region the US could understand the needs of a particular country and therefore focus on establishing credible change that affected the people and allowed the administration to achieve a clear diplomatic victory. 167 This approach was also imposed during the Arab-Israeli conflict. This area in particular had been prime area for conflict since World War II and the 1973 Yom Kippur War almost drew the Soviets and U.S. into conflict with each other. As Israel was a key ally of the United States it was vital to ensure the region was stabilized to prevent further conflicts that could ruin any attempts to maintain détente and weapon treaties. The regionalist approach by the administration and the input of Carter to ensure a peace agreement was reached and thus another Arab-Israeli war was averted. 168 Diplomacy rather than troops were used to secure agreements and therefore creating, albeit temporarily, hope for peace in the region. Additionally, the signing of the Panama Canal Treaty gave greater autonomy to Panama and therefore reduced American control. This is important, especially concerning the right to rule unaided or free from the clutches of another country; in this case the United States. The Treaty handed power to the Panama government – although with U.S. military protection if needed – and therefore allowed for a betterment of relations between the U.S. and Panama. Walter LaFeber even suggested it was ‘the most significant victory in U.S.- Latin American relations since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s good
167 Paul E. Masters, Carter and the Rhodesian Problem , p.31. 168 Douglas Brinkley, The Rising Stock of Jimmy Carter: The ‘Hands on Legacy” Legacy of Our Thirty-ninth President, p.510.
74
Made with FlippingBook HTML5