best casino websites online

Robert C. Donnelly , Gonzaga University Former President Jimmy Carter, who died on Dec. 29, 2024, at age 100 at his home in Plains, Georgia, was a dark horse Democratic presidential candidate with little national recognition when he beat Republican incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976. The introspective former peanut farmer pledged a new era of honesty and forthrightness at home and abroad, a promise that resonated with voters eager for change following the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. His presidency, however, lasted only one term before Ronald Reagan defeated him. Since then, scholars have debated – and often maligned – Carter’s legacy, especially his foreign policy efforts that revolved around human rights. Subscribe to our daily newsletter By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . Critics have described Carter’s foreign policies as “ineffectual” and “hopelessly muddled ,” and their formulation demonstrated “weakness and indecision.” As a historian researching Carter’s foreign policy initiatives , I conclude his overseas policies were far more effective than critics have claimed. The criticism of Carter’s foreign policies seems particularly mistaken when it comes to the Cold War, a period defined by decades of hostility, mutual distrust and arms buildup after World War II between the U.S. and Russia, then known as the Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). By the late 1970s, the Soviet Union’s economy and global influence were weakening. With the counsel of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Soviet expert , Carter exploited these weaknesses. During his presidency, Carter insisted nations provide basic freedoms for their people – a moral weapon against which repressive leaders could not defend. Carter soon openly criticized the Soviets for denying Russian Jews their basic civil rights , a violation of human rights protections outlined in the diplomatic agreement called the Helsinki Accords . Carter’s team underscored these violations in arms control talks. The CIA flooded the USSR with books and articles to incite human rights activism. And Carter publicly supported Russian dissidents – including pro-democracy activist Andrei Sakharov – who were fighting an ideological war against socialist leaders. Carter adviser Stuart Eizenstat argues that the administration attacked the Soviets “in their most vulnerable spot – mistreatment of their own citizens.” This proved effective in sparking Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s social and political reforms of the late 1980s, best known by the Russian word “glasnost ,” or “openness.” In December 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in response to the assassination of the Soviet-backed Afghan leader, Nur Mohammad Taraki. The invasion effectively ended an existing détente between the U.S. and USSR. Beginning in July 1979, the U.S. was providing advice and nonlethal supplies to the mujahideen rebelling against the Soviet-backed regime. After the invasion, National Security Advisor Brzezinski advised Carter to respond aggressively to it. So the CIA and U.S. allies delivered weapons to the mujahideen, a program later expanded under Reagan. Carter’s move effectively engaged the Soviets in a proxy war that began to bleed the Soviet Union. By providing the rebels with modern weapons, the U.S. was “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war,” according to Brzezinski : a progressively expensive war, a strain on the socialist economy and an erosion of their authority abroad. Carter also imposed an embargo on U.S. grain sales to the Soviets in 1980. Agriculture was the USSR’s greatest economic weakness since the 1960s. The country’s unfavorable weather and climate contributed to successive poor growing seasons, and their heavy industrial development left the agricultural sector underfunded . Economist Elizabeth Clayton concluded in 1985 that Carter’s embargo was effective in exacerbating this weakness. Census data compiled between 1959 and 1979 show that 54 million people were added to the Soviet population. Clayton estimates that 2 to 3 million more people were added in each subsequent year. The Soviets were overwhelmed by the population boom and struggled to feed their people. At the same time, Clayton found that monthly wages increased, which led to an increased demand for meat. But by 1985, there was a meat shortage in the USSR. Why? Carter’s grain embargo, although ended by Reagan in 1981, had a lasting impact on livestock feed that resulted in Russian farmers decreasing livestock production . The embargo also forced the Soviets to pay premium prices for grain from other countries, nearly 25 percent above market prices . For years, Soviet leaders promised better diets and health , but now their people had less food. The embargo battered a weak socialist economy and created another layer of instability for the growing population. In 1980, Carter pushed further to punish the Soviets. He convinced the U.S. Olympic Committee to refrain from competing in the upcoming Moscow Olympics while the Soviets repressed their people and occupied Afghanistan. Carter not only promoted a boycott, but he also embargoed U.S. technology and other goods needed to produce the Olympics. He also stopped NBC from paying the final US$20 million owed to the USSR to broadcast the Olympics. China, Germany, Canada and Japan – superpowers of sport – also participated in the boycott. Historian Allen Guttmann said, “The USSR lost a significant amount of international legitimacy on the Olympic question.” Dissidents relayed to Carter that the boycott was another jab at Soviet leadership. And in America, public opinion supported Carter’s bold move – 73% of Americans favored the boycott . In his 1980 State of the Union address, Carter revealed an aggressive Cold War military plan. He declared a “ Carter doctrine ,” which said that the Soviets’ attempt to gain control of Afghanistan, and possibly the region, was regarded as a threat to U.S. interests. And Carter was prepared to meet the threat with “ military force .” Carter also announced in his speech a five-year spending initiative to modernize and strengthen the military because he recognized the post-Vietnam military cuts weakened the U.S. against the USSR. Ronald Reagan argued during the 1980 presidential campaign that, “Jimmy Carter risks our national security – our credibility – and damages American purposes by sending timid and even contradictory signals to the Soviet Union.” Carter’s policy was based on “weakness and illusion” and should be replaced “with one founded on improved military strength,” Reagan criticized. In 1985, however, President Reagan publicly acknowledged that his predecessor demonstrated great timing in modernizing and strengthening the nation’s forces, which further increased economic and diplomatic pressure on the Soviets. Reagan admitted that he felt “very bad” for misstating Carter’s policies and record on defense. Carter is most lauded today for his post-presidency activism , public service and defending human rights. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for such efforts. But that praise leaves out a significant portion of Carter’s presidential accomplishments. His foreign policy, emphasizing human rights, was a key instrument in dismantling the power of the Soviet Union. This is an updated version of a story that was originally published on May 2, 2019. Robert C. Donnelly , Associate Professor of History, Gonzaga University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Want stories like this delivered straight to your inbox?Stay informed. Stay ahead. Subscribe to InqMORNING

Panthers TE Ja'Tavion Sanders carted off field for neck injury“I’m mad but I don’t eat glass,” explained Javier Milei in more than one friendly interview since being president. Just his way of justifying a dose of pragmatism that reached another peak of exposure in recent days with the G20 Leaders Summit in Brazil as the excuse. At the symbolic level Milei finally yielded, adhering to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s “global alliance against hunger” and the final G20 statement from Rio de Janeiro where the main world powers advocated a decalogue of good economic, social and even environmental intentions. Always with reservations and explanations, while shunning the final family photo of the event as if to give some proud argument to his digital libertarian wolf-pack. Preceded a few hours beforehand by images of the frosty greeting between President Milei and his Brazilian colleague Lula. It was the first meeting between the two after a history of unfortunate insults. But, at the same time, Economy Minister Luis ‘Toto’ Caputo was signing with a Brazilian Mining and Energy colleague an understanding to open the door to Argentina selling gas from its Vaca Muerta mega-deposits to Brazil. Such libertarian flexibility was also ratified by Milei’s first meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, as the head of state put behind him declarations of “assassins” and “Communists” and a refusal to negotiate between states. There was a previous stepping-stone towards that flexibility when Milei described China as “a very interesting trading partner,” adding “they don’t demand anything, just that you don’t bother them.” This presidential rewind came after China renewed the currency swaps propping up Argentina’s squalid Central Bank reserves, along with renewing its intention to keep investing in the country with an eye to the pending hydro-electric dams of Santa Cruz, mining and the reprivatisation of the Hidrovía waterway and the rail freight network. What would Donald Trump say about that? Milei also needed to show his flexibility with Emmanuel Macron in town. The centre-right French president stopped over in Buenos Aires prior to the G20 summit. Macron visited the Santa Cruz church, infiltrated during the 1976-1983 dictatorship by the naval officer Alfredo Astiz to identify the families of the abducted and the still missing French nuns Léonie Duquet and Alice Domon. Astiz was one of those recently visited by a troop of libertarian deputies at his Ezeiza prison cell. Argentina’s head of state also had to bite his tongue when Macron was explaining his opposition to the free-trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union, due to the resistance of the French farming sector which fears unfair competition and aspires to not losing its protection. Ah, those Communists! Another summit with Italian premier Giorgia Meloni then followed. Did the far-right leader explain to Milei why she did not fire or reprimand her foreign minister after Italy voted at the United Nations in favour of the United States lifting its blockade against Cuba? Or why, in contrast to Argentina, Italy did not withdraw its UN peace-keeping troops from Lebanon? Those who frequented Néstor Kirchner’s office narrate that he used a stock phrase to banish fears when he began his presidency, explaining: “Do not listen to what I say, look at what I do.” Milei is paying a curious tribute to this maxim, and he’s not the only one. Ads Space Ads Space

J-K govt to raise specially-abled pension to Rs 3,000 from Rs 1,000: Minister Sakina Itoo