensely inconsistent in its application and results. Where the policy was faithfully applied, it did bring meaningful results. But too often, the administration broke its own rules by continuing to support oppressive regimes. This was especially stark with regard to Cambodia; the Carter administration voted in the UN to continue recognising the brutal Khmer Rouge as Cambodia’s legitimate government in 1979 despite its removal from power the year prior. The Carter administration also rhetorically and materially supported the Indonesian government despite its repressive policy in East Timor. Uncoincidentally, the countries in which Carter tended to violate the principles of his own human rights policy tended to be those countries that were considered important in the ongoing Cold War struggle. Strategic concerns therefore often superseded the human rights policy.
The orthodox view within the scholarship regarding the human rights policy is largely critical. Scholars do not typically regard the human rights policy as a meaningful success. My own conclusions differed slightly from this orthodox view. Although Carter is rightly criticised for failing to apply the policy in countries such as Indonesia and Cambodia, the policy nonetheless did improve the lives of tens of thousands of people, at a minimum, in the countries where it was faithfully applied.
My hope is that this research aids Dr Alvandi in the book project he is working on. Dr Alvandi’s book focuses on the relationship between the Carter administration and Iran. The objective of this research was to provide him with useful context regarding the wider application of Carter’s human rights policy. This would allow him to compare the emphasis that the Carter administration placed on human rights in its relationship with Iran with the extent to which it did so in other countries around the world at the same time.
My experience with the project
On a personal level, I have found the project intellectually stimulating and highly fulfilling. The subject matter was immensely interesting. Working with the US Centre and Dr Alvandi was a genuine privilege; I found both to be supportive, encouraging and accommodating. I was always assured that I could fit my work on the project around my coursework and as a result, the two never clashed.
The project has been one of the highlights of my LSE experience so far, and it has already opened doors for me. For example, I was accepted onto the LSE-Berkeley exchange programme for 2019-2020. I am certain that my participation in this project was one of the most important factors that made me stand out from the other applicants.
For all of these reasons, I cannot commend highly enough the research assistantship programme.
Please note that this report gives the views and findings of the Undergraduate Research Assistant, and may not necessarily reflect those of their faculty supervisor, the US Centre or the London School of Economics.