The limitations and possibilities of the Center’s work were affected by several factors. Four of these were examined to discuss under what conditions the Center can play a part in peace building.
Other international organizations worked along side the Carter Center in both test cases. In Nicaragua, especially the Organization of American States and the United Nations contributed in observing and realizing the elections. Through the observer teams’ cooperation, voters were assured of correct, safe, and trustworthy elections in which fraud would be
192 Turner, 751.
193 Etel Solingen, “Toward a Democratic Peace in the Middle East,” in ed. Amin Saikal and Albrecht Schnabel,
Democratization in the Middle East: Experiences, Struggles, Challenges, (Tokyo: United Nations University
Press, 2003), 55.
194 Albrecht Schnabel, “A Rough Journey: Nascent Democratization in the Middle East,” in ed. Amin Saikal and
Albrecht Schnabel, Democratization in the Middle East: Experiences, Struggles, Challenges, (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2003), 2.
detected and deterred. The regional and local character of the OAS gave the observers a position of trust, thus giving the voters confidence in the correctness of the electoral procedures. The presence of international observers also successfully pressured for Ortega’s acceptance of the results, and contributed distinctly to the disarmament of the Contras. Through an expanded UN mandate, the UN mission to Nicaragua disarmed the contras, and thus physically limited the possibility of a continued Contra War. Carter and the Carter Center were thereby dependent on this kind of cooperation and international involvement for their approach to be successful in bringing about democracy and peace.
In the second test case, international organizations also cooperated with the Carter Center. A difference was that they only partly assured the voters of a fair and correct election, as several voters in East Jerusalem did not vote due to fear of negative Israeli sanctions towards those who voted. The character of the international observers as representing Western institutions may have added to a lack of trust among East Jerusalemites.
The second condition concerned the reputation Jimmy Carter had in the two situations. Carter’s background and character assured the Center invitations and access in the two cases, and contributed thus to the Center’s work. A good reputation in the area of involvement would also assure voters of Carter and the Center’s impartiality and democratic ambitions. Hence, Carter’s presence as a man of principles meant that irregularities would be detected, thereby deterring attempts of fraud and giving voters confidence in the elections. In Nicaragua, it can be argued that Carter enjoyed respect from a large portion of the population due to his non-intervention policies towards the nation during his presidency and due to his negotiations which brought control over the Panama Canal back to Panama. Further, Carter had denounced the 1989 elections in Panama as a fraud, giving Carter a status as a respected man of principles both in Nicaragua and Latin America. For Carter and his Center’s election mediation in 1990 this meant that Carter would be listened to, that he enjoyed leverage when negotiating, and that he could assure voters of a correct verdict of the elections.
Carter’s reputation in Palestine can be taken to be mixed. His presidency did not give him univocal support, especially due to Arab reactions against the Camp David Accords. The Iranian hostage crisis also influenced Carter later work as the event reduced Carters reputation among Iranian leaders. Due to the fact that Hamas receives funding from Iran, this negative view of Carter may have spilt over on the Palestinian organization, thus reducing Carter’s influence over Hamas in the 2006 election. Carter made several statements during his presidency which reduced his standing among Palestinians. After Carter left office, his views concerning Palestine seemed to change, something exemplified by his statements of the need
for a two state solution, his friendship with Arafat, and his latest book. This development in his beliefs may have given him a better reputation amongst Palestinians, providing Carter attention, but only limited influence in the election. Carter’s reputation as siding with the Palestinians may have reduced his influence in Israel and thus complicated his ability to successfully pressure for the release of Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel. Carter’s Christianity may also have complicated his work in an Islamic setting.
As the Carter Center relies on its leader’s influence in order to meet its own goals, the reputation of Carter can work both ways for the Center. In situations were Carter is able to influence decision makers and events, much due to his reputation and personal contacts, the Center can be more successful than in situations were this is missing. In Nicaragua, Carter could use his friendship with Ortega and his reputation to push the elections in a democratic direction, while these factors were not present to the same degree in the case of Palestine. Thereby, Carter’s reputation aided the Center in reaching its goals in only the first test case.
Regional initiatives for democracy and peace affect Carter and the Center’s ability to meet their own objectives. In the first test case, the Center delegation built their work on preceding regional agreements which had pressured for political liberties and open and fair elections prior to the original set date. The regional pressure for democratization and peace laid the foundations for successful elections of 1990, which led to peace and regime change. The role of Carter and his Center was to build on this regional work, making the success of the Center’s activities dependent on preceding regional foundations.
In the second test case, Carter and the delegation he led could not build on a similar regional movement for democracy. There had been regional initiatives for peace which called for and independent Palestinian state, and which thus indirectly made up foundations for elections. As an example of the importance of regional actors, Saudi Arabia brought Fatah and Hamas together in order to end the fighting between the two Palestinian parties after the election. The initiative succeeded, and led to a coalition government, an end to the fractional violence, and assured realization of the election results. The lack of democratic initiatives prior to the election limited Carter and the Center’s ability to play a decisive part in the election and meant that they did not reach the goals of their involvement. When building on regional foundations, Carter and his Center are more likely to succeed, making the regional conditions important to their work.
The foreign policy of the US towards a conflict affects the work of Carter and the Center. Carter seeks approval for his involvement from the sitting administrations, and briefs the President or other members of staff, after his journeys. As such, Carter is careful to keep a
good relationship with the sitting President, although he reserves the right to publicly disagree when their opinions differ. In the case of Nicaragua, President George Herbert Walker Bush’s policy was characterized by unifying the opposition (UNO), by attempts of manipulating the political process, and by attempts to scare the electorate to vote for the UNO by threatening with a continued Contra War if the electorate did not follow suit. Hence, strategic interests were superior to democratic ambitions, and Carter’s role became to disarm Bush’s attempts of manipulation by strengthening local and regional initiatives for democracy and peace. Carter helped assure voters of free and open elections by opposing Bush’s rhetoric. In order to do so Carter relied on his reputation as a man of principles, standing up for correct elections regardless of the results. A verified election would have made Bush’s reasoning for a prolonged use of the Contras difficult, hence reducing Bush’s dichotomy of war and peace.
In the second test case, Carter labeled President George Walker Bush’s Middle East policy as a counterproductive tragedy, and though Carter tried to reverse the US’ isolation of the newly elected Palestinian government, no change came. Bush had called for a new Palestinian leadership in 2002, welcomed an independent Palestinian state, and had taken part in the Quartet’s Road Map for Peace. The Plan failed, and was not followed up by Bush, adding to Carter’s disapproval of the President in office. The 43rd President welcomed the challenge to the sitting Fatah regime in 2006, but would not have any contact with Hamas until it showed modification, and chose to cut off all funding and aid to Palestine. Bush had restricted Carter from meeting with Hamas candidates, something which limited who Carter might be able to influence in the election. Carter’s verification and support for the election did not affect the US response, showing that Carter did not alter US foreign policy. Carter’s disagreement with Bush also caused criticism some saw the former president as obstructing US policy. The limitations on who Carter could meet, and the policy of isolation, limited Carter and the Center’s ability to obtain the goals of their mission. Carter’s inability to influence US policy can put into question whether Carter could have changed US foreign policy if the results of the Nicaraguan elections had been different. Hence, one can ask if Carter only affects elections that correspond with US wishes.