neighbor policies.’ 169 Indeed, Carter claimed that the treaty would ‘ensure…a partnership with them, protecting the interests of America, protecting the interests of Panama’ and allowing the Panamanians the ‘opportunity to learn how to operate the canal.’ 170 It would not be complete autonomy, however it would ensure Panama had more say and control within their own territory. This was important given the rise of nationalism in the region at the time and the fear that uprisings may begin to occur in the region. Ultimately, the administration’s belief, certainly in the first two years of Carter’s term, in regionalism and that less attention should be given to the struggles with the Soviet Union were driven by the belief in human rights. Carter’s conviction that countries should be allowed to make decision for themselves and not be ruled over by larger powers meant he ‘was determined to move away from the pattern of American dominance and intervention in Latin America and ‘promote balanced relationships’ as part of ‘a more realistic and lasting Hemisphere policy.’ 171 To conclude, Jimmy Carter offered the United States a different approach to foreign policy by rejecting containment and making human rights a central focus. Although circumstances around the globe forced him to change his 169 Walter LaFeber, The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 1750 to the Present (Norton: New York; London, 1994), p.688. 170 Jimmy Carter, Public Papers of the President of the United States: Jimmy Carter, 1978: Book I – January 1 To June 30, 1978, p.84. 171 John A. Soaores Jr., Strategy, ideology, and Human Rights: Jimmy Carter Confronts the Left in Central America, 1979-1981, Journal of Cold War Studies Vol.8:4 (Fall, 2006), pp.57-91 (p.66).
75
Made with FlippingBook HTML5