Beyond the Presidency: International Influence and the Pursuit of Justice.

Merrill, S. Austin ; Tibbon, Talya

Jimmy Carter Thirty-ninth President of the United States

Interviewed on 13 November 1998 by S. Austin Merril and Talya Tibbon for the Journal of International Affairs

The Pursuit of justice is the craft of both institutions and individuals. In 1982, one year after leaving the White House, Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn founded the Carter Center to promote human rights, peace and justice around the world. In the interview that follows, President Carter discusses the pursuit of justice and the impact of international organizations and individuals in that endeavor.

JOURNAL: What is your definition of justice and how does it manifest itself on the international level?

CARTER: One of my favorite theologians is Reinhold Niebuhr, who said that the highest calling of government is to establish justice in a sinful world. But justice is hard to define. My concept of justice is a definition that I've evolved over the last 25 years or so concerning human rights. Specifically, it is to promulgate or help to implement or enforce basic human rights for people over whom we have some influence or for whom we have some responsibility.

The field of human rights covers a broad panoply of meanings. One is, of course, the concept of civil rights that I first confronted as a young person in the South, when the Supreme Court had ruled that separate but equal facilities in courthouses, in schools and in public places was justice. But the separation of African-Americans and Whites was not justice, because we know that in the separation, Whites were dominant. When decisions were made, all the advantages were for the Whites and all the disadvantages were for the Blacks. Segregation's concept of "separate but equal" achieved justice as defined by U.S. laws and the Supreme Court ... but there certainly was no equality.

Obviously, to treat people who come under the aegis of one government equally and fairly is a basic concept of justice. But that is not enough. Justice is also, I think, implied in the prevention of abuse of people because they are poor, deprived, illiterate, lacking in influence, inarticulate or physically or mentally incapacitated. This definition recognizes that it is a gross injustice when a despotic ruler imprisons people when they've committed no crime but have just disagreed with his policies--or when such a ruler tortures prisoners or executes innocent people.

Another meaning of justice is meeting the basic needs of a human being to survive. When some portions of a population are assured food, medical care, security, shelter, employment and educational opportunities while other people in that society are obstructed in obtaining them, it is a violation of human rights and therefore a deprivation of justice.

In short, I don't think that you can define justice easily. It is the honest, fair and equal treatment of people who are either directly under the responsibility of a government or are outside that government or society but are influenced by it. When I was president I felt that I had an obligation to global justice. When I saw a dictator in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay or other places abusing citizens, I felt that as a powerful leader I had a responsibility--a direct personal responsibility--to do the best I could to reduce that level of abuse or persecution.

JOURNAL: Twenty years have passed since you became the first American president to place human rights high on a foreign policy platform. Do you see any progress since then in the international community regarding these issues?

CARTER: Certainly, there has been progress in some arenas of government, especially in our hemisphere. I've been personally involved with the Carter Center's monitoring of 18 different elections in troubled countries. When people have reached a point where they could implement an element of freedom and democracy, these elections have helped end wars, bring an end to authoritarian or totalitarian governments and prevent conflicts.

When the Palestinians had an election a couple years ago, we were there to make sure that the election was as fair and honest as possible. There have been some cases of improvement and moving toward systems of government where the people themselves make the ultimate decisions, not only on the identity of their leaders, but also on the policies those leaders espouse and implement.

So there is no doubt that some progress has been made. I would guess, though, that the number of people who suffer in the world has not decreased in the last 20 years. There is an inclination on the part of powerful countries to concentrate their attention on citizens who are White, European or from the Northern Hemisphere. We will exert almost any effort to bring an end to abuse in Bosnia-Herzegovina--I think there are probably more than 50,000 troops there now. The whole world was aroused by the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada and others to stop the war there. But countries like Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and others are neglected--and the suffering there is much more intense.

The reason for all this is the rise of civil war. When the United Nations was founded, it was designed to prevent or end wars between nations. There are more wars on earth today than ever before. The Carter Center monitors 30 major wars every day, and almost invariably these wars are civil wars, not wars between two nations. There are some skirmishes between two nations--like between India and Pakistan and possibly between Ethiopia and Eritrea--but the vast majority of wars on earth are inside countries, and the United Nations is simply neither prepared for nor designed to deal with civil wars. In fact, it is completely inappropriate for a representative of the United Nations even to communicate with revolutionaries who are trying to change the government of member nation. In addition, it's inappropriate for an American ambassador or another member of an embassy to act in any way in an effort to overthrow the government to which that ambassador is accredited.

This leaves a vacuum in the world. The Geneva Convention, which is to some degree enforced by international law, does not apply to civil war. Therefore the convention is ineffective in preventing the horrendous persecution of people that may occur in such conflicts. Nowadays, for every soldier killed in battle, nine civilians perish. These are the weakest and most defenseless members of society--the children, women and older people--who die because of an almost uncontrollable proliferation of land mines, stray bullets, bombs, cruise missiles and deliberate deprivation of shelter, food and medical care.

The amount of suffering can be measured quantitatively by looking at U.N. records on refugees. The number of refugees on earth has at least quadrupled in the last 15 years. Although we have seen progress made in this hemisphere and in a few isolated cases like South Africa and the transition of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, I would say that, in general, the deprivation of rights, the persecution of innocent people, the unwarranted continuation of war, the lack of attention by the powerful nations on earth who shape the policies of the international community--all contribute immensely to continuing injustice.

JOURNAL: Looking at the institution of the presidency and the fact that you have practically made your ex-presidency an institution itself, how do you feel those offices have enabled or encumbered you in your role as a negotiator in seeking justice in the world?

CARTER: As president, like all others who have lived in the White House, I had to deal with macro subjects: a potential war in the Middle East, normalizing diplomatic relations with China, negotiating the Panama Canal Treaty, preventing the Cold War from erupting into violence or dealing with the national budget. I did not have the time--and I have to admit, reluctantly, that I didn't have the inclination--to understand the element of deprivation in countries that didn't come to my attention.

Since I have left the White House, the Carter Center has established an agenda addressing issues that others are not directly involved in. We don't duplicate what others are doing or compete with others if they are addressing a problem adequately. If the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Heath Organization or the U.S. government is doing something, we don't do it. We go where a vacuum exists, which is what characterizes the work of the Carter Center. We are in the homes of people who have Guinea worm, we are addressing the plight of people who suffer from river blindness or trachoma. We are helping farmers who own only two acres of land increase or even triple their production of corn, wheat or rice. We are going into villages that are sometimes unknown even to a country's own public officials. We try to mediate disputes that are not really brought to the attention of leaders in the U.N. Security Council. I have learned firsthand about poverty, deprivation and the suffering of war. My wife and I have been to more than 110 countries. The Carter Center now has programs in 35 African nations. Our agenda is micro in its perspective, dealing with a family, a little village or a country that is basically ignored--rather than dealing with the vast panoply of things that a president has to address.

My roles in the positions of president and former president have been quite different. One policy that I have espoused in my post-presidency is to never go to a sensitive political arena of the world without approval from the White House--which has applied to the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations. So when I went to North Korea, it was after three years of their invitations to address a very serious problem that could have erupted into war. When I finally got permission from the White House, I went. The same thing happened in Haiti--both elected President [Jean Bertrand] Aristide and the military leaders under General [Raoul] Cedras also had been asking me to come there for three years. When I got permission to go, under the condition of taking Colin Powell and Sam Nunn with me, the three of us went and did, I think, prevent the eruption of another war.

So, one of the things that has made it possible for the Carter Center to do different things is that we are totally nongovernmental. When I meet with leaders in a dispute, I always explain to them that I don't have official authority and I don't represent my government--I only represent myself or the Carter Center. Whatever I tell them is exactly what I will tell their adversary. I use a single-document method of mediation. That is, as best I can understand the problem, I evolve my concept of a solution or a fair agreement with help from my associates. I use the same exact text for each side so they know that I'm not misleading them. Then ultimately, the differences can be narrowed down, and every time either side makes a concession, they have to believe that the benefits they derive exceed the concessions they make. In the end, both sides have to win, or feel that they win. Otherwise, the agreement--even if I can persuade them to sign a document--will not last.

I have utilized what I learned as president at Camp David, in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe and in other places, and I have used my influence in Third World countries--having been the president of the greatest nation in the world--to gain access to situations that are troublesome. People trust me, and sometimes they don't want the U.S. government or the United Nations to be involved--because that's an admission that they can't take care of their own problems. They will let me come in because I'm not a threat to anyone.

JOURNAL: In your role as an international mediator you have been criticized for preferring stability over justice. What is your response to such criticism?

CARTER: I don't think I'm guilty of that. In my mind, the two things that are totally interrelated are peace and basic human rights, and I equate human rights with justice. I would never abandon the concept of human rights and justice.

Sometimes, I deal with people who are vilified in the world because of their own crimes and unsavory character. If I can be of help in inducing people to modify their policies, positions or attitudes--if they are causing a war and I can convince them to stop it and to work out an agreement peacefully--then I don't have any reticence about negotiating with them. If I go into a country knowing that a leader is guilty of gross human rights violations, it might be quite unsettling for me to confront that leader. I still do it when I feel that I can induce them to decrease or stop their human rights abuses, release prisoners who are sentenced to be executed or stop torture of prisoners in jail. I don't have any apology to make about that.

But on occasion I do have some intense arguments with my human rights friends, some of whom don't believe that there should ever be a case of amnesty. For instance, if you have a dictatorship in Argentina, where thousands of people are known to have disappeared, the only way to bring about an end to the military dictatorship, the only way the military would ever relinquish power and allow democratic elections, is through the granting of amnesty. Otherwise the generals, admirals and all those who worked under them would fear that they would be put on trial and perhaps even executed. Faced with that prospect, they would never relinquish power. I don't have any objection if the Argentine people rise up and declare they will not try them if they step down from office and allow for a democratic government. But that is a decision for the Argentine people to make, not for me.

The same thing applies to [General Augusto] Pinochet in Chile, to [General Alfredo] Stroessner in Paraguay--I could name dozens of people like this. I can sympathize with a purist attitude, but if you decide that you can never forgive anyone who has committed a human rights atrocity, then that person will very likely do everything possible to retain power. The people might be deprived of the possibility of an end to that person's domination and persecution.

As for going into a country to negotiate, North Korea can serve as a good example. I despised Kim Il Sung earlier in my life, when I served as a submarine officer in the Pacific fleet during the Korean War. I saw him as a dictator who precipitated a war in which many of my close friends were killed. But I was not reticent about meeting with Kim Il Sung to induce him not to reprocess nuclear fuel in 1994. I even convinced him to arrange for direct peace talks with the president of South Korea. I make it clear to the leaders before I arrive, or shortly after I have established contact with them, that they will have to comply with basic principles of justice, human rights and, in many cases, democracy and freedom.

JOURNAL: Would you act in the same way to solve the crisis with Iraq?

CARTER: First of all, I would never go there--or to North Korea, Haiti or anywhere else--without approval from the president of the United States. Doing otherwise is not only illegal, but would violate my own basic principles. But if I were asked by the U.N. secretary-general or by President Clinton to go to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan or anyplace where, in their opinion, the leader is a pariah--if I thought that I could end a crisis, bring an end to war or prevent the further suffering of people, I would certainly do so.

JOURNAL: What international institutions are most effective in seeking justice for populations? What is the role of the United Nations in that pursuit of justice? What is your opinion on the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the U.S. position on that decision?

CARTER: The Carter Center was a driving force in bringing about consideration of the International Criminal Court. We had a major conference that drew leaders from all over this hemisphere to try and hammer out some of the basic principles that were addressed in Rome. We sent a strong delegation to Rome and I stayed in close touch with the leading negotiators there. I communicated five or six times directly with President Clinton, urging our government to take a positive attitude toward the International Criminal Court. But the United States did not do so, doing everything it could to block the International Criminal Court instead. I think our government made some serious mistakes in not insisting on some basic principles for the court.

The activities of the United Nations are restricted. I've already mentioned the fact that the United Nations cannot intervene in a civil war, but there are some other restrictions as well. It is constrained by the Security Council members, and I don't think it's any secret the United States is the dominant voice in the Security Council. We have not only a veto, but also a powerful and persuasive voice on the Council.

One example of this persuasive voice--and it may not be a very pleasant one--is the American cruise missile attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan. The Carter Center has a full-time office in Khartoum, and our people had been to that factory several times. The Sudanese were very proud of it and opened it completely to examination by any foreign visitor, but the United States claimed that it was a secret military installation. When a group of African leaders contacted me, I urged the U.S. government to authorize--through the U.N. Security Council--a completely objective and competent technical team to go into the plant, take samples of the soil, the walls, the working desks and the glass vials to see if the plant was actually involved in the preparation of chemical weapons. Our nation, however, did not want to do that, so it prevented the United Nations from taking such action.

The point I am making is that the United Nations certainly derives great support from the United States, but it is also handicapped by it. When the United Nations decides to do something that could be very effective, the United States will often support the action, but not pay for it. Our government is probably a billion and a half dollars behind in paying our dues. There is a sense in the rest of the world that the United Nations is excessively dominated or controlled by the United States, and that we are not fair in requiring other people to pay for actions that we endorse.

When you look at all the U.N. agencies--the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children Fund, etc.--the world would be severely deprived if those organizations did not exist. Collectively and individually they play a crucial role in global affairs.

JOURNAL: IS there an ideal institution that could be created to deal with international justice?

CARTER: The most serious generic need is for governments to utilize nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]. The Carter Center is only one of them. There are many others that are well-known--Amnesty International is a good example.

Perhaps the most vivid demonstration of the effective use of NGOs was the creation of the Oslo Peace Accords. A social science group from Norway--a group of professors with no governmental experience--went into Gaza to analyze the plight of Palestinian refugees and began to talk to some low-ranking Israelis, eventually working out a secret negotiation. It happened that the Norwegian foreign minister's assistant was the wife of the social science leader, and the social science assistant was the wife of the foreign minister. With their help they negotiated the Oslo agreement. This is a beautiful example of the Norwegian foreign ministry working side-by-side with a nongovernmental group.

I think the Carter Center demonstrates the value of NGOs every day in helping to monitor elections, mediate disputes, immunize children, eradicate disease and teach farmers how to increase crop yields. Those are the kinds of things an NGO can do, and our effectiveness would be greatly magnified if we could work side-by-side with, and be called upon to do more things by, the government. This is not a complaint or a criticism, but a suggestion.

This could be done in many arenas of life around the world, and there are hundreds of nongovernmental organizations that would be eager to be called upon by officials of government at all levels. Quite often, however, there's an element of jealousy or aversion by government officials because to call on an NGO to help is, in effect, an admission that they cannot do it themselves--it's sometimes an admission of failure. If it were seen as a strength to work together routinely, it would be a great contribution to justice in the world and to the alleviation of deprivation, human rights abuses and suffering.

Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), 39th president of the United States, received a B.S. from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland in 1946. He served as a submariner in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rose to the rank of lieutenant. Mr. Carter entered state politics as a member of the Georgia Senate and later served as the state's governor. On 2 November 1976 Mr. Carter was elected president.

Noteworthy foreign policy accomplishments of his administration include the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. In 1982 President Carter became University Distinguished Professor at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and founded the Carter Center. Actively guided by President Carter, the nonpartisan and nonprofit center addresses national and international issues of public policy The Carter Center is involved in attempts to resolve conflict, promote democracy, protect human rights and prevent disease and other afflictions worldwide. President Carter is the author of numerous books, including Negotiation: The Alternative to Hostility; Talking Peace: A Vision for the Next Generation; and most recently, The Virtues of Aging.