Tuesday, December 31, 2024

EULOGIES

Farewell Jimmy Carter


 December 31, 2024
Facebook

Photograph Source: Commonwealth Club – CC BY 2.0

After 100 years among us, Jimmy Carter is gone. Like a lot of people, I’m playing Ramblin’ Man in his memory tonight.

Saying good-bye to Jimmy Carter is complicated as Dickey Bett’s guitar. All complications considered, Jimmy was my favorite U.S. President during my lifetime. Nobody’s perfect, and a U.S. President’s imperfections are bound to cause immense death and destruction, as did Carter’s. Nevertheless, among modern American War Criminals-in-Chiefs, JC was relatively benign.

By the time Jimmy Carter took office, I’d spent a good portion of my youth protesting a crooked President (it’s all relative among Presidential criminals, but at the time, Dick Nixon was considered to be almost as ridiculous, nefarious and felonious as… Trump?), a horrific war (Vietnam) and the imperialist, capitalist system in general. I must confess I did this mainly because I longed to make out on a motorcycle with Che Guevara (or some facsimile, since he was dead), but also because I was vaguely aware the “system” sucked.

But in Jimmy Carter’s victory, I felt a surge of hope for America’s future, my future. I was just graduating from Yale, which had devolved from a progressive, antiwar academic haven personified by the Reverend William Sloane Coffininto a hotbed of Young Republicans creaming in their chinos over a cowboy California Governor whose gleaming Hollywood smile made me want to toss my scones all over my typewriter (yep, those were ancient times). So, I was grateful to see a Democrat in the White House who wasn’t LBJ. Would the future be bright with Jimmy?

With one foot still in the hippie “living-off-the-land” life (while the other was kicking through the big oak doors of the Ivy League), I liked that our new Prez was a peanut farmer. As I was dating an engineering student, I thought it was cool this farmer was also an engineer, albeit nuclear. Nuclear? Yikes! I was just starting to join the “No Nukes!” protests, and hoped (against hope) that his scientific expertise—not to mention his experience “saving” a Canadian nuclear reactor from a meltdown—would make him less pro-nuke than other politicians.

Nukes aside, I figured JC couldn’t be much worse than Tricky Dick or LBJ, and nothing was bringing back the glory of JFK, which really wasn’t all that glorious for Marilyn Monroe, among others.  I saw Gerald Ford merely as a transitional figure, though I later learned he was actually one of our best Presidents, mainly because he didn’t do much besides fall down a few times and try to heal the nation from Tricky Dick’s violation. Oh, and then there was that semi-secret endorsement of Indonesia’s genocidal invasion of East Timor.

I thought it was a good sign when in 1977 on his first day in office, Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to any draft resister (or dodger).

The fact that Carter was a devout “Christian” (JC loves JC) didn’t bother me because, at the time, I associated Christianity with the Reverend Coffin, the Berrigan Brothers and other antiwar Christians. Aside from a squawk or two from Anita Bryant and a young Jerry Falwell, Sr. (who was old even when he was young), the Church hadn’t quite turned hard Right… yet.

I appreciated this devout Christian President admitting in Playboy that he had committed “adultery in his heart.” Even before I studied sexology, I knew most people fantasized about all kinds of things, and I applauded a politician who was honest about it. That’s another thing: Jimmy didn’t seem like “a politician.” He certainly was one, but he had an aura of sincerity that is rare in politics, and it stayed with him until the end.

Being somewhat open about his sexual fantasies—even in Playboy magazine—must have been good for Jimmy’s sex life. Indeed, he was very happily married to Rosalyn Carter (1927-2023), his beloved Steel Magnolia, for 77 years, the longest marriage of any U.S. president.

When asked if winning a Nobel Peace Prize or becoming President was the most exciting thing that happened to him, Jimmy replied, “When Rosalynn said she’d marry me—I think that was the most exciting thing… Rosalynn was my equal partner in everything.” Gotta love a hubby like that.

Jimmy’s final farewell to his Rosalyn, read by their daughter Amy as Jimmy lay in a suit and tie on his hospital bed, had me—and countless other hopeful romantics sharing in this remarkable expression of intimacy from our devices—in tears. That scene, now a memory, moves me even more today, as I caretake my own beloved husband Max after his stroke.

However, I must admit, my affection for Jimmy Carter stems from the fact he gave me a job, and was a pretty good boss, as bosses go.

Getting a government job was never on my professional wish list. Actually, I wasn’t eager to go into any *profession,* partly because I was too lazy to get up and put on my jeans and tie-dyed T shirt for a 10am class, so how was I going to force myself into a power suit for a 7am power breakfast?

Nevertheless, there I was, six months into the Carter administration, graduating Yale with (almost worthless) honors, watching my classmates go off to Wall Street, law school, med school, other higher education or expensive parent-paid years abroad, and I just didn’t know what to do with myself (confession: I still don’t). I was pretty good at playing the game known as “school,” and I liked it well enough. However, I was starting to get (to use a much-maligned term) “woke” to the fact that I was not just learning, but also being subtly yet firmly indoctrinated into the same war-making system I was protesting. So, I decided to take a few years “off” before submitting (yes, higher education is like BDSM submission with all the restraints, punishments, protocols and pain) to more schooling.

Also, I was broke. And my voluminous student loans, on top of rent, on top of my fun-but-low-income lifestyle, was not putting money in my fledgling Bank of New Haven account.

So, I got a job working for Jimmy Carter, one of those government jobs I thought I’d despise, but it turned out to be one of my greatest jobs ever. Sometimes I even had to be at “work” by 7am(!), but never in a power suit. More likely tights, a leotard and maybe a mask. What kind of job did I have?

I was a New Haven City Mime.

Stop laughing! I’ve already heard all the stupid mime jokes you can muster, and I am the first to admit, mimes can range from mildly annoying to downright nauseating, even when they’re good, and I wasn’t that good. Let’s just say, I was no Marcel Marceau—who actually performed for a smiling Jimmy Carter and bemused Rosalyn and Amy—and Marcel was not as good as the master Jean-Louis Barrault (check out his moves in Children of Paradise). However, I was decent—I’d taken a few mime classes as a Theater major at Yale and mimed a bit in a Commedia Del’arte troupe of Yale grads and dropouts—or at least good enough to ace an audition for performing artists in the CETA(Comprehensive Employment & Training Act) program, which had been signed into law by Nixon (even the worst Presidents do some good), but ramped up to its highest levels under Carter. So, I was hired as a CETA City Mime.

Are you laughing even harder now? Many people (especially Reagan Republicans) found my job as a CETA City Mime to be the epitome of frivolous government, but not the sad citizens I made smile as they trudged across the New Haven Green, nor the tunnel-visioned commuters that broadened their perspectives through my silliness, nor the sick, the disabled and the seniors I distracted from their pain, nor the “inner city” students I taught to dramatize their feelings and ideas, some of whom went on to make movies, music and other forms of art, some of it great art.

I never met Jimmy, but I did a little goofy miming for his Veep’s wife, the Second Lady, Joan Mondale, at the Wisconsin Mime Festival, which she graciously tolerated as the cameras clicked away, splashing our cheer all over the papers.

Moreover, I was no longer broke.

So, Jimmy Carter gave me a job—a pretty damn wonderful, fun, sexy, creative, meaningful and (I think) helpful-to-the-community job… with health benefits! And I thank him for that. It was my first job as an artist, and I held onto it until Rhinestone Cowboy Reagan rode in and shot CETA dead as he shot dead or crippled many government programs, like Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and federal education, while beefing up the U.S. military and cutting taxes for the rich.

Carter presided over an ostensibly peaceful time when Americans were in the grip of the “Vietnam Syndrome.” It was a good grip; at least, it felt pretty good to a peacenik like me (though it enraged the war profiteers), since this reluctance seemed to keep us out of war.  I say “seemed” because, little did I know that, while I was pretending to climb through imaginary windows as a CETA City Mime on the New Haven Green, assuming my country was truly “at peace,” my boss President Jimmy Carter’s militantly anti-Communist National Security Advisor, Zbignew Brzezinski (“Morning Joe” Mika’s dad), was laying the military groundwork for 9/11.

9/11? If I’d known what was happening, it would have made my head spin (which would have been a neat mime trick). Quite honestly, it still does. In an effort to “undermine” the Soviet Union, President Carter, under Dr. Brzezinski’s earnest Trilateral guidance, armed and trained the ultra-religious Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and ultimately, Soviet occupation troops during the Soviet-Afghan war. One of the leaders of these Mujahideen, who later devolved into the religo-fascist Taliban, was a young Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden.

I observed the news with some interest, since I had just come back from a hippie trip through Afghanistan and fallen in love with the people and the roughly beautiful land. Years later, I was crushed to see the great Bamian Buddhasof Afghanistan—one of which I had climbed to the top—demolished by the Taliban. Then we got 9/11 and Bush’s War on Terrah… a Neocon nightmare, the seeds of which were planted by that seed-planting peanut farmer, my CETA GodFather, Jimmy Carter.

At least, he tried to make peace in the Middle East (sort of), bringing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to Camp David for a handshake. I was never a Zionist; I’d even made out (on a motorcycle!) with a handsome Palestinian (who looked a little like Che Guevara) on my Jewish youth group’s trip to Israel, for which I got into big trouble. But I appreciated Carter’s efforts, which miraculously stood the test of time, though Israel’s current genocide is fraying them.

But this farewell is not an analysis or overview of Carter’s policies. I was too busy miming to pay serious attention to them.

I did notice that Jimmy had some intriguing relatives. Sometimes my mime job involved roller-skating, so I thought it was cool that his daughter Amy Carter essentially roller-skated through the White House, and then I thought she was super-cool when I learned she became an anti-apartheid, anti-imperialism activist with my Yippie hero, Abbie Hoffman, post-Presidency. Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy, liked beer (some might say too much), but he actually handled his Billy Beer better than Washington’s current most prominent beer-lover Brett Kavanaugh.  Jimmy’s sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton ministered to Larry Flynt when my old buddy Paul Krassner was editor of Hustler. Good times.

Though Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Act (score one more for Tricky Dick), Jimmy Carter established the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. He also had solar panels installed in the White House in 1979. Ronald Reagan removed them in 1986. Apparently, undermining Carter in both major and minor ways was a Reagan obsession.

The White House solar panels were essentially reinstalled in the early 2000s. What does that say about the two Presidents?

Unlike most high-level politicians of the 1970s, Jimmy seemed to genuinely enjoy the music of the times, and being a Georgian, he especially liked the Allman Brothers. In fact, he was friends with the band, and even said they “helped him win the White House,” because they played several concerts for him on the campaign trail.

Carter loved the blues, so of course, he’d have a little malaise. I remember his “Malaise” speech, how everybody—especially the Skull and Boners and other young Republicans that seemed to surround me—declared it just awful. I remember feeling a little self-conscious because I’d actually connected with that speech. I remember thinking that I understood the creeping “crisis of confidence in America,” because I was feeling it, and I was glad to have a President who dare to speak about it, even if he sounded like a depressed patient in one of those encounter group therapy sessions so popular back then.

Unsurprisingly, most Americans went along with my Young Republican colleagues, and declared the speech to be “politically tone-deaf,” sending Jimmy Carter into freefall. Then Iran fell to the Ayatollahs, Brzezinski’s preposterous hostage rescue attempt failed disastrously (for which Carter took responsibility), and Cowboy Reagan made a dirty deal on the down-low for the Iranians to hold onto the American hostages until he won the Presidency.

Then soon enough, both Jimmy Carter and I were out of our jobs.

What a stark contrast between Jimmy Carter, the relatively honest, slightly depressed, seemingly sincere Democrat who took responsibility for his mistakes and worked selflessly into his 90s, and Ronald Reagan, the fake sunshine cowboy Republican who spouted apple pie platitudes, never took responsibility for anything and slipped into senility before the end of his presidency.

Was Jimmy Carter a good president? It’s complicated. What’s certain is that he was a great former president.

He has gone on many post-presidential peace missions, supported Civil Rights and picked up a hammer to build homes for the poor through Habitat for Humanity in 1984, and kept doing it until he was 95. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, but then so have many war criminals. Though Carter’s award “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development” somehow seems more sincere than most.

Over this past year and a half, I’ve often wondered what Jimmy Carter would have said about Israel’s current genocide. I can’t help but believe that he would have injected a dose of compassion for Palestine that we just don’t see these days from high-level American politicians, let alone Presidents, current or former.

So after a century of JC on Earth, like a lot of people, I’m listen to those Ramblin’ Man lyrics that so fit the occasion:

When it’s time for leavin’ I hope you understand that I was born a Ramblin’ Man

Whether he’s with Rosalyn, Jesus, or becoming one with that rich Georgia peanut-growing soil, farewell Jimmy Carter.

Susan Block, Ph.D., a.k.a. “Dr. Suzy,” is a world renowned LA sex therapist, author of The Bonobo Way: The Evolution of Peace through Pleasure and horny housewife, occasionally seen on HBO and other channels. For information and speaking engagements, call 626-461-5950. Email her at drsusanblock@gmail.com  




Spiritual Politics

How Jimmy Carter created the religious right

(RNS) — He threatened the GOP's Southern strategy.


FILE - In this Oct. 28, 1980 file photo, President Jimmy Carter, left, and Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan shake hands in Cleveland, Ohio, before debating before a nationwide television audience. (AP Photo/staff, file)

Mark Silk
December 30, 2024

(RNS) — Amid the many accolades and occasional brickbats now raining down on the late Jimmy Carter, let us note that the most consequential legacy of his one-term presidency is the religious right, the longest-lasting political movement in American history.

How so?

Winning the highest office in the land in 1976, Carter represented a mortal threat to the Republican Party’s strategy of making the increasingly populous South the engine of a new, nationwide GOP majority. Raised Southern Baptist on a peanut farm in southwest Georgia, he used religio-regional pride to recall white Southerners to the national Democratic fold. Where the last Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, had lost all five Deep South states from South Carolina to Louisiana 12 years earlier, the former governor of Georgia won every state of the old Confederacy except Virginia.


Carter’s personal religious identity was more complicated than you might have thought from Newsweek’s famous “Born Again!” cover story, which christened 1976 as “the year of the evangelical.” As described by Jonathan Alter in his fine biography, Carter had no sudden come-to-Jesus moment as a youth, but rather, in middle age, a growth in Christian commitment derived from reading the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, doing mission work and reflecting on his own spiritual state.

No liberal, the moderately progressive positions Carter took on issues such as abortion and women’s rights were in line with the moderate progressivism of the Southern Baptist Convention of the 1970s. That, however, was about to change.

In 1979, conservative leaders in the SBC mobilized their forces, electing one of their own as president and setting in motion a full takeover of the denomination. The following year, some of the same leaders joined forces with Republican operatives to mobilize evangelicals against Democrats in general and Jimmy Carter in particular. For if the Southern strategy was to be kept intact, Carter had to be discredited and defeated.

In June, after being chosen as the conservatives’ second SBC president, Oklahoma pastor Bailey Smith showed up at the White House and denounced Carter as a “secular humanist.” A month after being anointed Republican presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan showed up at Reunion Arena in Dallas and addressed the National Affairs Briefing, a gathering at which one prominent pastor after another summoned evangelical attendees to political engagement.

“I know this is a non-partisan gathering, and so I know that you can’t endorse me, but … I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing,” Reagan said with a straight face, before urging the crowd to get out and vote for their values.


FILE – U.S. President Jimmy Carter waves as staff holds up sign proclaiming “We Love you Mr. President” in Washington, Nov. 5, 1980, as the president walks to the helicopter for a trip to Camp David, Md., after losing the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan. (AP Photo, File)

In November, Carter went down to defeat, the victim of persistent inflation, the Iranian hostage situation — and of evangelicals turning against one of their own. Returning to Georgia, he established the Carter Center in Atlanta as a place to promote good things around the world, wielded a hammer helping Habitat for Humanity build houses for poor people in America and teaching Sunday school at his small church in Plains. In 2000, he announced he was no longer a member of the SBC.



As for the religious right, it took off from the Carter years, remaking the Republican Party’s social policy agenda, reconstituting its demographic base and establishing religiosity as a central feature of American political behavior. It largely succeeded in advancing the Southern strategy it was designed to rescue and, having undergone some subtle and some not-so-subtle transformations, persists to this day.

Whether it would have come into existence in the absence of Jimmy Carter’s presidency is a nice question — one that, like all historical counterfactuals, cannot be conclusively answered. My guess is that something like it would have emerged but that it would have been smaller and weaker, less consequential and less enduring. And the country would be better off.


Opinion

Jimmy Carter rid the presidency of lies. His fellow evangelicals? Not so much.

(RNS) — One of the many paradoxes surrounding Carter’s presidency is that he was unable to fend off the deception of fellow evangelicals, including Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham.


In this July 31, 1979, file photo, President Jimmy Carter waves from the roof of his car along the parade route through Bardstown, Kentucky. 
(AP Photo/Bob Daugherty, FIle)

Randall Balmer
December 29, 2024

(RNS) — Jimmy Carter’s improbable ascent to the White House in 1976 was abetted in no small measure by his probity and his evangelical rectitude. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to imagine Carter, the one-term governor of Georgia, winning the presidency had it not been for the culture of corruption that had surrounded the Oval Office. Lyndon Johnson had lied to Americans about Vietnam, and Richard Nixon had lied about, well, just about everything.

Carter’s pledge that he would “never knowingly lie” to the American people struck a chord, and although Carter’s term as president is generally regarded as something less than unalloyed success, no one — not even his legion of detractors — has credibly accused him of misleading the American people during his time in office. Put another way, Carter, whatever his shortcomings as president, redeemed the presidency from the culture of deceit so abundantly evident during the Nixon administration.

But one of the many paradoxes surrounding Carter’s presidency is that he was unable to fend off the deception of his fellow evangelicals, including a couple of preachers named Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. Their duplicity may not have been responsible for Carter’s political demise, but it certainly contributed.

The roots of the religious right lie in the cancellation of the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist school in South Carolina. On the basis of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that any institution that engaged in racial segregation or discrimination was not — by definition — a charitable institution and therefore it was not entitled to tax-exempt status.


RELATED: Jimmy Carter, beloved Sunday school teacher, ex-president, dead at 100

After a district court upheld the IRS in 1970, Nixon instructed the agency to deny applications from “segregation academies,” many of them church-related schools. In the most famous case, the IRS, after years of warnings, finally revoked the tax exemption of Bob Jones University on Jan. 19, 1976, thereby provoking an outcry from politically conservative evangelical leaders. “In some states,” Falwell famously complained, “it’s easier to open a massage parlor than to open the doors of a Christian school.” (Falwell had opened the doors of his own segregation academy, Lynchburg Christian School, in 1967.)


As the religious right geared up to oppose Carter’s reelection in 1980, evangelical leaders repeatedly blasted Carter for denying tax exemptions to segregated religious schools, what they characterized as “government intrusion into private education.” But their ire was misdirected. The IRS policy was formulated during the Nixon administration, and Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption on Jan. 19, 1976, when Gerald Ford was president; Carter was inaugurated a year and a day later. That day was, in fact, an important day for Carter, but not because he was in any way responsible for rescinding Bob Jones University’s tax exemption. Carter won the Iowa precinct caucuses that day, his first major step toward capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

Politically conservative evangelical leaders, however, intent as they were to turn Carter out of office, shrugged away the niceties of facts. They persisted in blaming Carter for the IRS action, even though Carter had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Several evangelical preachers also engaged personally in activities that pushed the bounds of credibility. In January 1980, as Carter faced reelection, he recognized (belatedly) that his support among evangelicals, who had helped propel him to the White House four years earlier, had ebbed. In an attempt to rebuild that support, Carter addressed the National Religious Broadcasters, meeting in Washington, D.C., and then invited key evangelical leaders to the White House for breakfast the following morning, Jan. 22, 1980.

Carter thought — inaccurately, it turned out — that he could placate them with bromides about faith or religious freedom, but these leaders of the religious right were more interested in talking about social issues like abortion and gay rights.


Following the meeting, Falwell began recounting to various audiences and political rallies across the country how he had asked Carter why “practicing homosexuals” served on the White House staff. Carter, according to Falwell, replied, “I am president of all the American people and I believe I should represent everyone.” Falwell’s rejoinder: “Why don’t you have some murderers and bank robbers and so forth to represent?”



The Rev. Jerry Falwell addresses a 1983 prayer breakfast for Christians and Jews in Washington. RNS file photo

As a tape recording of the White House gathering demonstrated, however, the president made no such comment. Falwell, in fact, had fabricated the entire exchange in an apparent attempt to discredit Carter in the eyes of evangelicals.

If Falwell was guilty of deceit to advance his political ends, Billy Graham, the most famous and most respected evangelical of the 20th century, was disingenuous, if not duplicitous. On Sept. 12, 1980, less than two months before the election, Graham called Paul Laxalt, chair of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign, and offered to help any way he could short of a political endorsement. Eleven days later Graham sent a letter to Robert Maddox, Carter’s religious liaison, insisting that he, Graham, was “staying out of” the campaign.

Even earlier, Graham and Bill Bright, head of Campus Crusade for Christ, had convened a gathering of evangelical preachers in Dallas for “a special time of prayer” to discuss how to dislodge Carter from the White House. Just weeks prior to that gathering, Maddox had visited Graham at his home in Montreat, North Carolina, and reported that Graham “supports the President wholeheartedly.”

Graham’s actions were eerily reminiscent of his comportment 20 years earlier during the presidential campaign between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. On Aug. 10, 1960, Graham sent a letter to Kennedy, the Democratic nominee and a Roman Catholic, pledging that he would not raise the “religious issue” during the campaign. Eight days later Graham convened a gathering of Protestant ministers in Montreux, Switzerland, to discuss how they could deny Kennedy’s election in November.



Later in the same campaign Graham visited Henry Luce at the Time & Life Building and, according to Graham’s autobiography, said, “I want to help Nixon without blatantly endorsing him.” Graham drafted an article praising Nixon that stopped just short of a full endorsement. Luce was prepared to run it in Life magazine but pulled it at the last minute.
RELATED: When Carter ran for president, advisers worried Christian faith would be a liability

Graham’s desire to thwart the candidacy of a Roman Catholic in 1960 may be understandable, especially at a time (before Vatican II) of heightened suspicions between Protestants and Catholics. But on the face of it Graham’s opposition to Carter, a fellow Southern Baptist and evangelical Christian, is mystifying. One can only assume that for Graham, as well as for Falwell and other leaders of the religious right, politics trumped piety. Both preachers were willing to engage in deception in order to advance their political goals.

Jimmy Carter may have reversed the culture of deceit that had infected the presidency during the administrations of Johnson and Nixon, but he was unable to stanch the duplicity of his fellow evangelicals. Carter’s pledge to “never knowingly lie” set a standard for the presidency, but it was a standard that some of his evangelical political adversaries failed to match.

(Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest and John Phillips Professor in Religion at Dartmouth College, is the author of “Redeemer: The Life of Jimmy Carter.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)




Opinion

President Carter showed us faith and Democracy can go hand in hand

(RNS) — Carter, a deeply faithful man, played a role in advancing equality, including making my marriage possible.


Former President Jimmy Carter teaches during Sunday school class at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia, on Dec. 13, 2015. (AP Photo/Branden Camp)
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush
December 30, 2024


(RNS) — As we reflect on the passing of President Jimmy Carter at the age of 100, we should honor one of the core throughlines of his incredible life: his faith. As a Baptist minister myself, I particularly want to celebrate how President Carter carried himself as a person with deeply held religious convictions, while leading a diverse democracy in which people of all faiths and backgrounds deserve equal dignity and treatment under the law.

I had the privilege of interviewing President Carter several times on the role religion played in his life and work. Having interviewed many leaders, Carter was one of the most intelligent and formidable people I’ve ever spoken to. I remember trembling a bit when I asked the first question: If he was comfortable with the title of “Sunday school teacher.”

He responded without hesitation, recounting how he started teaching Sunday school at age 18 at the Naval Academy Chapel — even leading services while at sea. During his presidency, he taught Sunday school 14 times at a nearby church, and, at the time of my interview in 2012, he had just completed his 650th lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church. “So, you might say I have been a Sunday school teacher all my life.”

Carter was arguably the most religious president in the era since World War II. Yet, he was careful of how his faith featured in his official role. One of his most important religious influences was the towering evangelical force of the Rev. Billy Graham. Yet, President Carter never invited Graham to have services in the White House, explaining, “I believed what my father taught me about the separation of church and state, so I didn’t think it was appropriate. He was injured a little bit, until I explained it to him.”

Carter understood the importance of honoring the separation of church and state. He saw how religion could inspire good works and movements for justice and peace without being imposed on others. “I think you can apply the principles of your faith in your service to the public, but you should not use your political authority to extoll your own faith at the expense of others … I don’t think the President of the United States should extoll Christianity if he happens to be a Christian at the expense of Judaism, Islam or other faiths.”

One instance where Carter called upon his faith was at the Camp David Accords in 1978 with Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt. He made sure rooms were set aside for Muslims, Jews and Christians to pray throughout the process. “The Muslims used it on Friday, the Jews on Saturday, and the Christians on Sunday. We were very assiduous in our worship,” Carter said.


Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, left, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, center, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin clasp hands on the north lawn of the White House after signing the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, March 26, 1979, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Bob Daugherty, File)

Later, Carter became a model of what a person can do in life after the presidency. He founded the Carter Center, which focuses on election monitoring, peace negotiations and fighting some of the world’s worst diseases. This work was a continuation of his commitment to public service, driven by the principles of his faith.

When Carter released his book on the Bible, I warned him I’d be asking tough questions — about the compatibility of religion and science, the role of women, interfaith relations and more. He answered with grace and reason. Then, I asked a more personal question, as a Baptist minister and a gay man at that time in a relationship with my partner for over 10 years.



It was 2012 at the time of the interview, and marriage equality was still a few years away. Public opinion was deeply divided on the rights of gay people, and Christians offered some of the most virulent condemnation for people like me. So I said to the Sunday school teacher, military vet and former president, “A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church. What do you think the Bible says?”

Carter’s response was profound: “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things — he never said that gay people should be condemned. Jesus would not be against marriage between any two people if they were genuinely in love.”


Hearing this from Carter was deeply moving. His words resonated and were quoted widely. His acceptance was unbelievable to some and even resulted in fact-checking sites reviewing and referencing my interview with him. There is a deeply ingrained misconception that religious people are by definition conservative, ignoring the countless examples of religious leaders who have propelled our nation forward. Carter, a deeply faithful man and influential example, played a role in advancing equality, including making my marriage and the opportunity to raise children possible.

We find ourselves in a perilous moment, as those who champion Christian nationalism seek to dominate our politics, government and society. President Carter understood this threat all too well, noting that “the alliance between ultra-right wing religious believers and the Republican Party seems to be permanent.”

Perhaps President Carter’s most enduring lesson both as a Sunday school teacher and political leader was the model he offered of deep faith rooted in tolerance, compassion and equality. To truly honor his achievements and legacy, we must safeguard religious liberty and civil rights, not just for a few, but for all.

(Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush is the president and CEO of Interfaith Alliance. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News
 Service.)


Carter, in death, becomes symbol of lost political 'decency' in U.S.

Agence France-Presse
December 31, 2024 6:37AM ET

A mural in memory of Jimmy Carter is painted on a storefront at the Jimmy Carter National Historic Park in Plains, Georgia, on December 30, 2024 (Alex Wroblewski/AFP)

by Aurélia END

The death of Jimmy Carter has brought to the fore a defining characteristic of the late US president's life: his "decency," seen as a product of a bygone era in today's caustic political environment.

Joe Biden on Monday repeated the word three times while speaking to reporters about his late White House predecessor.

Biden, who will be replaced in the White House by Donald Trump on January 20, added: "Can you imagine Jimmy Carter referring to someone by the way they look or the way they talk?"

Despite the struggles he faced during his single term in office -- from economic malaise to the Iran hostage crisis -- Carter has emerged as a nostalgic figure.

He spent his years after the White House advocating for global democracy, fighting neglected public health scourges and teaching Sunday school.


"He was an utterly honest, transparent and healing presence in the White House, which was just what the US needed after the Watergate scandal" under Richard Nixon, Barbara Perry, a professor specializing in the history of US presidents, told AFP.

Eulogies "tell us as much about ourselves as they do about the person being contemplated and commemorated," historian Jon Meacham told broadcaster MSNBC.

"Carter is a sad but illuminating instance of someone who -- while imperfect -- believed in the centrality of character... at a moment in American politics where character is not at the forefront of most people's minds."

Born in rural Plains, Georgia, he died in the same house he and his wife -- who he was married to for 77 years -- bought in 1961.

And his modest lifestyle served as an inspiration to many Americans -- even if other presidents didn't join in themselves.

To name a few: allegations of John F. Kennedy's extramarital trysts, Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern, and Donald Trump's well-documented sex scandals have "lowered all such standards in American politics," Perry said.

"Americans have become immune to ethical standards in political life."

Even those who have stayed clean from personal scandal, such as Barack Obama or George W. Bush, have little in common with the modest lifestyle and outspoken advocacy of Carter's post-presidency.


- Religious, southern, Democrat -

Carter has received an outpouring of condolences upon his death at age 100 on Sunday.

"It's kind of a stark reminder of how few people there are now with honesty and integrity," Jay Landers, visiting Plains on Monday, told an AFP reporter.

"Just look at" Trump in contrast, he said.


The former -- and now incoming -- Republican president has been found liable for sexual assault, once mocked a reporter with a physical disability and infamously bragged about groping women by the genitals.

Yet he returns to power in large part due to the conservative and religious right.

Carter's relationship with Christianity, meanwhile, points toward a different era.

Carter, a Democrat, was an evangelical -- a denomination now associated with the country's right wing.

The Sunday school teacher also won swaths of the south -- a bastion today of religious conservatism and Republican politics.

Conservative Republican Senator Chuck Grassley noted Carter's faith on Sunday when he said that, though they were "bit" by a "different political bug," they had much in common, including "love of the Lord."

The fractious divides that Carter seems to have transcended, however, have long existed.

Carter himself warned of the nation's "crisis of confidence" in a 1979 speech, sapping "the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will."

His warnings sound like they could have been issued about modern political life, telling Americans they were "at a turning point in our history."

"We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation," he said.


That path, he warned, "leads to fragmentation and self-interest... It is a certain route to failure."

© Agence France-Presse

CAPITALI$M IS A WAR ECONOMY

New Year’s Resolution Number One: Join the Movement Against World War

December 31, 2024
Facebook

Image by Allison Saeng.

There’s a precipice and we are standing on its edge. The world as it exists on the eve of 2025 is a world of war and genocide. It is a world where millions of humans exist in a state not just of uncertainty, but in a state where tomorrow is likely to be worse than today. If not tomorrow, then next week or next month. From the bombed-out streets of Gaza where starving dogs eat those killed by US-made armaments wielded by Israelis in military uniforms to the streets of the world’s cities where the poor and the lost beg for inflated coins in order to buy food to eat in the back alleys where they “live,” this moment in time is both desperate and dangerous. Indeed, it is that desperation that feeds the danger.

It does not have to be like this. There is a simple reason that it is. That reason is the current nature of the capitalist economy. Always based on inequality and avarice, capitalism has reached a point in history where it can only continue by intensifying both phenomena. The refusal of governments to put real brakes on the hoarding of wealth by a relatively small number of humans and the need for this economy to consume everything in its path has led to those governments being nothing more than agencies of the wealthy. These governments reject taxing the wealthy at a rate approaching fairness while they deny health and housing to the poor—whose numbers increase with each denial. Most dangerously, the wealthy and their governments flirt with world war. The money they make from the weapons that would be used feeds their greed for wealth and power.

Only we the people can stop them. It remains to be seen if we have the will. Most politicians in power today don’t know war. Of the few that do, many have drawn the wrong lessons from their experience. They think wars can be won with little to no damage to them or their interests. Those who oppose war are not necessarily few in number. However, their voice is seriously muted. The mainstream media—often owned by some of the same people and banks that profit from the war industry—has little to no interest in providing antiwar voices a forum, not even in its editorial pages. Despite this, an antiwar movement does exist. It is present in the protests and opposition to the US-Israeli genocide in Palestine and it is present among a small but growing number of people opposed to the foolish and pointless war being fought between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. Of course, it is also present in other wars not as well known.

To prevent a greater war while ending the current conflicts, there can be no halfway approach. One cannot call for a ceasefire and arms embargo in Palestine yet not call for the same in Ukraine. Both conflicts are part of the same war on the world waged by Washington and its supplicants; the war for full spectrum dominance and US hegemony that Washington has been waging since the end of World War Two. This fact does not ignore Russia’s role in the Ukraine conflict or the role of others in the world’s other wars. However, it does demand one ask themselves whether any of the world’s conflicts that Washington is involved in would exist as armed conflict if Washington was not involved?

It is more than lazy foreign policy to eschew diplomacy and insist on war. This kind of foreign policy is a policy of war and bloodshed. It is the foreign policy of the United States and has been for longer than anyone alive. This fact makes one thing quite clear to me: the primary focus of a movement against war must be the United States government and the corporate powers that profit from its policy of war, war and more war. Since the end of the second world war, Washington has not won a military conflict. It has lost a few and the rest remain stalemated. Despite this, the Pentagon and its political and corporate backers continue to insist that war is the answer. This insistence has led to a growing recklessness on the part of the politicians who vote to fund the war machine. It is this recklessness that we must end before it ends us all.

We don’t know what will happen when the trumpists take power back in Washington, DC. Some of their leader’s recent statements only add to the uncertainty. However, what does seem pretty clear is that the rich will continue to stuff their bank accounts with our money and that US-funded wars will continue to be a main element of US foreign policy. What the US government and the nation’s sycophant media calls defense spending continues to increase with each Congressional budget passed. The Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs recently published a series of reports, one of which included the following statement: “According to a recent forecast prepared for The Financial Times (FT), the world’s top 15 defense contractors will be logging $52 billion in free cash flow in 2026 (almost double the amount in 2021), of which $26 billion will accrue to five U.S. defense companies. A significant proportion of this windfall is due to the rise in military spending related to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The FT points out that based on previous behavior, these defense companies are likely to use some of this cash for share buybacks, dividends, and acquisitions—effectively using taxpayers funds to subsidize wealthy shareholders.”[1]

The pretense of diplomacy carried out by Anthony Blinken while war escalated is just as likely to be replaced by the end of any diplomacy as it is to continue. The swagger of Trump’s “diplomats” (like so much of Trump’s approach to politics) seems to draw its inspiration from the world of TV wrestling and 1990s gangsta rap videos. While some might consider this entertaining, it’s mostly just reckless. It cannot be emphasized enough—this is a recklessness we can ill afford. Killing more people and destroying their world is a path towards greater war, not a path to a just peace.

Ron Jacobs is the author of several books, including Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest book, titled Nowhere Land: Journeys Through a Broken Nation, is now available. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com

 

Why is North Korea helping Russia’s war on Ukraine?


Published 
Kim with NK troops

North Korea is an enigma in many senses of the word, but leader Kim Jong Un’s decision to send troops to fight in Russia’s war on Ukraine shocked many in South Korea and internationally. Many are asking why Kim chose to take North Korea down this disastrous and dead-end path? The answer lies in the various dynamics at play in crisis-prone Northeast Asia.

Russia-North Korea treaty

In June, Kim signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty with Russian President Vladimir Putin that was subsequently approved by Russia’s Duma on October 24 and North Korea’s Senate on November 6.

But the troop deployment preceded its ratification: 1500 troops were dispatched on October 8, with a similar-sized contingent sent a week later. It is estimated that by the end of the year up to 12,000 troops — including three generals and 500 officers — will be fighting for Russia. The elite troops belong to four Special Operation Forces brigades of the Korean People’s Army. Though well-trained, they have no combat experience. Russia and North Korea continue to deny their presence, but various reports indicate they are fighting on the Kursk front, inside Russia.

South Korean military intelligence believes North Korea proposed the military deployment and that, in desperate need of a reliable ally, Putin accepted the offer. Speculations abound as to what North Korea might obtain in return, from inter-continental ballistic missile technology, cutting-edge fighter planes and other military hardware through to economic aid. But nothing has been confirmed.

A knife in China’s back?

These developments, which also allows Russian troops to set foot in North Korea, has left China extremely upset. Taken without consultation, they have been received as a huge insult by China, which views North Korea as strategic to its military defence.

At the same time, North Korea has been increasingly upset with China in recent decades, particularly after reports emerged that China had developed plans to deal with a possible abrupt collapse of the North Korean regime. Chinese military pundits and internet analysts have claimed that should this occur, China’s North Army would cross into North Korea in order to block similar moves by South Korea and the United States. Though not official government policy, such speculation has angered Kim.

This only increases the potential for the uneasy relationship to turn sour at any moment. According to a widely-circulated rumour, Kim once stated that while Japan has been an enemy of Korea for 100 years, China has been an enemy for 1000 years. Whether true or not, such sentiments reflect the attitude of North Korean leaders’ toward China: officially a brother state with whom a special friendship was forged through the Korean War, China remains an unreliable neighbour viewed with suspicion.

A regime in crisis

At the end of 2023, Kim announced North Korea was officially discarding its national reunification policy, declaring the relationship with South Korea as one between two antagonistic states. This shift was largely motivated by internal factors, with voluntary isolation seen as the only way to save the regime.

Steps in this direction had already been taken, with the ruling Korean Workers’ Party (KWP) introducing a series of laws designed to strengthen its control over youth since 2020. These included the “law for rebuffing reactionary thought and culture” (2020), the “law to guarantee youth culture” (2021), the “law to protect Pyongyang cultural language” (2023), and the “law to protect state secrets” (2023). In January, BBC Korea reported that two boys had been sentenced to 12 years in a labour camp for watching and distributing South Korean dramas — an extremely harsh sentence intended to send a clear message to other young people. Reports of similar punishments have appeared from time to time. None of this succeeded in halting South Korea’s growing influence, so Kim decided to discard his father’s and grandfather’s reunification policy for good.

Though he cannot publicly state it, Kim knows that South Korea has won out over North Korea: South Korea’s population is twice as big, its economy 50 times larger and its military is far superior. Today, South Korea is among the top 10 advanced economies of the world while North Korea remains a rogue state relegated to the bottom rung.

Given this, North Korea’s regime views absorption by South Korea as highly probable. Therefore, even with its nuclear weapons, it constantly seeks ways to guarantee its survival. Cutting ties with the outside world and blocking the “evil” influence of the capitalist South is one such means.

Coming to power after his father’s death in 2011, Kim consolidated his position through purges, assassinations and executions. Most notoriously, he brutally executed his uncle and kingmaker, Jang Sung-taek, and assassinated his brother, Kim Jung Nam. But though internal rivals and enemies have been eliminated, Kim’s power is not secure as popular support cannot be bought through threats and bribery. Without any carrots to offer his people, Kim’s only option is more sticks.

The market generation

Despite being an extremely closed society controlled from above, North Korea has undergone significant changes.

The Soviet Union’s collapse and subsequent aftershocks were a historic turning point for the country. Amid a severe food crisis in the mid-’90s, the regime ended its rations system and allowed people to buy food on the market. Since then, the capitalist market has grown to play a greater role. Markets not only became spaces for economic activities and the rise of a rudimentary form of capitalism; they also emerged as places where South Korean songs, movies and dramas, imported via China, were widely distributed.

Through this process a new generation emerged that had never experienced the state’s ration system and was increasingly individualistic. This new generation has no trust in Kim, the KWP or the North Korean regime. Their personal experience has led them to prioritise their own survival. As a result, Kim’s support base today is extremely weak, with repression and coercion the only means left to maintain his rule.

North Korean refugees

Rising numbers of North Korean refugees has also contributed to this shift in societal values.

The first wave of North Korean refugees migrated to northern China in search of means to send money home. Most left without ever considering moving to South Korea. But once exposed to the outside world, many began to discover the realities of South Korea’s advanced capitalism.

The China-North Korea border is home to many South Korean spies, as well as many Christian evangelicals seeking avenues to attract converts inside North Korea. Initially suspicious of these missionaries offering material aid and religious indoctrination, some North Koreans eventually turned to them for help.

What started as individual cases of people escaping North Korea soon turned into an entire industry, systematically organised and coordinated by professional people smugglers. North Korean refugees have become a hot potato for China. Its alliance with North Korea means the Chinese government officially refuses to provide aid to refugees or cooperate with South Korea on this humanitarian issue. North Korean refugees are forced to embark on long and dangerous routes to South Korea via China’s southeast neighbours, such as Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.

As of September, 34,259 North Korean refugees have officially entered South Korea since 1998, where they have formed their own community, struggling to survive inside the capitalist south.

Fighting Russia’s war

North Korea’s troop deployment might look like an abrupt decision taken on the whims of a dictator. But placed within the complicated scenario facing the Korean peninsula, it is clearly part of a well-planned strategy for regime survival.

The economic benefits derived from compensation received for every soldier’s death cannot be ignored in a country that desperately needs hard currency due to international sanctions. The real aim, however, is minimising the dangers of any potential intervention by China in what it views as a necessary buffer state. For Kim, China was the biggest threat to his regime’s survival; he therefore acted accordingly. Winning people’s hearts and minds, however, remains an uphill battle.

News regarding the death of North Korean troops has occasionally appeared in the media since October, though exact numbers are unverified. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky claims that as many as 3000 North Korean troops had been killed in battle, but South Korean military intelligence put the number at about 1000. Whatever the exact figure, the death toll will inevitably rise as these North Korean troops are not prepared for hyper-modern drone warfare or communicating with Russian troops.

Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency means the situation in Northeast Asia will become more precarious and unpredictable. It is too early to tell if we are entering a new Cold War or an era of multipolarity. But uncertainty about the future is growing. This will inevitably mean more instability and difficulties for the peoples of Northeast Asia.

Won Youngsu is an activist, Marxist and labour studies researcher. He is the Director of Pnyx – Institute of Marxist Studies in Korea.


AU CONTRAIRE

Friends With (Geopolitical) Benefits: How Russia and North Korea Are Changing the Game



Recent reports suggest that North Korean (DPRK) troops may be assisting Russia in its war with Ukraine – a development that underscores their growing strategic partnership, formalized by a treaty pledging mutual military, economic, and cultural cooperation. This alliance, formalized through a recently enacted treaty, could bolster Vladimir Putin’s position ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, as Trump has pledged to end the war in the early days of his second administration. Any involvement of DPRK troops – whether logistical or kinetic – could help to expedite Russian operations. These developments, set against the backdrop of Russia and North Korea’s recently enacted comprehensive strategic partnership, highlight the deepening ties between the two nations, raising critical questions about the Ukraine war, DPRK-Russia relations, and US diplomacy in the region.

The Kremlin’s Pragmatic Gambit

The treaty, signed during Vladimir Putin’s state visit to the DPRK on June 18, 2024, ratified in November and taking full effect on December 4, 2024, marks a pivotal moment in DPRK-Russia relations. While Western media have focused on the defense-related aspects – such as alleged sales of DPRK ammunition to Russia and the rumored deployment of North Korean troops to the Russian Federation – the treaty encompasses far more than military cooperation.

Allegations of DPRK troop deployments to Russia have dominated Western headlines, though neither Moscow nor Pyongyang has confirmed them, and much of the evidence was clearly fabricated. The Pentagon claims that several thousand DPRK troops likely traveled to Russia earlier this year, ostensibly for “training exercises,” and are now stationed in rear echelons behind the front lines in the Kursk region in response to a Ukrainian invasion that was launched in August 2024. Even if DPRK troops are confined to logistical and support roles, their presence could enable Russia to redeploy its troops to critical fronts, enhancing its operational capabilities.

This aligns with speculation that Putin hopes to drive all Ukrainian forces from Russian soil before Trump’s inauguration, preferring to negotiate an end to the war from an uncompromised position of strength.

The recently enacted treaty commits both nations to mutual military assistance, stating, “In case any one of the two sides is put in a state of war by an armed invasion from an individual state or several states, the other side shall provide military and other assistance with all means in its possession without delay in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and the laws of the DPRK and the Russian Federation.”

What Does North Korea Get?

For Pyongyang, this alliance represents more than immediate utility; it’s an investment in long-term security. Should DPRK soldiers die in support of Russian objectives, their sacrifice would create a powerful moral and political obligation – cementing the alliance with a “blood debt” of sorts. This concept of a ‘blood debt’ not only strengthens the immediate alliance but also ensures that Pyongyang could call upon Russia in times of need, leveraging this shared sacrifice to secure military support in the face of putative future conflicts with South Korea or US-led efforts at regime change.

DPRK troops are unlikely to be deployed to Donbass. However, as such restraint would signal that Russia’s reciprocal commitment to the Korean peninsula would remain limited to defending against incursions across the DPRK’s recognized borders. Pyongyang’s recent constitutional changes, renouncing claims to South Korean territory, further support this cautious strategy that is aligned with both nations’ interests.

While claims about DPRK troops in Kursk – ranging from photos of supposed combat operations to absurd reports of soldiers falling prey to internet porn addictions – have been widely debunked, they underscore the prevalence of misinformation about the alliance. As the owner of several DPRK cell phones and tablets, I can confirm that these devices cannot connect to the internet outside of North Korea, rendering such allegations implausible.

As always in wartime, propaganda and misinformation are ubiquitous.  Especially in the age of artificial intelligence, the fog-of-war obscures the facts on the ground, leaving us no alternative to speculation. While the details of DPRK military operations in Russia remain unclear, what is undeniable is the broader scope of the DPRK-Russia partnership.  The treaty goes far beyond military cooperation, into economic, scientific, academic, and cultural domains, reflecting a deliberate effort to institutionalize their multifaceted engagement.

This treaty is a blend of Hobbesian power politics and Machiavellian strategy, with Russia securing short-term military gains and the DPRK solidifying long-term security guarantees.  However, like all pragmatic alliances, this one depends on circumstances that could shift quickly.

While Western partnerships often came with political preconditions – such as demands for denuclearization or human rights reforms – the Russian alliance is markedly pragmatic, emphasizing mutual benefits in military, technological, and economic spheres without imposing ideological constraints. Both sides understand the importance of survival, but neither is under delusions about the limits of the other’s loyalty.

Building a Strategic Partnership

The following list of delegations exchanged since the treaty was signed in July illustrates the depth of engagement between the two nations, ranging from academic exchange to military strategy, and highlights the deliberate effort to institutionalize this partnership across multiple sectors:

Korean Delegations to Russia:

  1. Ministry of EnergyDiscussed energy infrastructure development.
  2. Ministry of Foreign AffairsNegotiated agreements on international cooperation.
  3. Ministry of SportsCollaborated on joint training programs and sports diplomacy.
  4. Korean Workers PartyHeld discussions on political cooperation and trade agreements.

Russian Delegations to Korea:

  1. Education Ministry of Primorskiy KrayFocused on exchange programs for students and educators.
  2. Security Council of the Russian FederationDiscussed joint security initiatives and intelligence sharing.
  3. Ministry of AgricultureNegotiated joint agricultural research and food security programs.
  4. Ministry of Information Technology and Digital DevelopmentSigned agreements on cybersecurity and technological innovation.
  5. Intergovernmental Commission on Economic CooperationDiscussed trade agreements and financial services partnerships.
  6. Overseas Koreans of RussiaExplored cultural and diaspora relations between Russian-Koreans and the DPRK.
  7. Military AcademyExamined training and knowledge-sharing opportunities.
  8. Ministry of Natural Resources and EcologyDiscussed joint environmental protection programs.
  9. Ministry of SportsFormalized agreements on collaborative sporting events and competitions.
  10. Ministry of DefenseHeld high-level talks on strategic cooperation and mutual security interests.

These delegations illustrate a deliberate effort by both nations to build a robust, enduring relationship. By providing the support North Korea once sought from Western counterparts – without the political preconditions of denuclearization or human rights reforms – Russia has positioned itself as Pyongyang’s most reliable partner.

Having personally worked on several academicsportsscience and music exchange programs between the US and DPRK in the past, I witnessed firsthand their eagerness for international collaboration, especially with American scientists, athletes, artists and academics. Those efforts, like the basketball diplomacy efforts I helped to facilitate with Dennis Rodman, provided rare windows of engagement between the US and DPRK before they were abruptly terminated by political restrictions, most notably the Trump administration’s 2017 travel ban.

DPRK-Russia’s Difficult History

While the DPRK-Russia partnership marks a significant shift, its roots stretch back over 150 years, forged through a complex history of cooperation, mistrust, and survival. Their modern relationship began to the 1860s, when waves of Korean migrants sought refuge in the Russian Far East. Fleeing famines and floods in North Hamgyong Province, these settlers introduced agriculture to Russia’s Primorsky Krai region, solidifying Russian control of the territory annexed from China in 1858. By the early Soviet period, Koreans thrived under the new regime, playing key roles in the region’s development.

However, Stalin’s 1937 deportation of 200,000 Koreans to Kazakhstan and Central Asia – on suspicions of collusion with Japan – left a lasting scar. This mass displacement, driven by paranoia rather than evidence, shattered trust between Koreans and Moscow. The descendants of these deportees carry this legacy to this day. My own work on a research project examining the health of Koreans in Kazakhstan underscored the enduring psychological and cultural trauma of these events.

Despite this rupture, Soviet-Koreans played a pivotal role in the establishment of the DPRK and its government after Japan’s defeat in World War II. However, relations between Pyongyang and Moscow were fraught with tension. During the Korean War, while China contributed large numbers of troops, the USSR limited its involvement mostly to logistical and air support. By the late 1950s, Pyongyang purged many Soviet-aligned Koreans, accusing them of dual allegiances, and expelled them back to the USSR. These events deepened mutual suspicion and created a repeated pattern of transactional cooperation followed by estrangement.

The Cold War era brought further complexities. While Western narratives often depict the DPRK, the USSR, and China as close allies behind the Iron Curtain, the reality was far more fractured. Moscow and Beijing saw each other as rivals, and the DPRK adeptly exploited the Sino-Soviet split to extract aid and concessions from both sides. This strategic balancing act was emblematic of Pyongyang’s survivalist approach to foreign policy – a dynamic that persists today.

Russia’s Post-Soviet Balancing Act

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992 marked a major turning point. Bereft of Soviet support, North Korea became increasingly isolated, with China emerging as its sole remaining “ally.” In the first years of the post-Soviet era, Russia prioritized stability on its borders and initially worked to catalyze US-DPRK engagement, hoping to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed DPRK. Russia sought closer relations with Washington and even joined NATO’s “Partnership for Peace,” reflecting hopes for integration into the European security framework.

Russia’s focus shifted toward developing economic ties with South (rather than North) Korea, viewing Seoul as a more lucrative partner for trade and investment. Moscow also aligned itself with US-led efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, including support for the 1994 US-DPRK Agreed Framework, for which they offered to provide Russian-built light water reactors as part of the deal, if the West footed the bill, though that never materialized. This involvement reflected Moscow’s desire for a stable, denuclearized DPRK and improved relations with the West.

By the early 2000s, Russia joined the Six-Party Talks, favoring a step-by-step approach to DPRK denuclearization. However, as North Korea began conducting successful nuclear and missile tests, Moscow backed a series of nine UN Security Council resolutions between 2006 and 2017, imposing harsh sanctions on Pyongyang.

Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia began pivoting toward the promotion of a multipolar world order to counter US hegemony. This shift was reflected in the 2000 “Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborliness, and Cooperation” with DPRK. Although the treaty lacked military assistance provisions, it underscored Moscow’s interest in maintaining strategic ties with Pyongyang without provoking broader tensions.

The geopolitical calculus changed dramatically by 2024, as Russia’s international isolation due to the Ukraine war aligned its strategic interests with those of Pyongyang, marking the beginning of a new era in their relationship. Facing its own international isolation and economic sanctions due to the Ukraine war, Russia vetoed a UN resolution to continue sanctions enforcement on DPRK through the UN Panel of Experts. This marked the beginning of a thaw in relations between Moscow and Pyongyang. The newly ratified DPRK-Russia treaty now represents a partnership born of mutual necessity: for Russia, DPRK provides ammunition, manpower, and political support against the West; for DPRK, Russia offers technological expertise, economic opportunities, and a powerful security guarantor.

Echoes of History: Navigating the New Great Game

Russia’s evolving relationship with the DPRK signals a definitive end to its role as a mediator in US-DPRK relations and a pivot toward a deeper strategic alignment with Pyongyang.  Historically, Russia sought to stabilize the Korean Peninsula to minimize the risk of conflict along its border. Its involvement in the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Six-Party Talks reflected these priorities. However, its current reliance on DPRK military support and its focus on promoting a multipolar world makes cooperation with US overtures unlikely, as such efforts could weaken its alliance with Pyongyang. This transformation from mediator to strategic ally highlights the profound changes in Russia’s foreign policy priorities as it continues to confront the West.

In 2017, I co-led an academic exchange program funded by Columbia University to collaborate with Kim Il Sung University in Pyongyang. When Trump’s travel ban rendered the initiative moot, the DPRK proposed relocating the program to China or Russia, where we could teach their scientists to use internet resources for medical research. Despite enthusiastic support from Russian academics and government officials, a collaborative workshop planned for Vladivostok in 2019 was ultimately derailed by US government opposition. This missed opportunity reflects broader failures in US-DPRK engagement, leaving a void that Russia has since filled.  The DPRK-Russia alliance delivers what Pyongyang once sought from the West, leaving the US in a weakened negotiating position.

If Trump resumes negotiations with the DPRK, he will face a far more challenging landscape. Despite his personal rapport with Kim Jong Un, the DPRK’s strengthened position and closer integration with Russia will surely complicate US efforts. Moscow now views US-DPRK engagement as a threat to its interests and will likely resist any attempts to drive a wedge between Pyongyang and Moscow.

Nevertheless, the DPRK’s historical pragmatism leaves the door open for negotiations. Pyongyang has long leveraged rivalries between major powers to its advantage. However, any renewed engagement must acknowledge the DPRK’s strengthened position since 2019.  As I have written elsewhere, progress will require the US to offer more substantial incentives such as a treaty to end the Korean War, the exchange of liaison offices, recognition of the DPRK as a nuclear state (a reality that must be acknowledged), removal of the travel ban on US citizens visiting the DPRK, and substantial changes to the never-ending UN sanctions regime.

The DPRK-Russia partnership has immediate implications for the Ukraine war and East Asian security. By providing Pyongyang with the support it once sought from the West, Moscow has weakened the US negotiating position. However, the DPRK’s history of juggling rival powers suggests that future engagement is still possible.

Ultimately, the success of any US strategy depends on its ability to navigate the new dynamics created by the recently expanded DPRK-Russia alliance. As Trump considers renewed diplomacy with Kim Jong Un, he must contend with a North Korea that is more emboldened and less reliant on Western engagement than ever before. To avoid irrelevance in East Asia and beyond, the US must recognize the changed dynamics and recalibrate its approach before the window of opportunity closes entirely.

Joseph D. Terwilliger is Professor of Neurobiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, where his research focuses on natural experiments in human genetic epidemiology.  He is also active in science and sports diplomacy, having taught genetics at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, and accompanied Dennis Rodman on six “basketball diplomacy” trips to Asia since 2013.

ANTIWAR.COM