http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/postscript-f-w-de-klerk-responds/
Here we have a story with amazing relevance to our world today. Not just because of Egypt, Syria and the Middle East but also because of South Africa as evidenced by the above recent NY Times article, articulating the painful process that led to the end of apartheid. That that process did not lead to civil war could be counted as one of its successes, but the time, effort and struggle, and the hypocritical stance of America and American investment (though “small” by Ambrose’s accounting) need to be judged in some way as a great failure. Not until Jimmy Carter, mentioned briefly here, would we have a promise of a US Foreign Policy based on human rights interest, and not national interest, but the failure of that policy, in the upcoming chapter, would bring no real new results, and frankly bring about substantial challenges which will lead to his resounding defeat by Reagan in 1980 and a three term (Reagan, Reagan, George HW Bush) conservative Republican ascendancy along, broken only by Clinton in ’92 (with the help of Ross Perot) who then faced the “Contract with America” defeat in ’94.
So Ambrose begins by illustrating the Middle East as decidedly indifferent to the Cold war. That two NATO allies could attack each other (Turkey and Greece over Cyprus) is great evidence that the bipolarity of the Soviet – American conflict held little sway in other parts of the world. That Egypt, under Sadat would at one moment have Soviet advisers in his country, and in the next be appealing for American aid, goes to show how difficult this terrain was to navigate with the lens of the Cold War. Furthermore in this time the Middle East is emboldened by the initial success of Egypt and by the success of the oil embargo which resulted in long long lines in the US, cars wrapped around the block waiting for gas at the few stations that had it, a quadrupling of gas prices, the end of Detroit, the ascendance of the Japanese automotive industry and the federal government’s imposition pictured before, of a nationwide federal speed limit of 55mph to assure maximum efficiency of all cars on the road.
Hint: if you consider yourself a card carrying environmentalist check your mpg driving normally for a tank of gas, then fill the tank and keep your speed at 55 or below, treat the gas pedal like an eggshell leaving stops (avoid stops) and you will be amazed at the difference.
On to South African we have there an excellent example of national interests in conflict with any legitimate view of human rights, civil rights, equity that serve to show terrible contradictions with America as either a beacon or crusader. Read the above linked article for a South African view on the lurching policy of America in those years.
Questions to pose here for your comments might include an assessment of why the Cold War didn’t matter in Africa, what was going on in Portugal and Angola and why that matters to this story and anything else you find interesting, confusing, or curious.
According to Ambrose, “the Great Embargo of 1973 was an important an event in the awakening of the Arabs as the Egyptian/Syrian victory in the first week of the Yom Kippur War” (263). For years, the Americans believed and assumed that the Arabs political arguments were never to be taken seriously. However, in 1973, the Arabs put an embargo act and the Americans realized that we needed the Arabs more than they needed us.
Kissinger’s treatment toward Egypt’s security adviser is like Dulles’ refusal to shake Zhou’s hand. He’s basically disrepecting him when he only answers the questions he wants and talks about the weather. Kissinger comes around when he realizes that Saddat, after doing everything he can to prevent war finally succumbs because he isn’t being treated seriously. Kissinger’s step-by-step method is a good call, prevents discussions from being ended abruptly. Us realizes that they needs the Arabs, more than the Arabs need them (oil).
I found Saddat interesting because he was able to accomplish winning the encounter during Yom Kippur. His assessment of the Americans in comparison to the Russians explains why he initially sided with the US. Even though he helped give the US a win, by expelling numerous Russians from Egypt, he also showed that the Russians were powerful force. The supplies that the Russians provided allowed them to have an influence there, instead of remaining cut off. Throughout this, Kissinger remains skeptical of Saddat raising arms against the Soviet and doesn’t really do much to support them until necessary, believing that a war in the Middle East is just talk.
According to Ambrose, Africa was not the US’ problem but more of a European one. Angola had its own civil war and according to Ambrose they had some economic importance to the US, thus this did not help their economy. Also NSSM 39 just predicted a continued stalemate in the Portuguese colony of Angola.
Something I had also found interesting was the fact that the director of the CIA William Colby said the US entered the Angolan civil war because they wanted to counter Russian threat there but the chief of the CIA Angola Task Force (John Stockwell) said that the US made the first actual move in Angola.
The only thing I need help in is in the term apartheid.
Man oh man. So this chapter had so much to do with serious violence and war at the hands of ethical beliefs.
In the Middle East, both parties find themselves exclusively the rightful owners of the holy land of Jerusalem and most of what is today Israel. Both sides use the bible as reference to their argument and claim that God has given them this holy land. I watched a documentary called Promises that was about this conflict and how it continues now (the film was made in 2001), but through the eyes of children. The only people interviewed in the film are children of varying views and ideas about the conflict. At the end, the most neutral children of either side meet and have a play date in one of the Palestinian camps. They talk about how they have lost loved ones to the conflict and how they wish the conflicts would end its all very uplifting until a few years later those same children are checked in on again and they have lost their connection and have grown colder towards each other.
I thought it was interesting to hear Ambrose’s thoughts on the way Kissinger acted during this time period. He said that due to his actions and the choices he made, “he was vilified by both sides, at various times cursed, hanged in effigy, accused of having neither morals nor common sense, denounced as a man who was incapable of responding to the suffering of millions” (262). The worst part about this in the eyes of both parties is that he didn’t care for the Palestinians or the Jewish. I feel like Kissinger is a rigid follower of raison de tat and realpolitik and really puts less emphasis on the moral beliefs of an individual and more on national interest and it put his critics against him for it.
Africa is another story altogether, but still based on ethical beliefs, the citizens of the United States got mad at the governments actions with regards to the problems. South Africa and many other nations were still practicing serious apartheid and here we are investing 1.2 million on them. It surprises me that we meddle in everyone’s business and we call ourselves so righteous when are pumping money into these people to shoot each other.
I think the statement that history often repeats itself is accurate in the case of the US. In 1972 when Sadat kicked all of the Russians out of Egypt, we didn’t worry about the repercussions of an independent Egypt. We under estimated the power of the Middle East, in Israel and the conflict between the Arabs and Jewish people. The naturally unstable Middle East remains a zone of difficult political relations to the US. The attitude of the US remains arrogant in the sense that the region is too weak to pose a threat to global security. This occured in the early 70s and by the time the conflict gets out of hand, it was too late to intervene without repercussions.