Suchergebnisse

One of the striking features of the first two years of the Carter administration is its failure to dispel the widespread uncertainty about candidate Carter's fundamental political outlook. Jimmy Carter's two strongest traits in domestic affairs—a populist image and a concern for economic and administrative efficiency—continue to coexist without merging. Many people find it difficult to decide whether he is a liberal or a conservative. This has advantages in a period in which labels are distrusted, but it makes it hard for him to build a strong and durable constituency to support his policies.A similar uncertainty exists about the focus of the administration's foreign policy. Foreigners often complain about this more strongly than Americans, and allies and adversaries alike stress the difficulty of making firm decisions without knowing the likely direction of U.S. policy. The administration had been in power less than a year when it began to be charged with failing to develop an integrated policy, one that could be clearly articulated by a forceful spokesman such as Henry Kissinger. Its critics argued that this deficiency accounted for its inability to follow a consistent course on matters ranging from relations with the Soviet Union to the Arab-Israel conflict. They often forget that the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy remained far from clear after their first year in office.

Few if any of America's relationships with its allies are likely to present the Carter administration with more complex and difficult dilemmas than does South Korea. During his drive for the presidency Jimmy Carter was critical of the Republic of Korea (ROK) for its suppression of human rights and said he would remove the U.S. ground troops there over the next several years. (The 42,000 U.S. forces in Korea include about 7,000 air force personnel and a few hundred sailors. About half of the 35,000 ground forces are in combat units, and the others provide logistical support.)