articles my EDITOR hesitateS to publish

---

Prince George, BC, January 2, 2025/Troy Media/ - On December 29, the world said goodbye to the 100-year-old former President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter. There is no such thing as a perfect human being, but is it fair to say that Carter was better than most?

Carter said that he wanted to be remembered as a person who worked to promote human rights. This, unfortunately, was not the case during his presidency. There were numerous atrocities supported by the United States, from covert wars in the Americas to outright genocide on the Southeast Asian island nation of East Timor. In addition, his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski weaponized the Taliban in Afghanistan to weaken the Soviet Union. This certainly backfired on the United States.

Carter is likely best known for the taking of American hostages in Iran and his government’s inability to control inflation or to deal effectively with the energy crisis. These led to his loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980. What we often forget, however, is that the anti-New Deal, pro-Wall Street policies that have decimated the American working class and are often blamed on Reagan were central to Carter’s domestic policy.

Is it fair to judge Carter’s life by his four years as president? Once the yoke of the office was lifted, he used the notoriety of his former title to do far more good than any other American president. 

Habitat for Humanity is the service most often associated with Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn. They were not only responsible for raising awareness of this international non-profit society, but they also physically went worldwide and built homes for people. As a result of their efforts, thousands of families and individuals not only have a roof over their heads, they have property to pass on to future generations. 

Jimmy Carter also built relationships with leaders from many countries. Canadians will remember Carter with Cuban President Fidel Castro at Pierre Trudeau’s funeral in 2000. Two years later, Carter accompanied Castro to the pitcher’s mound at a baseball game in Havana and threw the ceremonial first pitch.

That same year, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his efforts to solve international conflicts and bring people together. He was also openly critical of American foreign policy, especially his country’s assault on Iraq.

The one area of foreign policy where Carter has received scathing criticism was his work to promote peace in Israel/Palestine. There was great hope when as president, Carter oversaw the  Camp David Accords, signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1978. While this has kept the two countries from going to war, there were no Palestinian voices involved in the negotiations. 

The Camp David Accords have also not benefited Palestinians in the way Carter had hoped. In 2006, he published Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. In an interview about the book he stated,  “When Israel … within the West Bank … connects the 200-or-so settlements … with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."

Throughout his life, Carter was motivated by a deep Christian faith, rooted in a profound respect for all people. His work will continue through The Carter Center whose motto is, “Waging Peace. Fighting Disease. Building Hope.”

Did Jimmy Carter achieve his dream of advancing human rights? That is a difficult question to answer. Perhaps he was naïve to believe that he could achieve his goal by leading the world’s most powerful empire. Perhaps he made the same mistake as many good people, trusting people who prove to be unworthy of trust. 

One thing is certain, however.  Jimmy Carter was a decent human being who did his best to try to make the world better for others.

Prince George, BC, January 2, 2025/Troy Media/ - What will happen in 2025? It is a question we ask about each new year as it begins. Of course, no one knows the answer to this question, but we can look at historical patterns to gain an idea of what is likely to happen if certain actions are taken.

First, we need to understand that wars of aggression are never a good idea. More territory may be taken, but occupying another nation is an endless drain on a country’s resources. In addition, one will always face tremendous resistance in fighting against people defending their homeland. It is always most economically expedient to develop mutually beneficial relationships with other nations. 

Secondly, “shock and awe” methods of warfare only lead to short-term gains. When civilian populations are bombed it has the metaphorical impact of swatting a beehive with a stick. One will get stung and be forced to retreat.

Thirdly, while Western military weaponry was once the most effective and advanced in the world, other countries have now caught up. In essence, Western countries and their allies are paying huge sums of money for weaponry that is proving inferior to what is produced more cheaply in other countries. This could change in the future, but in 2025, the West has no response to the Russian Oreshnik missile.

Fourthly, Western politicians need to be mindful of the fact that young people understand the realities of war and will not volunteer for the military. Whereas in World War I, it was relatively easy to manipulate the media to create a frenzy of support for “God and King”, this is now impossible. Western governments may use air and missile attacks, but there can be no follow-up with boots on the ground. 

It is also significant to note that the West, and in particular the United States, has become more isolated politically and economically. We see this not only in votes in the United Nations General Assembly, but in the growth of influence of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations. In addition, the International Monetary Fund reports, “an ongoing gradual decline in the (US) dollar’s share of allocated foreign reserves of central banks and governments.” Perceived support for Israel’s aggressions against Palestinians has also resulted in significant losses for American companies, and one wonders what the long-term impact of this shift in consumer spending will be for both the United States and their allies.

The unavoidable reality is that the American Empire has weakened itself in the last 30 years largely due to failed military exploits. To continue to attack other countries, either directly as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, or through proxies, as is currently being done in Ukraine and Israel, will only hasten this decline. It could also lead to World War III.

Of course, there is an alternative to world war. There are structures in place that provide a mechanism to settle disputes through negotiation rather than military aggression. We have a system of international humanitarian law, which if respected, will significantly reduce the risk of further violence.  In addition, international economic collaboration is far more conducive to long-term stability than exploitation and isolationism. 

What will be written in the history books about 2025? Will we build a better world, or will we destroy what we and our ancestors have built? We can naively ignore our current reality and continue on the road to military aggression, or we can come to our senses, accept the situation as it is, deal effectively with the mistakes we have made, and begin to work together.