The symbols of the chivalry of times past were men clad in shining, polished armor who would do away with religious dissidents with sweeping blows from their swords. Today, however, it would appear as though the public proponents of many worthy causes are missing this romanticized mark due to maligned intentions that are exposed in less than flattering manners. Former President Jimmy Carter, the diplomat of our age, is a prime example.
Now don't misunderstand; I think that most of Carter's initiatives, such as increased attention paid to the genocide in Darfur and other socioeconomic issues away from the Middle East, are noble endeavors. Carter appears to fulfill the role of the genuine humanitarian: honest, cheery, with an uncanny ability to bring smiles to the most destitute of faces without asking anything in return save the privilege of seeing those smiles. The question at hand is whether or not he extols these virtues.
My chief concern is that Carter is not the man he claims to be, and is not willing to lay down body and soul for his cause. As the infinite number of scandals in politics will demonstrate, hidden intentions have a habit of leaking, so if Carter is harboring impure intentions, what will it spell out for his honest causes?
Recent activity may indicate that his purity of purpose is flawed. On October 3, many news agencies reported that Carter had arranged to meet a group of refugees in Darfur, yet when he reached the established meeting grounds, they were nowhere in sight. Locals stated that the refugees were too afraid to come out, lest they be targeted by the local Janjaweed militiamen fronting the atrocities. Carter's reaction? He stormed to the local village and demanded vociferously to meet the refugees in the face of government security. He even went as far as to cry, "You don't have the power to stop me!" as reported by The New York Times, and threatened to "tell President Bashir about this," according to a Fox News report.
I had higher expectations for someone so involved in humanitarian work. Omar al-Bashir, head of state of Sudan, has never demonstrated more than a slight inclination to stop the murders, and by some accounts has played a part in promulgating them. If he did indeed report the incident, all he would have done is put the heads of the dissidents on a pike to serve as an example.
More important, however, is the apparent decline in his diplomatic faculties. One need look no further than the recent release of his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
The book turned out to possess a remarkable lack of internal bipartisan debate expected of a negotiator, and turned into a soapbox. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's Board of Councilors found it necessary to resign in light of Carter's diminishing abilities, stating, "you [Carter] have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side."
Apparently, in the noble struggle of allowing both sides of a debate to be heard, Carter has lost his way and is now pushing against the status quo, which would have us focus on Middle Eastern issues with equal blind and zealous fervor.
And who could forget Carter's frequent tirades against our current president? I'm no staunch and heady supporter of President Bush myself, and I find that I agree with some of President Carter's points in his more fully developed arguments. What I can't condone, however, is a diplomat losing his sense of tact and asserting that "as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," only to subsequently play down the affair for months to contain the PR damage.
No matter how correct Carter may or may not be, he can't make blithe assertions without immediate, concrete evidence, which seems to be in short supply in the rhetoric of many politicians despite the pool of it they wade in.
A man represents his message, unfortunately, so no matter how pure and good the message may be, it is diminished by the flaws of the man who would preach it. For the sake of the message he would promote and for the impoverished people he would protect, I humbly request that President Carter cease his questionable and theatrical crusade.