The Ghost of Jimmy Carter

Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist

08 Jan 2025

Jimmy Carter greets Haitian presidential candidate Jean-Bertrand Aristide on the eve of the Haitian presidential elections in December 1990. Photo: Thony Belizaire/AFP via Getty Images

Hagiography is inevitable when presidents and other prominent people die. The unwillingness to ‘speak ill of the dead’ and the propaganda that would have us believe in American exceptionalism must be rejected. Jimmy Carter was always devoted to protecting the interests of the U.S. state.

“All US Presidents, Living and Dead, Are War Criminals”
Glen Ford

The late Jimmy Carter lived longer than any other U.S. president, passing away at the age of 100 on December 30, 2024. Like all presidents who only serve one term, Carter is generally considered to have been a failure after being defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980. What is less well known is that ample evidence indicates Reagan and his associates planned what is known as the “October Surprise,” which kept U.S. hostages in Iran and sealed Carter’s electoral defeat.

Carter’s hapless ending was largely forgotten because of his good works with Habitat for Humanity and his eschewing of the typical post-presidential cashing in with corporate speeches and other forms of money grubbing among the elite. He wrote books and spoke out against Israeli apartheid. Unlike other U.S. officials he referred to it as such, naming the crime and doing a service to humanity in the process.

But the warm feelings engendered by Carter’s life after he left the white house should not be a license for amnesia. While in office, he acted as other presidents did and that means his actions must be closely examined.

In December 2024, the U.S. succeeded in deposing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after years of backing foreign jihadist fighters against that government. The coup was not without historical precedent. This dynamic began with Jimmy Carter in Afghanistan, where the U.S. waged a proxy war with the help of Osama Bin Laden and others against a government that asked the Soviet Union for support. Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was the architect of this policy. He spoke quite proudly of his role.

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahidin began in 1980, that is to say after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was on July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that, in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”

The U.S. public was never informed that president Najibullah requested Soviet assistance. Instead, the narrative of an evil invasion was created and is still disseminated and widely accepted to this very day. U.S. culpability in arming al-Qaeda is also a topic that has been declared off limits by the corporate media.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, would have been a perfect opportunity to discuss U.S. culpability in empowering al-Qaeda. Twenty years later the vow of silence continues, as does the U.S. proxy relationship with al-Qaeda, ISIS, and now Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), the al-Qaeda off-shoot now in control of Syria.

Carter may have failed to be re-elected, but like every other white house occupant, he created a new paradigm for his successors to follow. Islamist proxies were U.S. foot soldiers in Bosnia, Chechnya, Libya, and later Syria. U.S. backing was a marriage of convenience with these groups. In a 1993 interview bin Laden bragged about sending “not hundreds, but thousands” to Afghanistan. He could not have done so without U.S. support.

Jimmy Carter did more than build homes for the needy. He established the Carter Center whose mission statement reads in part, “It seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health.” Yet even cursory scrutiny reveals that the Carter Center did not act as an independent entity but instead worked hand in hand with the U.S. Interference in Haiti is but one example.

Elections were scheduled to be held in Haiti on December 16, 1990, and Jean-Bertrand Aristide was favored to win. Carter was on hand as an election observer, but he also held meetings at the U.S. embassy, after which he asked Aristide to stand down and to concede before all votes were counted, but he refused and won 67% of the vote. Carter certainly didn’t resolve any conflicts in Haiti. His goal was to get the U.S. backed candidate, Marc Bazin, elected.

Carter interfered in Haitian affairs again in 1994 in coordination with Bill Clinton’s administration. Aristide’s administration was short-lived, and he was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d’etat in 1991. In 1994, Clinton acted in part at the request of the Congressional Black Caucus, who wanted Aristide restored to power. Carter’s negotiation ended military rule but sent U.S. troops to Haiti. Occupation was the price for so-called democracy. Aristide was forced to accept World Bank and IMF “structural adjustments,” which forced austerity on the country and reversed his plans to bring economic justice to his people. Ten years later, in 2004, the George W. Bush administration kidnapped Haiti’s democratically elected president and sent him to the Central African Republic, despite protest from the Congressional Black Caucus and others.

The Carter Center showed its true colors again in 2024 after Venezuela’s presidential election, declaring, “Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election did not meet international standards of electoral integrity and cannot be considered democratic.” The Carter Center is funded by the U.S. State Department, Agency for International Development (USAID), and foreign governments of the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in addition to the George Soros funded Open Society and the Gates Foundation. While the Carter Center cast aspersions even before all votes in Venezuela were counted and audited, other international observers pointed out that the process was, in fact, one that is accepted as being democratic and fair.

Jimmy Carter proves that there really aren’t any former presidents of the United States. They continue to uphold U.S. self-declared prerogatives. Even when faced with evidence that his presidency was undone by Ronald Reagan, Carter demurred and feigned confusion about what to believe. He never gave up that stance of serving U.S. interests. That is, after all, how one becomes president. And after having served in that office, upholding U.S. interests is a position that is unlikely to change. It is all to the good that Carter built homes for poor people, but no one should forget his service to the maintenance of U.S. hegemony.

Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents. You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter, Bluesky, and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret dot kimberley at blackagendareport dot com