First Edition

Essays By A History Major

Max Mersinger

Essays By A History Major

2012 Max Mersinger

1st Edition Miramar, FL 33029

Thanks to Everyone who helped along the way.

On The Question of Afghan Nationalism

What is Afghanistan, and Who is an Afghan?

On the Question of Afghan Nationalism

On The Question of Afghan Nationalism

Pull out your sword and slay anyone, that says Pashtun and Afghan are not one! Arabs know this and so do Romans: Afghans are Pashtuns, Pashtuns are Afghans!



- Khushal Khan Khattak 17th Century Pashto Poet1

! The question of why a Nationalistic movement has appeared has been asked over and over again the both the general public and the scholars that study the subject. But what is almost never asked is what a movement has never appeared. For the country of Afghanistan that happens to be the case. There is almost no national unity to show of beyond the capital of Kabul and even less of a tie to the nation outside of members of the Pastun tribe in southern Afghanistan. This is a puzzling question as most of the tribes in the area have been there for almost 2000 years and have never once formed what is the modern day denition of a Nation-State. These people have been grouped together for almost as long as they have been there but have never truly come under one banner for very long. What I propose is that there is no Afghanistan, it is just a construct of a roll of the dice as to where various groups stopped expanding their borders and what laid in between became the country we know today. To look at it from the western perspective there is almost everything there to form a full actor on the international stage, but to the people of the area there is no nation, just the tribe that has been there over the past 2000 year. Before even Islam the people of Afghanistan will go to their tribal roots in a quest for resolution of their problems. For these reasons and more that are below I dare to say that Afghanistan is not a Nation, nor a country but the space left over in the rush. People grouped together by no logical means going into the modern era and pushed to live together in a state that dose not exist. ! Most of the talk regarding Afghanistan these days turn to how the United States has either won or lost its military action in the country. What gets over looked in most of the conversations is the lack of a National identity. Even more of a pressing question beyond National Identity is if there really is a nation there to be made? The creation of the Afghan nation has been on the minds of American and world policy makers for the past decade since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2002. For the most part the focus in nation building has been very western in nature, the idea of a central government in Kabul controlling the nation as a whole. But for the better part of the last 2500 years the nation has been controlled from the outside by everyone other than the Afghans themselves. ! Most of the writing and study of the issue turn on the fact that there is an Afghan nation. The idea of a nation in the western sense of the term belie the fact that for the most part Afghanistan is a lose group of tribes. The Minister of Defense for

Great Britain Liam Fox in May of 2010 called the nation a broken 13th century country.1 Most of the writings on the subject come in along those lines with the idea that a nation of western form must emerge. ! The nations on the southern part of the Asian continent all point to the idea that this can be done, Iran, Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan all have the hallmarks of the modern nation state. But the nation in the middle, Afghanistan, has never formed in such a way to emulate its neighbors. The Russian ambassador to the nation notes that like the Russians in the 1980s the American have control over all the major centers in the provinces and look to govern form there. This control has had no effect on the course of the efforts by the insurgents towards continuing to ght to drive out the American forces.2 ! In The Atlantic Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason make the point that for almost all of the history of Afghanistan there has never been much in the way of a true central government. They note that most of the people identify with the most basic unit of the Afghan governmental system, the woleswali. Going on in their writing they note that the southern part of the nation has its own form of government and law based on the tribal level. This rural area of the nation looks both on western norms of government and those of the Taliban with equal ire and disgust.3 ! They are among the minority in terms of how they look at the lack of a strong national government. Barnett R Rubin writing for the Council on Foreign Relations makes no note of the structure of government in the nation but calls for a focus on Pakistan in the ght to bring about a peaceful nation.4 Pakistan shows up largely in the movement towards an Afghan nation. In American Interest Ronald Neumann makes the case that all the problems with Afghanistan are rooted with the Pakistanis to the west.5 He, like others, work under the assumption that for all the problems in Afghanistan they could be solved almost overnight with the solution of those in Pakistan. ! Michael OHanlon and Bruce Riedel writing in The Washington Quarterly, and Thomas H. Johnson for the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute both play upon the idea of central government as the major player in securing the country. Johnson touches on the idea that the tribal element is there but moves towards a nation built by Kabul. He calls for action towards making the central government more palatable for the major tribes in the region but recommends action only at the national level.6 OHanlon

and Riedel make the same call in how they see events in the region focusing on the national level leaving out that of the tribal inuences in the nation. They note that for them it all comes down to a strong Kabul and a push towards centralizing its government.7 ! Most of the studies of modern nation building in Afghanistan focus on security and building this idea strong central government in the western model. Left out are any solutions that would lead to a government not in the model of a textbook nation. Each of these articles note that anything less than this would constitute a loss on the scale of nothing ever seen in history. None of them ask who are the Afghans, what is their connection to each other and how do you build them into a responsible player in the world today with these facts.

Pull out your sword and slay anyone, that says Pashtun and Afghan are not one! Arabs know this and so do Romans: Afghans are Pashtuns, Pashtuns are Afghans!



- Khushal Khan Khattak 17th Century Pashto Poet8

Who are the Afghan people? When we mention the word there is a need to understand who is being referenced. The word itself, Afghanistan is in reference to just one of the tribes contained within the modern borders. The loose translation, or just the one that makes sense in English, from Arabic is Land of the Afghans. Its rst know appearance in Arabic is found in the 10th century CE Hudu al-Alam. They get this name from the Prakritic Avgana from the 6th century CE Brhat Samhita by Varahamihira. And the name dates back even farther from there, the Sassanids from Iran in the 3ed century CE make a reference to a tribe in the region they called Abgan.9 But in the end, or beginning, the name can be traced to the Sanskritic name for the tribe, the Asvaka. ! For most of the nations history the term Afghan meant only the people of the Pashtun tribes. Inside and outside of the nation since about the middle ages the terms have been interchangeable with each other.10 They are in the area at least before 440BCE when Herodotus wrote his History and makes reference to them.11

Their oral orgin myth is one that tries to put them on top of every other tribe in the region, Ibn Battuta notes in 1333; ! We travelled on to Kabul, formerly a vast town, the site of which is now occupied by a village inhabited by a tribe of Persians called Afghans. They hold mountains and deles and possess considerable strength, and are mostly highwaymen. Their principle mountain is called Kuh Sulayman. It is told that the prophet Sulayman [Solomon] ascended this mountain and having looked out over India, which was then covered with darkness, returned without entering it. Ibn Battuta,133312
This origin myth was also put down by Maghzan-e-Afghani for Khan-e-Jehan Lodhi in the 17th century.13 The myth in full holds that in the 7th century BC the Bani Israel settled in the Ghor Region of the country and later moved down to their current location. The commonly held view among modern Pashtuns is that they are the decendents of the Tribe of Joseph after the Twelve Tribes of Israel were disbursed.14 ! Currently the Pasthuns make up about 42% of the current 29 million people within the current boundaries.15 They can be found, like they have since they rst settled in the region, in the mountainous region of the Hindu Kush in the southwestern part of the country.16 When it comes to the race of these people they are placed with Mediterranean Caucasians and the Pashto language is born from the Iranian side of the Indo-European Family of Languages.17 The countless graces of Paradise come through Pashtu to the Pashtuns. Ghani Khan,197718
The one thing that binds the Pashtun together is their code of ethics. Pashtunwall, or way of the Pasthuns or the code of life is a set of non-written traditions that pre date the Muslim invasion in 7th century.19 Its force is so great that even members of different tribes or non-tribal members living in close proximity to the Pashtuns will use it in their everyday lives. Even with its origins before the islamazation of the Afghans it does not contravene the basic principles of Islamic law.20 This code of life would nd its way almost untouched after existing under Persian, Greek, Hindu, Seleucid, Mauryan, Hellenistic, Parthian, Kushan, Buddist, and Islamic rule.21 The ba-

sic tenants of the code fall into nine general rules, Melmastia (Hospitality), Nanawatai (Asylum), Badal (Justice), Tureh (Bravery), Sabat (Loyalty), Imandari (Righteousness), Isteqamat (Trust in God), Ghayrat (Self Honor or Dignity), and Namus (Honor of Women). These nine virtues make up the basis for most if not all of Afghanistans governance. But over the course of the past two thousand or so years who exactly has controlled the area now known as Afghanistan? ! The history of modern government in the region starts around the 313 BCE with the Founding of the Seleucid Empire out of the possessions of the eastern part of Alexander the Greats conquest of the Persian Empire.22 After the conquest of the Persian Empire in 330 BCE Alexander died with all the lands from Greece to the Indus Valley under his control. With no male hair to the throne of the Macedonian Empire in 323 BCE the empire was divided up in the Partition of Babylon. But after some inghting among the generals of Alexander the Empire was once again divided in 320 at Triparadisus when Seleucus gained the area of Babylon. But its not until 312 BCE that he makes it there to set himself up. By the turn of the century in 305 BCE all of the eastern parts of the old Macedonian Empire up to the Indus River would be under one common government again.23 ! But this would not last all to long. IN 305 BCE Seleucus made the attempt to go over the Indus river and invade the Maurya Empire on the Indian subcontinent. There are no accounts of how the war went but it was over within a year with Seleucus giving up much of his territory from the Hindu Kush Mountains to the Indus River in exchange for 500 War Elephants.24 It is under the Maurya Empire that the religion of Buddhism is brought into the region. All across the kingdom are placed the Edicts of Ashoka that extol the values of the religion and the kings of the empire. Made from 269 BCE to 231 BCE during the reign of the Emperor Ashoka the Edicts are also the rst tangible evidence of Buddhism.25 The effect on the Afghan region had not been lost to Ashoka, on his 13th edcit is found an inscription in both Greek and Aramaic, using the Hebrew alphabet. This and one other Edict were found in the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan during the 20th century.26 The Greeks in Afghanistan would continue to have a major impact in the region up until the turn of the millennium. ! Northern Afghanistan come 250 BCE was still under the Seleucid Empire until the satrap of Bactria, Diodotus I, declared independence from the empire.27 The

Greeks who overthrew the Seleucid Empire would grow into one of the most powerful forces in the region. The Empire known as the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom would come to have the rst contact with from the western world with the Chinese and other people of the steps.28! The Kingdom would roll along till 180 BCE and expansion was on the horizon. ! Before their expansion the Maurya Empire collapsed in 185 BCE with a coup by its Generals. The successor empire, the Sunga Empire, would for the most part maintain the boundaries of its former state. But what they did to their own people is still up for debate. Most of the records of the time say that the Sunga began a campaign of terror against the Buddhists in the area. In 180 BCE the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom invaded the Sunga Empire, for what most see, as a way to protect the Buddhists. By 170 BCE the Kingdom would expand to include all of the territories up to the Indus River. In so far as they took back all the land that was once under Alexander the Great they moved almost to the Himalayas in north central India.29 To the south the Kingdom would move all the way down the Indian coast to Simylla by the time it was all done.30 ! This new conquest by the Greeks would be split off after the conquest to from the Bactrian Kingdom to form the Indo-Greek Kingdom. It is this Kingdom that would rule the area from the Hindu Kush to the Eastern edges of the Kingdom until around 10 CE, But forces from within would contribute to its own downfall. ! The Saka people from the eastern part of china were a nomadic people who settled in the area just south of the Hindu Kush during the 1st century BCE.31 By 10 CE they had forced the Indo-Greeks out of the territory along the southern base of the Hindu Kush and started their move towards India by 20 CE. Formed out of these lands was the Kushan Empire, which ruled unmolested for almost 200 years. During this time there was vast contact with the Roman Empire to the west and the Chinese Han Dynasty to the East.32 It wasnt until 225 CE with the death of Vasudeva I that there was a split of the Empire into eastern and western portions. The western portion in Afghanistan was very quickly after separating taken in by the Sassanid Empire. The Sassanids would rule Afghanistan for well into the 5th century CE when the Kidarite Kingdom comes to power in Northern Afghanistan and proceeds to conquer most of Peshawar and Northwestern India.33 The Kidarite would, in the 5th and 6th centuries CE, fall into the Nomadic confederation of the Hephthalites.34 But unlike all

who came before the next group to control the region would for the rst time have its capital in Afghanistan. ! The Kingdom of Kabul Shahi moved into the area with the fall of the Hephthalites around 565 CE. For the rst time the people ruling the land were not Greeks Indians or Persians but Turks.35 Also of note here is the note of how the region was named, Kabulistan, referring to the area around the city of Kabul but not including the areas to the south refered to as Afghanistan. For the most part Hindu and Buddhist traditions were the major religions in Kabul Shahi until the start of the Muslim invasions in 664 CE.36 With the Muslim invasion one of Afghanistans major players in myth would come on to the scean and for the rst time control all of the modern day country. ! Yaqud bin Laith as-Saffar was born in 840 CE somewhere in southwestern Afghanistan.37 As-Saffar would go on from very humble beginnings to control areas of Pakistan, Iran, and all of Afghanistan from his capital in Zaranj, the city near to his birth site.38 The dynasty of As-Saffar would go on to rule for almost 150 year until 1002 CE at which point Mahmud of Ghazni invaded and de throned Khalaf I.39 After this time for almost 700 years almost no one maintains control for more than 100 year until what Steven Otnoski calls the Afghan George Washington comes along.40 ! Mirwais Kan Hotak came to power after killing Gurgin Khan in 1709 in the city of Kandahar.41 Thou he only lived a few more years until 1715 his Hotaki Empire would come to embody the future for an Pashtun tribe that ruled itself. After his death his sons were defeated in 1736 by the Persans for what would be the last time that Afghanistan would be under the rule of a foreign power. The Durrani Empire came to power in 1747 under the leadership of Ahmad Shah Durrani. The Empire would become only the second Pastun rulers of the Kandahar region after only Hotakis.42 At the time of his death Durrani would become know as the father of modern Afghanistan for bringing all of the tribes together and moving them towards a common goal of forming a nation. During his time the empire was the largest Muslim political grouping next to only the Ottoman Empire.43 The empire would go on till 1826 with its undoing at the hands of the Sikhs. In all the rulers of the empire tried six times to take over subdue the Sikhs but never could. As more and more of the Hindu peoples converted to being Sikhs they pushed out the Durrani from all of Pakistan to where the modern border sits today.44

! In the late 19th century Afghanistan was for all intent and purpose an independent nation, there are three wars with the British along its eastern border. But in 1919 with the Treaty of Rawalpindi the British gave up and claim to Afghanistan and it was declared an sovereign and fully independent state. Amanulla Khan was the king and the time started the process of opening up the nation to standard international relations.45 But as Khan was to nd out Afghanistan would never grow in to a modern nation, as up to the 1979 Marxist rebellion almost 12 different kings or warlords controlled the country with differing values and different visions for what Afghanistan could be. This left the nation in shambles being left behind in the push to modernize. For even at the end of the 20th century it went from Marxists to extreme Islamist in the span of 20 years, each with the hope of holding together a nation. But where they have failed might be the insight in to producing a positive actor on the international stage. The use of western nationalism to look at Afghanistan is somewhat misguided in how it approaches the nation. The nation is not bound together in the ways that there are truly denable in the western sense. The idea of a strong central government in the nation is almost nonexistent. The seat of legitimist government is seated in the village elders in the eyes of the people. Most of the functions of government are carried out at this level with little input from Kabul. As seen above the majority of times that the people of Afghanistan have come together have been to push out a foreign power from the nation, after which they go back to the status quo of government at the local level. Unlike other nation building efforts in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that have some form of central governing power in their movement that the people have unied under. The push to move in Afghanistan has been placed on a central government that has almost no power at the regional level on down. ! The use of exiles also comes into question when it comes to the unifying of the nation. Most of the members of the current government were up until 2001-2002 out of the county. Pushed out after the Taliban came to power in the 1990s they went abroad, and to local eyes, bided their time until they could swoop in and take power. They werent around to suffer or ght in the eyes of the normal Afghan villager. After the ouster of the Taliban in 2001 at the hands of the Americans they came back to power hand picked by the members of NATO. Upon returning to the Nation as their new leaders Hamid Karzai took power by reenacting the coronation of Ahmad Shah Durrani. But as he took power many called him The Mayor of Kabul.

Most saw him as the puppet of both the Americans and the Pakistani ISI who he worked with during the 2001 invasion. ! This lack of faith in the central government of the country most glaringly shows itself in studies done on the level of corruption in the central government. In the last year in which data is available, 2010, Afghanistan ranks alongside Myanmar, home of a military junta, and just above Somalia (which is only really a country for several blocks of its capital Mogadishu).46 These levels of corruption in the nation put it almost dead last in the world. One of the hallmarks of western nationalism is the legitimacy of governing institutions. For the ability to move a group of trucks across the nation will cost $6,000 USD for the police to not tip off the Taliban to their location. Ashraf Gani described the government as completely controlled by corruption, The narco-maa stat is now completely consolidated. The people see members of government living in houses that got for $11,000 USD a month, but the president, who is the highest paid member of government, only gets about $600 USD a month in salary.47 The British government estimates that almost !70 Million will be lost to corruption in the next four years starting in 2012.48 For the Americans it is almost $360 million in funds given to reconstruct the nation that will be lost to the system of corruption in the nation.49 ! The transmission of ideas and media across the nation also nds itself in a position that makes moving the people together almost impossible. For the 29 million people in 4.8 million households in 2010 only 497,000 of them had access to electricity. Only 140,000 telephones (main lines) are in use across the country. For the 13 million cell phones in the country there is, as the state department puts it, irregular cell phone signals50 Compared to the US state of Texas (25 million people, 696,241 km2) Afghanistan, at 652,230 sq km, has only 12,350 km of paved roads, mostly between major cities, Texas has 121,561 km of public highways alone.51 There is almost no movement of people or goods inside the country, thus almost no movement of news, events and ideas. This lack of communication also effects the centralization of government. Without reliable lines of communication to Kabul most matters must be settled at the local level with no guidance or help from the central government. The functions of national government can not exists if there is no way to get information from decision makers to those putting them to action.

! In the end for that information to even matter there needs to be a populous ready and wanting of that message. For its entire history Afghanistan has been both a nation and a random place on the map. A unied people and a disorganized smattering of tribes, that can not be brought together within the western model of the nation state. What is needed in the end is to ip then conventions on its head and not have federal system in the American model but a confederacy upon the model of the European Union. The idea of a strong central government just does not t into the mold that Afghanistan presents and the option of a decentralized government that is strongest at the local level only moving to work at the national level only to outsiders. For at the end of the day Afghanistan is just an illusion, a country on paper but in reality nothing more than the negative space on the map between Iran and Pakistan.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

National Geographic The Cultural Orientation Project The Pashtuns Olesen p. 33. Library of Congress Nadjma pg. 49. Encyclopaedia Iranica Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies p.211. Appian Chapters 52-55 Plinty Book 6 Ch. 21 Avari p.113 Afghanistan dot Net Justinus Strabo 11.11.1

28, 29,30

Footnotes
1

31 32

Isidore of Charax Victor XV 4 GRENET p.203224. Procopius Book 1 Part 1 Tarikh-al-Hind pp 10-14 Oldham p 126 Noldeke p 178 Encyclopdia Britannica Bosworth p 89 Otnoski p.8. packhum.org Chapter IV Malleson Chapter 7 Library of Congress Tannerp.126. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921 Transparency International

13th Century Fox Johnson, Mason Rubin Neumann Johnson OHanlon/Riedel Khushal Khan Khattak Encyclopaedia Iranica Abdul Hai Habibi Heredotus Chapter 7 pg. 180 Houtsma pg. 150 Muhammad Introduction Central Intelligence Agency Afghanistan

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 Battuta 13 14 15

47 48 49 50 51

Filkins Walker Riechmann/ Lardner U.S. Department of State Central Intelligence Agency

Algers
Or how to have Cold War America pay for everything

Algers

Oh, and By The Way...

...the Soviets might be involved.

As the curtain rose on the 1960s France would nd itself at the position that many old war powers would nd themselves, at the end of an era, the world was changing weather they liked it or not. Finding themselves in the position of giving up all her colonies around the world France would need to nd a way to pay and maintain local governments in her old colonies. But with political trouble at home, as well as abroad it found itself in a position where the goal of decolonization not was truly attainable from both the side of political and monetary capital. The push to leave the colonies forced France to move to nd a force to fund this movement and give back up to the faltering French political system. Into the arms they ew to nd the United States of America waiting to give them the capital they desperately sought and needed. By the end of the 1960s they would achieve this goal and more with the United States funding not just decolonization but also drawing it in to help preserve the last remaining vestiges of France as a global player. ! In the quest for these goals the French would nd that the United States would only give so much, but beyond that there lied a recipe for almost unlimited funds and support that they could tap into. Through the use of State Department documents I intend to show that the 4th and 5th French Republics hit upon the threat of Soviet interference in their affairs to get the Americans to move and give support towards putting down rebellions and other colonial efforts in the late 50s and early 1960s. Once the French see that this strategy would not be questioned by the Americans they moved to use it as a threat hanging over the Americans, that only they, no one else could keep communism ay bay and lead a Free France into the rest of the century. ! There is no greater example of this political blackmail than that of the Algerian War of Independence. The war would in the end lead to the fall of the 4th Republic, splintering of the French public and the rise of the 5th Republic. The war was taken upon by not just French and Algerian forces but also the French Algerian colonists themselves. This combustible mix would fuel the need for outside intervention to keep France from falling to either Communist or Fascist forces. It would take the return of a hero in Charles De Gaulle to bring peace to what has been called the French Vietnam.1 ! In the scholarship on the issue of French Decolonization the United States is rarely if ever mentioned. Danielle Costa, in an essay, makes this over look of the United States that characterizes most of the scholarship on the is-

11

sue. She points to both political pressure and feelings of the French people at home towards her colonies, leaving out any way that they got funding or supplies.2 Like Costa most of the works on the subject look at the subject from the perspective French internal politics, but some look at as outside actors working against the French. ! There are two seminal works on the Algerian War, both twenty years apart and almost as far apart in terms of how they take a look at the implications and American involvement. Writing in 1980 John E. Tallbotts book, The War without a Name: France in Algeria, 1954-1962 takes a stance of looking at the implications of the war for the French people. In it he looks at the Frances moral dichotomy of trying to keep a hold of this crown jewel of its old empire and the French tradition from its revolution of human rights and freedom for all people. His work is the seminal study into the French republic and how opposing forces almost tore it apart.3 ! In 2001 Irwin M. Wall moved to rewrite the history of the Algerian War with his book France, the United States, and the Algerian War. Wall takes the opposite approach from Tallbott in looking not so much at internal forces working in France but at the outsized inuence of the United States in the post World War Two era. From this he goes on to make a case that the U.S. forced the downfall of the 4th French Republic and the long and bitter battle for the Algerian colony. He does this in a way that makes Du Gaulle seam almost as a puppet of the United States, which I nd in my research to be utterly wrong. He picks and chooses the information that he uses to make his point of trying to make De Gaulle appear to have no free will or choice in the manner, laying at the feet of history the idea that there is almost internal reason for the fall of the 4th Republic, but the United States wanted it so, and it was done.4 ! Where this paper tries to t into the research is the idea that, yes De Gaulle did get some of his marching orders from the American government, but at the same time he was calculating in his approach to the matter and learned how to pull the strings of Washington. That it is more a question of how De Gaulle and other French leaders framed the advancement of U.S. policy and not the other way around. There are internal forces and external forces at play and he learned how to play them to his advantage. The end game at the time of his second rise to power brought about stability to France that is still here today in the form of the 5th Republic. From documents from the U.S. government this paper will try to show how over time the change and movement of

U.S. African policy, Algeria in particular, was moved by the French to their own motives and not by independent reports. ! I plan on telling how this happened through the ofcial Department of State records contained in the collection known as the Foreign Relations of the United States 1860-1960 I start my study in 1952 with the start of the uprising through the end of records in 1960. The reason for the use of just ofcial records is that the majority of the memoirs and other books on the issue all have some slant or score to settle in terms of who was right or wrong on the issue. For this study that does not matter as much as the how, for success has a thousand fathers, but failure has none. The other reason will be seen clearly in the later stages of the study as the use of telegrams, cables, letters and memos allow for members of the Diplomatic corps to converse uncensored and with tone that would not be there had these documents been public record at the time. All this leads to insights that could not be had any other way. This study looks to nd how people on the inside of the process at the moment, not 30 to 40 years later take on the subject, and handle different lines of thought. ! In February 1952 long before the November 1954 uprising in Algeria the United States was already looking for factors and movement towards an uprising or nationalistic movement in the nation. In a memo dated 27 February, 1952 the Consul General in Algiers makes note of there being two major groups from where rebellion might come from, the Nationalist parties and the Moslem population. The memo takes care to note that the communist part in Algeria is apart of the nationalistic movement but at the same time that Nationalists would move if they could get support from the United States and the United Nations to put pressure on the French.5 Noted in the memo is the idea that there isnt great Nationalistic fervor among the general population but it is mostly held in outlying groups with in the colony. In fact the idea of such feelings is dismissed as surprising.6 In the end it makes the conclusion that, we foresee no likelihood for the near future of any outbreak in Algeria other than isolated incidents that could be rapidly under control.7 ! A year before the action in 1954 a dispatch is sent from the Consul General after a vote in the United Nations on the question of Morocco and how it was viewed from the perspective of Algerian nationalists. Among the opinions reported to the Washington at the time are some very critical editorials in the Algerian Nationalist paper La Republique Algerienn, in the 4 September issue,

12

the memo goes to point out, blame for the events in Morocco of Frances violent repression lie at what UDMN leader Ferhat Abbas saw as, French bourgeoisie which has lost faith in itself and seeks t compensate for its own inferiority complex by a series of criminally brutal acts against the unarmed colonial people.8 From the same issue it called for the French to start their own revolution again and to escape the Fascist forces which threaten them.9 From their perspective it sees the United states as betraying the promises of Roosevelt in the relief of French forces in the form of supplies and money. The MTLD journal LAlgerie Libre itself goes even further to indite the United States for their support of France in North African matters, even making note that they have almost no choice in the matter, The United States are caught in a trap. They must tolerate everything. Their security in the event of the independence of a colonial country would be endangered. The United States, a former colony, thus go in the name of strategy, against their history and the freedom which they pretend to defend throughout the world.10 In the end in his comments section of the memo the Consul General sees no signicant change in how Algerian nationalist will operate. But without even mentioning them for the entire memo bright up the Communist Party in the colony, noting that their cooperation with the nationalist movement is just nothing more than a Communist hope.11 ! As troubles start to mount in early 1954 there is a telling memo sent from Algeria to Washington. On 18 May the Consul General at the time had a conversation with the French Governor General about the rising tensions in the colony. In the conversation the Governor General made note of how they French believed that there was no trouble to be had with Algerian nationalists but it was from terrorists sent into Algeria from abroad.12 When describing these outside forces there is a glaring mention of Spanish Communist activity in the nation. Wile the governor General makes some note of how they suppressed further activity there are very much the dog whistles given to the American diplomats of the idea that they were prepared to seize on any incident.13 ! There is no reason for alarm.14 This is how a telegram dated 2 November 1954 from the Consul General to the State Department ended. On the night before of 1 November a series of bombs and attacks took place in the southern part of the colony, but with the note that most of the attack did not succeed. In the end of the memo the Counsel General leaves no douth as to the forces be-

hind the attacks, No question in anyones mind that terrorists are MTLD-PCA members and attacks made under pressure from Arab League.15 This no reason for alarm is taken very seriously by the French press in Paris, as the U.S. Ambassador in France notes that even on 4 November there is Surprisingly little specic information.16 But in talks with French ofcials it is seen that blame is laid square at the feet of the Arab League and other forces from the Middle East, Egypt in particular.17 At the end of this telegraph from Paris to Washington is a small note of how French ofcial had indicated that, there is growing evidence of Communist and nationalist cooperation at lower levels.18 ! In the ongoing conversation of what had actually happened in Algeria on 1 November 1954 there is a telegram from the Consul General at Tunis to his fellow diplomats in the region that makes some interesting points to how the French were pushing the quiet agenda of dropping the threat of communism into every conversation. While he reports that his French equal in the country all but pins the Arab League for the attack the French ofcial adds, Moscow turns to North Africa as the soft under belly West Europe alliances and most vulnerable for attack. Not that he expects successful revolt soon or immediate Communist gains but is concerned lest basis be established for future success. Said he hoped US would perceive Communist pattern and help France combat it.19 ! At this point in the documents looked at there is no mention of independent conformation of any communist threat by the U.S. but always mentioned at the end of conversations by the French when speaking to American Diplomats. ! This threat blows up in a memo dated 9 November. On the Night of 6 November the French Government raids and bans the Nationalist group MLTD declaring it a terrorist organization. The French also took the opportunity to shut down the Communist Organ Alger Republic.20 Near the end of the memo there is a report of note of how the Governor General of Algeria was appalled at how sudden along with the scope of the attacks. He even goes on grasping at any explanation for the failure intelligence services to provide adequate prior knowledge.21 But even with this lack of knowledge the Consul General in making a request for leave states that he, would not consider leaving Algiers if there were likelihood major Nationalist uprisings. Am not of course infallible but am condent that taking leave at this time would not be detrimental US interests.22

13

! On 22 December the French government under Mendes moved to push for an end to the uprising by making wholesale arrests of leaders of several different Algerian organizations. The Consul General makes note that there was no clear evidence of any new plots but many of the persons arrested were charged with endangering the security of the State.23 There is note of a Christmas plot that had been aborted by the MTLD, it is also noted that there was, no serious indications that a plot had in fact been discovered by the police.24 The conclusion that the Consul General comes to is one of the idea that this plot was cooked up by the French government in order to clean out members of the Nationalists movement from the colonial government. Most persons arrested that night were in fact released not long after the raids. Making their rst appearance in the documents are people called colons, people of French decent in Algeria. The Consul General remarks that the raid might have been a change in policy that was called upon and meet with intense satisfaction by the colons.25 ! The memos and cables written in the latter parts of 1954 speak to an astonishing lack of insight on the part of the French government on how the internal politics of the colony were playing out. Causes and bogie men seam to appear almost out of nowhere to the utter surprise of Paris. This holds the same for the Americans, from the consular asking for leave to the lack of knowledge on the part of any person writing these paper it could be said that there was very little attention paid to current events in Algeria. The events of the end of the year are a general shock to them. Apart from one or two interviews most of their information is coming from their counterparts in the French diplomat corps. The U.S. State Department looks, from these documents, to have nothing on the group in terms of Human Intelligence other than what is sitting behind the gates of its embassy. As the year turns to 1955 it will be the Americans pining all the blame on the French and making sure they know it. ! For the rst time making an appearance in the collection is a memo datelined Washington. ! Secretary of State Dulles writes to the embassy in France in regards to a request by Pinay to use helicopters meant for the uprising in Indochina (Vietnam) to be diverted to North Africa. Right from the top he takes no time in chiding the French in pointing out that the request alone demonstrates French failure aooreciate problem created for us by rapid deterioration situation North Africa and apparent inability French formulate and apply specic and imaginative programs.26 The push to move the French to settle

the matter comes at the end of the memo asking the Ambassador to comclude by assuring the French that we desire continue support France and that there is no time for France to lose.27 Throughout the memo is the push for the Ambassador to assure support of native populations of French North Africa, and that they have increasingly grave political problems from both at home and abroad that is fostered by US weapons and support in the North African region.28 ! These problems are eshed out not much later in a telegram dates 17 June, 1955 which makes the following observations as representing Department thinking.29 In the ofcial published record this is the rst time that there are concrete concurs given by Washington to Paris, before only had there been generalities about these concerns but here they are laid out for all to see. Though reassured in the French coming out and saying that they would not contemplate retaliatory measures against civil populations, that in their own words would shock world opinion. They take note that the major case against the French is one of the underling fact that it concerns the franchise of indigenous populations. But for all these reassurances is something of gave note, an FYI section at the end of paragraph in which this all appears, FYI. Certain intelligence reports are to effect French probably contemplate just such measures. Certain items on list requested are not reassuring. End FYI.30 These two sentences take the entire paragraph and put it into a new light, without it this is just a general warning not to do anything that might turn public opinion against the French. But with it, it now reads like a moment of the United States telling France that we know what your up to. ! Through out the documents starting in 1955 is the overwhelming sense that the United States is having a hard time at home trying to sell support for the French mission. For in the last instructions given to the Ambassador is that he may wish to observe that statements made by the French make it more difcult for US Govt to be forthcoming in giving support to French.31 But for the French to keep up appearances of US support there is a note made in a nal FYI on the availability of helicopters that were being given to the French, We hope assistance on helicopters will provide evidence to French Govt and public opinion that US willing respond to French appeals for assistance to extent possible.32 ! There is an interesting gap in the document records at this point, from the Hoover telegram dated 17 June of 1955 there is a jump of a little over four

14

months to 4 October of that year. For the most part in the records at the start of a jump like this there are editors notes or footnotes providing for the lost time, major events or other ways to connect the timeline of events. Even in this case it leaves out anything before 30 September and a UN vote to place The question of Algeria on its agenda.33 But this jump lands at a very interesting conversation between Pinay of France and Dillon from the United States. Written and sent right after this conversation, the telegram was time stamped at 3pm and he was received This Morning, the mood described by the Ambassador was one of heightened dignity and restraint stemming from badly hurt feelings.34 Prefacing his remarks Pinay stated that he had always been extremely frank in his remarks to the Ambassador but that the support which he had received from the US had not been what he would have expected or hoped for.35 The support he was looking for was on the UN vote, for it passed 28 to 27 with 5 abstentions even with the General Committee reporting that they were against inscription.36 Even with a speech by Ambassador to the UN Lodge against the inscription Pinay still felt that he did not consider Lodges speech had been as forceful as it could have been and that the American Delegation had not made any visible attempt to work on other delegations on Frances behalf.37 The French are made to look in the conversation that they were under the impression that the US could control the Latin American bloc, but quick to point of that such was not actually the case, the Ambassador attempts to all at once make it look like they can control the votes and that there had always been a great deal of independent action among the Latin American nations.38 Even with the discussion of the vote itself at the forefront on the backburner is the general feeling of the French government that it had been let out to dry after the vote. As for after the vote Pinay notes that he wasnt contacted by any form by any member of the American government. Pinay notes that with Britain along with practically all the smaller countries of Europe, offering some form of expression of support towards them that he had been neglected by the US in his moment of trouble.39 ! After the airing of grievances by the French there is a very interesting moment in the room. Pinay takes his time to work on the thesis that the Algeria vote is not really about France, but whether or not the UN was competent to meddle in the internal affairs of any and all countries. He makes the case that this entire vote and issue itself was put before the General Assembly by a alliance of the Bandung and Soviet blocs, calling into question who might

be next, the situation of Negroes in the southern part of the US, the situation in Northern Ireland, the division of Belgium between Wallons and Flemish, ect.40 Not only at this point had the French Foreign Minister brought forward the threat of communism running the UN but had hit on the major third rail of American politics at the time, the Civil Rights movement of which was just starting to form around that time. In one nal parting shot by the Foreign Minister is the chiding of the Americans that they had not fully recognized the threat that could be posed by the voting block of Bandung and the Soviet bloc nations. For he called them the gravest threat to the stability of the world.41 ! Come the very next day in Washington 5 October Ambassador Lodge sends what to this point is the most outwardly pointed telegram so far included in the public record. We must rst set record straight in Paris and insist French immediately desist baseless charges.42 Having read the telegram dated 4 October from Paris to Washington Lodge sets about picking apart the French for what he sees as lies. He starts by making the case that by spreading these lies which if picked up by press could create situation in which we could not render assistance French badly need.43 This case had already been made before in various memos and telegrams on the issue, as Dillon was told to tell the French in June of that year that the political situation was already near breaking point and nothing was needed to iname it. But it is the next paragraph that stands out the most, We cannot let French dictate terms on which we should assist them because this will only lead to further unjustied recriminations if we are unable carry them out.44 From there he goes point by point dismantling the French case from the day before. ! Lodge sends his Telegram at 11am from New York, by 7:02 pm a telegram is sent from State in Washington to the Embassy in France for the Ambassador to deliver a message direct from the Secretary of State. From the Lodge telegram in the morning that can only be described as a diplomatic bleep you the 7:02 telegram maintains the very nature and points given by Lodge but placed into language that is suitable for the world stage. Contained with in it are such turns of phrase from Lodges, We must rst set record straight in Paris and insist French immediately desist baseless charges,45 to the more diplomatic I believe that your Governments reaction was dignied and understandable.46 And in response to the French worries about the Soviet blocs power the quote, May I add that I believe that this type of action di-

15

rected against France is intensied by Communist scheming, with him going on to later state that they will look into it at a later date.47 ! Out for blood Lodge sends a letter to Ambassador Dillon in Paris on a personal letter starting with Dear Doug:.48 Sent on 6 October to Paris he believes you should have in mind the following facts concerning United States support of the French on the Algerian issue.49 The letter goes on to confront each and every charge levied against the United States by the French in the 4 October meeting. From his point of view with the information he has it turns into a case of the French in his eyes apparently unprepared for the unfavorable vote.50 His most biting criticism for the French comes in point ten of the eleven point letter where he says this of the US effort to help the French, God helps those who help themselves.51 On 1 November Lodge sends a telegram from the UN to Washington that is most mundane in nature but contains some very candid moments in the form of FYIs laced throughout. When the French Ambassador to the UN Alphand outlines the plan for taking on the issue in the future Lodge sums up his plan as such, FYI: I feel that sooner or later- and preferably sooner, we must make it clear to Alphand as we must to everyone, that while the US is powerful, it is not all-powerful and we cannot work miracles. End FYI.52 For the French had come up with a plan that boiled down to let the Americans push their weight around and it will get done. And here for once was someone with the willingness to say no to the French. For the ofcial report is only 2-3 paragraphs long there is a lengthy FYI at the end with a very sobering assessment of the US position in terms of France and the question of Algeria.

agreed to speak to Iceland, Liberia, Ethiopia, Guatemala and Bolivia. I will also make a brief statement in the Plenary. I feel that I have agreed to enough and that I should not be required to agree to anything more. I very much fear that Pinay will ask Secretary Dulles to direct me to organize a big ght in defense of French colonialism. I cannot nd words to express how strongly I feel that this would be most harmful to the American position throughout the whole non-white world.53

FYI: This whole conversation inspires no condence whatever. It is perfectly clear that the French are maintaining an impossible attitude of wanting to get a result achieved without lifting a nger to do it, which never works in any department of life. It is perfectly clear that he has not done his homework, that the texts of motions have not been drafted, that speakers have not been lined up, and that none of the essential practical steps have been taken. Nor is there sound basis for hope that they ever will be. ! In all this there is one thing which the US should avoid, by every means within its power, and that is to become the so-called muscle man who is required to lead a strong ght in defense of French colonialism. I have now

This quote nds itself in the position of summing up to this point everything that has gone wrong with Algeria and the position the French had put them in. For America at the time stood as the force for Freedom and Democracy in the world vs. the evil oppression of the Soviet Union. Algeria had pined them into the position of having to defend that which they had tried so had to foster, selfdetermination of a people to chose their leaders. On the other hand they had to defend France for if questions were raised there would the Soviet bloc use this president to call upon the sins of America and place them in front of the whole world. For Americas image in the world it was a catch-22 of epic proportions. What Lodge saw as a total mismanagement of the vote by the French and the passing of the buck to the Americans when put in context with other documents make it seam that the French know the Americans cannot let this measure pass. For them there is no work to be done, America in their eyes has to do it or face untold consequences on the world stage. Writing on 7 February in Washington Secretary of State Dulles passes along words through the embassy in Paris to show support for planes by Mollet in Algeria to help quell the violence through liberal reform. But for the members of the Cairo and Tripoli ofces Dulles makes note of the political instability in France and resistance to any plan that was peaceful noting that the plan might bring about violent opposition by local French elements, and subsequent opposition rightist groups French Parliament, and that the look of having the US behind the plan would cause most of the citizens to buy into the plan.54 Paris a month later, on 7 March a telegram is sent from the Embassy to State marked eyes only with a very sobering perspective of the situation at hand. It lays out several points of fact; that the in trying to not offend both colonial power and colonies themselves it has been left in the position of gathering favor for neither, rumors are spreading that as soon as the French pull out Ameri-

16

can businesses are set to move in, which is noted to be encouraged by the Communists and Arab bloc, that the demand for scapegoats will grow over time as France at best is going to have a very rough time over Algeria, a call for a series of statements that can be used to defend the United States from blame by any side in the conict, and that the position of the United Kingdom is moving to paint the Americans in an unfavorable light.55 Responding to this assessment the Department of State passes along their concerns with the anti-American situation in France and Algeria. At the same time there are concerns about how to go about not giving France a blank check to maintain control in what might take form of long and sanguinary military campaign involving operations against civilian Moslem population. 56 There is advisory to only support the French up to the point that it starts to damage relations with the Arab world. But down telegram is the sentiment that for all its problem the French be told that the United States does not wish to see them evicted from North Africa. It is this power vacuum that the Americans fear most, the idea of a newly independent state with little time for a hand over to prep the population and government for self rule. But this moment in time where at one end was the question of military force being used against civilians or the threat that a communist or Islamism government could form makes the choice for how to react and how to move a difcult one for American policy makers. For the French Algeria is France and giving it up is tantamount to giving up Paris itself. To keep it they would do most anything, including throwing out the threat of communism for the United States to keep them interested in Frances cause. Washington, February 20, 1958. Subject: United States Initiative on North Africa. Pursuant to your instructions conveyed orally to me by the Under Secretary, I submit the following suggestions.57 Come 1958 a major statement on what should be done about Algeria is sent from Under Secretary Holmes to the Secretary of State. . In it Holmes calls for the United States to persuade France to make a fresh start in North Africa and reach a negotiated settlement of the Algerian problem.58 Pointing out down paragraph from that that more and more the United States is seen as underwriting colonialism and that this perception supports the Egyptian-Soviet axis against the West.59 This is in fact the rst time in all of the documents that any such axis is seen or heard from. Before they had been separate parts of the same problem. The French always made note of how the Islamists and

nationalists had no to little contact with the communist forces in the colony. It seams very much of note that this comes from NATO and Washington and not Paris. It hints to either State reading into the developments in the region or of France being blind to the connections. ! In Holmes memo there is a plan to push the French to the table, to solve all their problems in the region at the same time in the name of western security.60 The plan outlined called for a detachment to be sent to Paris to start the talks on getting the French to modify their thesis. The thesis he writes of is one of Algeria being a major piece of their metropole. But there is warning sown into the hope laid out for the solution, there is a warning of the Gillard Governments need for the support of the right wing of French politics to hold up their rule. Due to this reading of the situation in Paris there is caution that there might be a backlash in the government and with public knowledge of the push to settle strains would be put on the already thin relationship between Paris and Washington. The suggestion is even given that NATO and the North Atlantic Council should not be made aware of this effort. But in closing Holems notes, Faced with the increasing danger of disaster in North Africa, however, I feel that these risks should be taken.61 What ever was done at the time it did not get through to Gaillard, for on 7 March he went before the French National Assembly and proposed an Western Mediterranean Commonwealth comprising France, Algeria, Tunisis, Moroco, Libya, and possibly Italy and Spain.62 ! But before that group could take form the French started to grow tired of the bloodshed and losses incurred in Algeria. By May 1958 the government that had been in place as the 4th French Republic was toppled in a civil uprising. Come November 1958 Charles De Gaulle would win election to his second term as leading France, First as Prime Minister but now as President. 3 September, 1959, the newly installed Charles De Gaulle meets in Paris with President Eisenhower to discuss the situation concerning Algeria. The Americans started a presentation on the region trying to get the French to support goals that were felt to be mutually benecial. But at the end of it there was only one thing on the mind of President De Gaulle, certain independent nations were in direct contact with the Communist world.63 This forced the Americans into the position of telling the French, we should send in that amount of equipment that was necessary to keep Iron Curtain out.64

17

In a report dated 4 November, 1959 by the National Security Council some 400,000 French troop had been deployed to stamp out the rebellion. The report estimates that only 15-20,000 rebels exist getting support from Arab nations and most notably Communist China.65 In an effort to maintain the peace De Gaulle called for a referendum on how Algeria would be governed after peace. This effort is praised well over by the Americans seeing it as the best way out.66 The report notes that the Soviet Union has come to champion the oppressed Algerian colonial people, wile trying to gain a seat at the table with the nationalist movements. But unlike China they did not move to recognize the government for lest they upset their large following in France itself by way of the Communist party.67 In their conclusion on the matter the call the Algerian conict a handicap to the Free World in terms of dealing with the Soviets elsewhere. In fact they see U.S. involvement in the nation as risking driving the Algerian rebels toward closer ties with Moscow and Peiping, should they interpret out position as giving a blank check to the French.68 Their main objective put to paper, Prevention of the spread of Communist inuence in the North African area.69 The ofcial record ends in 1960 as it is the last published volume of the Foreign Policy of the United States, but even up to that point much can be gained to see how France took what should have just been a colonial matter and formed it into a story spanning the globe. For all the dysfunction the French had shown, from missing the start of the uprising to begin with, to trying to down play its importance to the Americans they always knew where and how to turn for help. The United States at the time was riding high on the ending of the Second World War with the message of self-determination and freedom for all people. But here the French masterfully moved to force them into a position that ran counter to their public persona. They forced the Americans to open themselves to attacks and ridicule that might have forced the United States to drop support for any other nation. For the United States there is a moral conict as to what to do, the threat of communism always around the corner in the 1950s forced them to keep governments in place that might not have conformed to the American model of what a post war world should look like. But they couldnt take chances, for at every turn they could have gone to the French and told them that they were on their own. The cost of fronting a military crackdown on a people only doing what they had called for at the end of

the war, trying to determine who rules them on their own. Then there is the ally who thinks of the land not as a colony but as part of the motherland itself. As can be seen in the documents above every time that there is a question about Frances policy or declining support for the effort there is always a drop at the end of how there might be communist forces at work trying to ally themselves with the nationalist movement. The Americans couldnt afford to alienate either side, the Arabs supporting the Algerians or the French who they had fought along side in the War. This small case study in the effect America has on the world would play itself out all over the world time and time again through out the Cold War. Groups realized that no matter what you were along as there were no communists around you could get support from the Americans. Various juntas, dictators, and other surly characters would nd this as their meal ticket for decades to come. This push to stop communism and its school of thought in Domino theory would nd safe haven policy circles till the fall of the Soviet Union. The crisis in Algeria started during the Red Scare in the United States and extended into the start of the Vietnam War. This over powering though of the spread of communism would lead to the sacricing of American ideals and money. Did it really stop the spread we may never know for sure, but it is clear from the document evidence that the French knew when and where to use its specter to gain what they wanted out from the Americans. But what to make of the documents themselves? When putting together these collections they present the documents that had the most effect in terms of the issue at hand. But it is also telling in how most of the documents found are cables, the transition from the early 1950s of cables between the North African Counsel Generals growing to include the French Embassy to at the close of the decade there are eyes only documents moving to the upper levels of the government. Over time these cables start with very regular diplomatic documents to very personal at the end. These movements are telling of how a crisis develops from inside the government. It is not until the later part of the decade that the secretary of state shows up as more than just a mentioned person. The cables back to Washington show the most change, they get more and more specic as the crisis moves on to the world state. The more directed movement of information is very important and the French would have known this.

18

The best example of this comes straight from the UN vote in 1955. The French would have known that they could get high level people to move their position through the Ambassador and talks with him. The moment where trust is played in the comment about being very frank then passing on information on how they felt about a lack of support towards their goals from the United States. Nowhere in the documents is this kind of personal attack made on anyone person. Their inclusion is both interesting from the standpoint of seeing the French trying to discredit an American diplomat and how ercely he went about defending himself. The Level of gamesmanship shown in those few days in October 1955 almost tells the whole story. The French know they have the Americans cornered, but they need someone who will be loyal to their cause and going about what could look like a set up to discredit an obstacle in their way. The cable alone from New York to Washington just after seeing the one sent from Paris with the French charges show just how well they knew how to push the Americans buttons. As a study in statecraft it has been shown that over the long haul even actors in positions where they should have no leverage over a larger power can nd and exploit it in vast and interesting ways. The French placed the Americans in a no win situation of trying not to upset to many people. When the time presented itself they presented the one thing that could override the moral and logical compass of American Foreign policy of the time in the threat of Communism. It is with this force that they moved the United States into a position of trying to play all sides. For as much as America enjoys the idea that it could shape its own foreign policy France played very much a active part in quietly shaping the face of American foreign policy for decades to come.

Footnotes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Stern Costa Tallbott Wall Lockett 382-383 Lockett 382 Lockett 386 Lockett 389 Lockett 389 Lockett 390 Lockett 391 Clark 392 Clark 391-392 Clark 393 Clark 393 Dillon 394 Dillon 395 Dillon 395 Hughes 396 Clark 396 Clark 396 Clark 399 Dorros 403 Dorros 403 Dorros 404

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

19

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Dulles 219 Dulles 220 Dulles 220 Hoover 221 Hoover 221 Hoover 221 Hoover 222 Footnote 2 on page 222 Dillon 222 Dillon 222 Footnote 2 on page 222 Dillon 222 Dillon 223 Dillon 223 Dillon 223 Dillon 224 Lodge 225 Lodge 225 Lodge 225 Lodge 225 Dulles 227 Dulles 227 Lodge 227 Lodge 227 Lodge 228 Lodge 228 230 Lodge 230-231 Dulles 233

55

Dillon 234 236 626

56 Hoover

57,58,59 Holmes 60

Holmes 627 628 Note 628

61 Holmes 62 Editorial 63 State 64 State

613 614 Security Council 619 Security Council 619-620 Security Council 621-622 Security Council 623 Security Council 624

65 National 66 National 67 National 68 National 69 National

52 Lodge 53 54

20

Soft over Hard

The Movement Toward a United Europe 1945-1992

Soft over Hard

Swords into Euros

! ! Since the turn of the 19th century many men and groups have tried to bring the European continent under one ag. But at the end of the 20th century the economics of the changing world did what no man ever could. Starting after World War 2 the changing economic climate of a growing world forced the continent closer together. Over the past half-century many organizations have come and gone over the course of 60 years, but they all leaded to the unication of the European continent. ! Before the modern era power in Europe was very decentralized. The First attempt to bring the City-States in to modern nations started in 1806. Under the Holy Roman Empire in Germany there were more than 300 States at one time, some not being more than the size of a small town. During what the Germans call Kleinstaaterei economics and trade were hampered with each town having tariffs and weights for goods. The power of the German economy could not be harnessed with all these impediments in the way. The number of states was consolidated in 1806 when Napoleon Bonaparte had Francis II dissolve the Holy Roman Empire. Under the French run Confederation of the Rine the number of over 300 was whittled down to a little over two dozen member states. But upon the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 the Austrian and Prussians during the Congress of Vienna restored many older lines of nobility, increasing the number to around 40 states.1 A few years later the Zollverein, a customs union, was created to make trade among the German city-states more open. In doing this they standardized the weights and measures for goods, and with in the borders encouraged free trade among the German people.2 At about the start of the Customs Union the GDP for the region of Germany was $26.819 Billion, but by the time of German Unication in 1871 it had grown to $85.914 Billion.3 ! Always on the prowl for more land and power Kings and Emperors sent out army to march across the land every now and then to gain more for their King. The powers at the time took and tried to keep territories and people under control through the projection of hard power. But slowly soft power was bringing the Continent under one ag. As the century moved on more and more smaller stated were being swallowed up into the ever-larger Empires of the era. Surrounding the Germans in 1850 were all the major land powers of the ear: The French Republic, Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire. All of whom were trying becoming the biggest player

22

on the stage and at the same time keeping the status quo. But the dream of a unied Europe would still need more than a century and two world wars two start to unify behind one common goal. ! After World War II at the University of Zurich in 1946 Winston Churchill gave a speech on The Tragedy of Europe. In it he called for the Creation of a United States of Europe as a sort of third part to the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This speech, even with its rehashed arguments was given new impact with the events of the past few years and where Europe found itself going into the future.4 These ideas for the rst time in history gained mainstream traction. After the speech the Congress of Europe convened under Churchills chairmanship to look into the idea of bringing all of Europe together. Meeting at The Hague between the 7th and 10th of May 1948 the Congress went about eshing out the ideas of what was to be done. To get to this point all the groups that were apart of the movement were brought together in 1947 under the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity. Consisting of the main groups they set about their work. With 800 members from among different groups and 30 different governmental delegations they set about to try and prove three goals: To one demonstrate the existence, in all free countries of Europe, of a body of public opinion in support of European unity, two, discus the challenges posed by European unity and propose practical solutions to governments, and three give impetus to the international publicity campaign. To get their goals covered they set about their work in three committees: Political, Economic and Social, and a Cultural Committee. ! With members from all the major unity groups under one roof there was an obvious place of departure from their shared goals. The Unionists in the congress advocated confederate from of government where the central government would not have a large amount of control over the member states. Wile the Federalists made their case for a strong central government over all the states. In the end the congress sided with the Unionists, who also wanted movement toward unication to be slow and steady, when they drafted their recommendations for the body to consider, Among the major recommendations out of the congress were calls for the prompt establishment of a European deliberative assembly, the drafting of a Charter of Human Rights along with a Court of Justice to enforce it, The Creation of an economic union, and a Cultural Center.

! With the rousing success of the congress, thats to the almost 250 journalists in attendance, the International Committer went about making the union of Europe a reality. On the 25th of October 1948 in Brussels the committee changed its name to the European Movement. This change came about after it became plainly clear that the individual groups needed to be nally under one central group and no longer spread out among the committee as it was. The rst of the goals to be meet was the creation covenanting of a European Assembly, and in 1949 the Council of Europe was founded. As the dream looked more and more like reality the Movement held over the course of the next several year conferences looking to address the problems that would lie ahead.5 ! On the 9th of May in Paris the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, calling for Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. His reasoning for this he states in later in the speech as being The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any was between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.6 In the rest of the speech he makes the statement that it is only through economic unication that the continent will truly know peace. ! From this declaration on France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands began to work out a treaty to make this vision a reality. When they were done with the talks a treaty was forged to form what at rst was a simple vision but became a complex 100-article monster. Signed on 15 April 1951 the treaty established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Its goal, laid out in its second article as stating, To Contribute, through the common market for coal and steel, to economic expansion, growth of employment and a rising standard of living.7 The treaty joined the six nations national resource into a bigger economic unit. The ECSC held the power to regulate the production and pricing of products, making sure that there was a constant supply and just the right amount for the market to keep prices regular for the makers. The treaty also allowed for the research and development of all six nations to be combined and work towards one common goal not six.8 ! Though not all was rosy on the march to a super national Europe. In 1954 in response to calls form the United States to rearm Western Germany the French Prime Minister Rene Pleven called for the forming of a European De-

23

fense Community (EDC). The plan was to form a pan-European defense force as an alternative to the rearmament of the West Germans and their joining of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Signed by the same six countries in the ECSC on 27 May 1952 it never went into effect, as members of the French Parliament feared that having the EDC would threaten the national sovereignty of the French among other fears.9 Once again hard power was not to bring Europe together. ! At the Messina Conference of June 1955 was called to reinvigorate the cause of unity after the failure of the EDC. Even with the experiment of the ECSC still underway a set of meetings was held among ministers and experts. From there in 1956 a committee was charged with creating a report on the idea of creating a common European market. Under the Presidency of the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time P.H. Spaak the committee meet in Brussels to study the subject. In April of that year the committee presented to the six nations of the ECSC two draft resolutions for treaties to be considered. The First of which is the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC Treaty). They EEC Treaty had two major goals, the rst of which was to transform the conditions of trade and manufacture on the territory of the Community. And its second was the more political of the two, taking a major step forward toward the larger goal of a joined Europe. These are laid out in the preamble to the treaty; -Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe, afrming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvements of the living and working conditions of their peoples, -recognizing that the removal of existing obstacles calls for the concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition; -anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the carious regions and the backwardness of the less-favored regions; -desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade;

-intending to conrm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations; -resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts10 ! The EEC Treaty establishes three main points toward the unication of European continent. In the second article of the treaty is created a common market for goods from member nations, founded on the Four Freedoms, the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital among member nations. As laid out in Article 8 the market was phased in over a period of 12 years for ember nations to set laws to comply with the treat. The second major establishment come is the form of a Customs Union among member nations. The treaty abolishes any form of quotas, and customs duties between member nations, but does establish a common external tariff for the members, replacing the six different ones at the time. To make all this work are several articles mandating common economic policies on the state level. These included agricultural, trade and transport policies. Also included in the treaty are the mandates for creating institutions to help manage the community.11 Also coming out of the 1956 exploratory committee was the draft of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). Just as the EEC Treaty was to bring together the economies of the sex nations involved the addition of Euratom was to take the study of atomic research that no one nation could afford and share the work among the six. At the end of World War 2 much of the conventional energy infrastructure had been destroyed in the course of war. The Community had also found in the post war years along with its missing infrastructure was a general shortage of conventional energy. Looking for energy independence they looked to what was thought to, at the time, be the future of energy. But with the costs involved in making this independence a reality were more than one nation alone could afford. Euratom laid out the ways in which the six nations of the community would participate and gain from their shared interaction within Euratom.12 ! Within Euratom where also enshrined protections for the people that the treaty was to serve. Like the EEC and ECSC treaties before it Euratom looked to make the people within the communities lives better. But in a different turn

24

from the others the Euratom treaty describes not what the treaty sets out to do but what they, the signatories, describe themselves and the world they live in. recognizing that nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry and will permit the advancement of the cause of peace, - resolved to create the conditions necessary for the development of a powerful nuclear industry, which will provide extensive energy resources, lead to the modernization of technical processes and contribute, through its many other applications, to the prosperity of their peoples, - anxious to create the conditions of safety necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of the public, - desiring to associate other countries with their work and to cooperate with international organizations concerned with the peaceful development of atomic energy13 ! The agency set up with the treaty was also called Euratom and was set about to do its work with several different tasks. Euratom was to promote research and ensure the dissemination of technical information, establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public and ensure that they are applied, facilitate investment and ensure the establishment of the basic installations necessary for the development of nuclear energy in the community, ensure that all user in the community receive a regular and equitable supply of ores and nuclear fuels, make sure certain that civil nuclear materials are not diverted to other (particularly military) purposes, exercise the right of ownership conferred upon it with respect to special ssile materials, foster progress in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by working with other countries and international organizations, and to establish joint undertakings 14 Of the Original six signatories this has lead to the creation of 58 plants in France, 17 in Germany, one in the Netherlands, and 7 in Belgium.15 After reading the drafts and settling a few outstanding issues the six nations of the ECSC joined together in Rome, Italy on 7 March 1957 to sign the EEC and Euratom treaties. ! After the signing of these three treaties the nations involved saw a massive economic advantage. From 1945 to 1957 France saw its GDP rise from $102.154 Billion to $305.308 Billion and a growth in Per Capita GDP from $2,573 to $6,762. West Germany saw the greatest benet from the ECSC and EEC gaining from a GDP of $143.381 Billion in 1946 to $461.071 Billion by 1957.

With the new communities in effect the six member nations continued to grow at a steady pace with France at $683.965 Billion and Germany growing to $944.755 Billion in 1973. 16 ! Even with all the acts and laws to help made trade between the member nations as one, there still was one place where there had been no action. Each of the six nations had their own currency in circulation at the time, but not all where equal, they uxuated against one another as to what they were worth. In an effort to make trade between the member nations easier the European Economic Commission set out with an initiative, which called for greater coordination of economic policies and monetary cooperation.17 This report was taken into consideration when the Heads of State or Government met at a summit in The Haag in early December 1969. Coming out of this summit was the call for a plan by the end of 1970 towards the end of creating an economic and monetary union.18 As the Commission when about its work to bring about a plan to meet this goal several other plans by member nations themselves. A group was formed on 6 March 1970 by the Council of Ministers to study and recommend a path to monetary union. The group of experts chosen to present the study was presided over by The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Luxembourg Mr. Pierre Werner. On 20 May 1970 Mr. Werner went before the Council of Ministers to give a presentation on an interim version of the report. With the suggestions from that session during the 8 and 9 of June 1970 meeting the Group gave their presentation on their nal version of the report. Out of the 8 and 9 of June meetings came suggestions and directives to forced the group to go back and make amends to their report. A Final report was reported to the Council on 8 October of that year.19 ! But at the start of the 1970s a European Monetary Union (EMU) was not to. In 1971 the United States was having a problem with ination of its dollar. Under the system put into effect after World War Two by Bretton Wood the U.S. dollar was pegged to $35 per one ounce of gold. Other Nations began to peg their exchange rates to the U.S. Dollar, which was in turn pegged to the price of gold. But this system relied on there being enough dollars in supply for the U.S. government to turn it all into gold. As gold rose at the end of the 60s the U.S. saw ination rates as high as 6% during 1970. As the price of the Vietnam War and Great Society programs began to grow the amount of dollars in the markets grew as well. With many of them going overseas to other nations and being converted into the local currency many nations began to doubt that their

25

was a way for the U.S. to covert all their reserves into gold. With this fear central banks all over the world started to take their dollar holdings and move them into gold causing gold stocks to dive and the value of the dollar to fall with them. In 1971 President Nixon stopped the ability to convert U.S. dollars into gold and let the U.S dollar oat against other currencies. The European governments found themselves at the end of 1971 with a large amount of dollars but with no way to convert them into a real commodity.20 In response to this oating of the U.S. dollar the members of the community agreed to peg their individual currencies to each other and then with the dollar. Allowing for a single exchange rate among the member nations coming with more stability toward the exchange rate outside the community.21 ! At the start of 1973 saw the rst enlarging of the European Communities from the original six member nations to nine. 1 January 1973 saw the accession of the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland. With their addition all the treaties but the Euratom treaty were amended by the Treaty of Accession of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland (1972).22 With the addition of these three member states the GDP of the community rose to more than $3 trillion. Which brought it almost on par with the entire GDP of the United States in 1973 at $3.536 trillion, making it the second largest economy by GDP in the world in 1973. The only nation in 1973 apart of the communities even close to $1 trillion in GDP was Germany with $944.755 Billion.23 ! In all the treaties is laid out the vision that they will help make the lives of every citizen of its member nations lives better. Too this end on 10 December 1974 the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was founded. The communities members realized that even tough their nations were some of the strongest and richest in the world that there were still places with in them where the poorest in the world lived. The ERDF was given the mandate to take money given to it by member nations and go into places in the nations and to modernize areas that were considered backwards. In going about its mission to modernize these areas the fond would build transportation and communications infrastructure among other essentials believed to be needed for modern opportunity to reach these places24 ! As 1980 fast approached for the rst time citizens of the member nations would go to the polls to elect members of the European Parliament. The body would made up of 736 members with seats going to nations by population, no more than 99 no less than 5, and would be put to the polls by national election

laws with direct universal suffrage for a ve year period.25 But unlike how they were elected they would not be grouped by nation but by political party. In effect this gave people the vote for their countrymen and national pride, but they would sit with no national boundaries, only together by ideas. ! In 1981 the member nations welcomed a new member with Greece joining on 1 January 1981. Through out the 80s the community pushed new technologies and programs to be at the leading edge. With Esprit in 1984 the rst of such programs is started that gave grants for research and development in the elds of robotics and computers. Two years later on 1 January 1986 Spain and Portugal join the Community, but not after getting rid of their right-wing dictators the decade before. For membership into the European at the time the rst thing that the members looked for was a democratic government.26 ! But even as the inclusion of two new member states was still fresh the European Community started to face the fact that even tough custom duties disappeared in 1968 the patchwork of national laws made moving goods between member nations almost as hard as if they had still been there. In Stuttgart Germany on 19 of June 1983 the German and Italian Ministers for Foreign Affairs Hans Dietrich Genscher, and Emilio Colombo drafted a plan to outline a new form of relations between member nations and the European Community. The Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart was sent to the Heads of State and Government, which under took review of their plan and suggested that when there was progress on the plan that they are made into a Treaty on European Union. With their plan in hand Altiero Spinelli, a MP from Italy, a Parliamentary Committee on Institutional Affairs was created with the expressed goals of taking the three Communities and crafting them into one governing body. The draft Treaty Establishing the European Union came before the European Parliament and was adopted on 14 February 1984. After seeing the draft of this treaty member nations sent representatives to a committee to look into the institutional questions about what would it take to join Europe. This Fontainebleau European Council of 25 and 26 June 1984, under the direction of Irish Senator Dooge, came away with the recommendation to the European Council to convene and inter-governmental conference to go ahead and negotiate a Treaty on European Union. This commission, now under the leadership of Jacques Delors, put forward a white paper that set about 279 legislative measures that

26

were needed to complete an internal market. In the paper was also noted a date of completion of 31 December 1992 for all measures to take effect. ! The Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) opened under the Luxembourg Presidency on 9 September 1985 had the objective of coming away with a treaty that would secure an open internal market. But instead of coming up with an entirely new treaty the IGC went about amending the EEC Treaty as to how it relates to the power of the super national government along with economic policy. In the preamble of this new treaty it makes the case that it is setting out to improve the economic and social situation by extending common policies and pursuing new objectives, along with to ensure a smoother functioning of the Communities.27 Up to this point the three communities had been operating as such, they looked to bring them all under one roof. But the biggest lines in the treaty is the laying out what is to considered a Single Market, an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provision of the Treaty. The move toward this single market was also given an expiration date of 31 December 1992. In amending the EEC Treaty, The Single European Act reinforces the ideas of European unity with the EEC now being known as just the European Community (EC), and gives these.28 ! With the progress towards a more open and united Europe at the end of the 1980s the Community looked forwards from the Single European Act. Even with the EEC Treaty bringing the 12 member nations to use similar economic and foreign policies they still acted with out a single voice. In an effort to build off the Single European Act the Rome European Council of 14 and 15 December 1990, to take a look at two of the last tenants to becoming a one actor on the global stage as opposed to 12, formed two Inter-Governmental Conferences. Under the direction of Jacques Delors, The Hanover European Council of 27 and 28 June 1988 gathered a group of experts to look into the steps needed from that point to create an economic union. The second IGC met in Dublin on 28 April and left with the suggestion to member nations on the need to look at the institutional reforms that were necessary to move towards the integration of the continent.29 ! Less than a year after the Council at Rome The Maastricht Summit was convened on 9 December 1991 for the singing of a Treaty on European Union. The Treaty of Maastricht on European Union goes where no treaty like it had ever gone. No more were the writers looking for just economic union, but for

once political as well. Maastricht is built on three basic pillars, the European Communities, common foreign and security policy, and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In the European Communities pillar of the treaty are found all the existing communities, EC, ECSC, and Euratom. It in the rst pillar is laid with the idea that the member states can share one voice wile still keeping their national sovereignty. It also lays out the process of how a law is to be made and enforced within the new structure. The second pillar is where the Treaty on European Union makes its rst big departure from all that come before it. In the Single European Act the matter of foreign policy is left up to the member nations to proceed with on their own, with the suggestion that they should act as one. But in Maastricht there is a move toward making the members act as one with one voice. No longer could one member run off on its own escapades, now there must be conversations between the members to create a single policy. The third pillar brings together the internal security apparatus of its member nations to act as one. It calls for the Union to undertake joint action so as to offer European citizens a high level of protection in the area of freedom, security and justice.30 Maastricht build on the single market put fourth in the Single European Act and takes it to the next level calling for an Economic and Monetary Union. To set up the economic side of the union the treaty sets three provisions that all state must adhere to, ensure coordination of their economic policies, provide for multilateral surveillance of this coordination, and are subject to nancial and budgetary discipline. The second side of the union is that of setting up a single currency to serve all of the member nations. It also calls for the respect for the market economy to help keep the price of the currency stabile. In three steps it calls for by 1 January 1999 the creation of a single currency and establishment of a Central European Bank (CEB). Getting there involved the liberalization of the movement of capital on 1 January 1990, and the convergence of the member states economic policies begging on 1 January 1994 leading to the creation of the currency. The most major innovation to be seen out of Maastricht was the creation of the European Citizen. Above all national citizenships the peoples of the member nations were now citizens of the European Union. Laid out in this concept are several new rights for the people to hold; The Right to circulate and reside freely in the Community;

27

The Right to vote and to stand as a candidate for European and municipal elections in the State in which he or she resides; The right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of a Member State other than the citizens Member State of origin on the territory of a third country in which the state of origin is not represented; The right to petition the European Parliament and to submit a complaint to the Ombudsman.31 Signed on 7 February 1991 the Treaty on European Union went into effect on 1 November 1993. At that time the European Communities became the European Union. The Treaty on European Union was the culmination of over 2,000 years of people trying to bring Europe under one ag. For over 2,000 year Kings and popes marched armies across the elds of Europe looking to take more and more for themselves, only to have their empire crumble at their feet. But in the ashes of two world wars the economic forces of the world brought centuries old enemies together to form a super national governing body to bring peace upon a land that had just gone through its total destruction. After 1990 12 more nations would join in this vision of a united Europe, 27 nations are moving forward with the idea that unlike the wars that came before, economic and monetary union will keep it in peace for a long time to come.

Footnotes
1

Kleinstaaterei, Wikipedia Zollverein, WIkipedia

Statistics on World Population, GDP, and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008AD, Angus Maddison
4 5

The Zurich Speech, European Navigator

Etienne Deschamps, The Congress of Europe in the Hague (7-10 May 1948) an overview, European Navigator
6 7 8 9

Declaration of 9 May 1950, Robert Schuman, Europa.eu Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Europa.eu Etienne Deschampa, Plans for the EDC, European Navigator Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty

10 11

Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty original text (non-consolidated version), Europa.eu
12

Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)- Europa.eu Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)- Europa.eu Nuclear Power Plants in Europe- European Nuclear Society

13 14 15 16

Statistics on World Population, GDP, and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008AD, Angus Maddison
17

Commission Memorandum to the Council on the co-ordination of economic policies and monetary co-operation within the Community Page 3

28

18

Final Communiqu of the Conference of Heads of State or Government on 1 and 2 December 1969 at The Hague, Point 8
19

Report to the Council and the Commission on the realization by stages of economic and monetary union in the Community, Luxembourg, 8 October 1970 Page 7
20

Kenneth M. Emery, Economic Commentary pages 1&2 The First Attempt to create EMU (1969), European Commission

21 22

Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty original text (non-consolidated version) Statistics on World Population, GDP, and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008AD, Angus Maddison
23 24 25 26

Activities of the European Union Regional Policy, European Union Members, European Parliament

Europa The EU at a glance The History of the European Union 1980-1989, European Union
27 28 29 30

The Single European Act, European Union The Single European Act, European Union, Europa.eu Treaty of Maastricht on European Union, European Union Europa.eu Treaty of Maastricht on European Union, European Union, Europa.eu Treaty of Maastricht on European Union, European Union

31

29

Bib

Bib

Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html The Cultural Orientation Project, Afghans: Their History and Culture http://www.cal.org/co/afghan/apeop.html#1 Deb Riechmann and Richard Lardner, U.S.: $360M lost to corruption in Afghanistan AP 16 August , 2011, http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/08/ap-360-million-lost-to-corruption-in-afghanis tan-081611/

On The Question of Afghan Nationalism

13th Century Fox The Telegraph, 24 May, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7760976/13th-century-Fox.html Abdul Hai Habibi, Afghan and Afghanistan, http://www.alamahabibi.com/English%20Articles/Afghan_and_Afghanistan.htm Afghanistan dot Net, Mauryans & Graeco-Bactrians 2005, http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/mauryans.htm Appian of Alexandria, trans. Horace White, Roman History, http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_syriaca_11.html Avari, Burjor. 2007. India, the ancient past: a history of the Indian sub-continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200. New York [u.a.]: Routledge. Battuta, Ibn Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354, tr. and ed. H. A. R. Gibb, London: Broadway House, 1929 Bosworth, C.E. , The Ghaznavids 994-1040, Edinburgh University Press, 1963

Encyclopdia Britannica Online, s. v. "Yaqb ibn Layth al-affr," accessed December 05, 2011, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/651995/Yaqub-ibn-Layth-al-Saffar. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Afghan Last Updated July 22, 2011, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afgan-in-current-political-usage-any-citizen-of-af ghanistan-whatever-his-ethnic-tribal-or-religious-afliation Encyclopaedia Iranica, Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921 Last updated Aug 3, 2011 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/anglo-afghan-treaty-of-1921-the-outcome-of-pea ce-negotiations-following-the-third-anglo-afghan-war Filkins, Dexter, Bribes Corrode Afghans Trust in Government 1 January, 2009, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/world/asia/02kabul.html?pagewanted=all GRENET, F. Regional Interaction in Central Asia and North-West India in the Kidarite and Hephtalite Period, in SIMS-WILLIAMS, N. (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, (Proceedings of the British Academy), London, 2002, p.203224. Herodotus, trans George Rawlinson, History 440 B.C.E., http://www.piney.com/Heredotus7.html Houtsma, M. Th, First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 BRILL, 1993

30

Isidore of Charax, ed Wilfred H. Schoff, Parthian Stations London, 1914 http://www.parthia.com/doc/parthian_stations.htm Johnson, Thomas H., On the Edge of the Big Muddy: The Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Volume 5, No. 2, May, 2007 p. 93129, http://www.nps.edu/Programs/CCS/Docs/Pubs/Johnson_CEFQ_May%2007.pdf Justinus, Marcus Junianus, milio Chambry, and Gnaeus Trogus Pompeius. 1936. Justin; abrg des Histoires Philippiques de Trogue Pompe et prologues de Trogue Pompe. Paris: Garnier. Khushal Khan Khattak; translated by C. Biddulph in "Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak", London, 1890. Library of Congress, Afghanistan http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@eld(DOCID+af0037 / http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@eld(DOCID+af0010) Malleson, George Bruce , History of Afghanistan, from the earliest period to the outbreak of the war of 1878 1984, Adegi Graphics LLC. Michael OHanlon, Bruce Riedel, Plan A-Minus for Afghanistan The Washington Quarterly, Winter 11, pp. 123-132, http://www.twq.com/11winter/docs/11winter_O%27Hanlon_Riedel.pdf , DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2011.538308 Muammad Qsim Hind Shh Astarbd Firishtah, Trans. John Briggs, History of the rise of the Mahomedan power in India: till the year A.D. 1612 Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1829 Nadjma Yassari, The Shara in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt National Geographic Society, Map 2003, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0311/feature2/images/mp_download.2.pdf Neumann, Ronald, Borderline Insanity The American Interest, November/ December 2007, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=348

Noldeke, Theodor, Sketches from Eastern History Watson Press(TX), 2007 Oldham, Charles Frederick, The Sun and the Serpent: A Contribution to the History of Serpent-worship, 1905 Olesen, Asta, Islam and Politics in Afghanistan Surrey: Curzon Press, 1995 Otnoski, Steven, Afghanistan, 2004, Infobase Publishing Packhum.org, The Literary History of Persia, Volume 4 http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Fle%3D90001014%26ct%3D29 Plinty the Elder, ed. John Bostock, H.T. Riley The Natural History: Book VI. An Account of Countries, Nations, Seas, Towns, Havens, Mountians, Rivers, Distances and Peoples who no longer Exist, or Formerly Existed http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+6.21 Procopius, History of the Wars, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_I Rubin, Barnett R. Saving Afghanistan Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62270/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies (London, England) (1993). The Journal of Hellenic studies, Volumes 113-114. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. p.211. Strabo. ed. H. L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924. Tanner, Stephen, Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the War against the Taliban. 2009, Da Capo Press Tarikh-al-Hind, trans. E. C. Sachau, 1888/1910, vol ii Texas Department of Transportation, http://www.dot.state.tx.us/

31

Thomas H. Johnson, M. Chris Mason All Counterinsurgency is Local The Atlantic, October 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/10/all-counterinsurgency-is-local/ 6965/ Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 Results, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results U.S. Department of State, Afghanistan http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1056.html Victor, Sextus Aurelius, trans. Thomas M. BanchichEpitome De CaesaribusCanisius College Translated Texts, Number 1, Canisius College. Buffalo, New York, 2009 Walker, Kirsty, 70m of British aid paid to the Taliban, 13 August 2011, The Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025437/70m-British-aid-paid-Taliban-Cashwasted-bribes-protection-money.html

Lockett, Thos H., Observations on Stability of French Control in Algeria. 27 February, 1952, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Lockett, Thos H., Algerian Nationalist Comment on French North African Policy 1 September, 1953 United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Clark, Lewis, Political Situation in Algeria, 19 May, 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Clark, Lewis Priority 2 November, 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Department of State, Memorandum of a Conversation, Chateau de Rambouillet, Paris, September 3, 1959, 7 p.m. 3 September, 1959, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dillon, 1912. Reference Department telegram 14 to Algiers, repeated 1602 to Paris, 4 November, 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Clark, Lewis, The Consul General at Algiers to the Department of State 9 November, 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS

Algers

Primary Sources A Note on Names, All documents are signed last name only unless otherwise noted, and as such are credited here in that form for ease of nding the correct document in the reference. Clark, Lewis, The Consul General at ALers to the Department of State 30 November 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Department of State, Memorandum of a Conversation, Chateau de Rambouillet, Paris, September 3, 1959, 7 p.m. 3 September, 1959, United States Department of

32

State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dillon, Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State 7 March, 1956, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dillon, Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State 4 October, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dorros, Leon G., Current Political Situation 30 December, 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dulles, Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France 27 May, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dulles, Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France 5 October, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dulles, Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France 7 February, 1956, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Dillon, Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State 7 March, 1956, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Holmes, Memorandum From the Secretary of States Special Assistant for NATO to the Secretary of State 20 February, 1958, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS

Hughes The Consul General at Tunis to the Department of State 5 November, 1954, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Hoover, Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France 17 June, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Hoover, Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France 8 March, 1956, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Lockett, Thos H., Observations on Stability of French Control in Algeria. 27 February, 1952, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Lockett, Thos H., Algerian Nationalist Comment on French North African Policy 1 September, 1953 United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Lodge, Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State 5 October, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Lodge, Letter From the Representative at the United Nations (Lodge to the Ambassador in France (Dillon) 6 October, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Lodge, Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State 1 November, 1955, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS

33

Secondary Sources Costa, Danielle, Decolonization and French Society May 1999, http://www.indyicks.com/danielle/papers/paper06.htm National Security Council, Statement Of Policy On Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria 4 November, 1959 United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960. Africa and South Asia http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Stern, Fritz, The War Without a Name: France in Algeria, 1954-1962 Foreign Affairs, Winter 1980/81, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/34483/fritz-stern/the-war-without-a-name-franc e-in-algeria-1954-1962 Talbott, John E., The War Without a Name: France in Algeria, 1954-1962 Knopf, 1980

Deschampa, Etienne, The Congress of Europe in The Hague (7-10 May 1948) and Overview European Nacigator, http://www.enu.lu Deschamps , Etienne, The Zurich Speech, European Navigator http://www.enu.lu Emery, Kenneth M., Economic Commentary Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/1993/swe9304b.pdf European Commission, Commission Memorandum to the Council on the coordination of economic policies and monetary co-operation within the Community (Submitted on 12 February 1969), European Commission, 12 February 1969 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_nance/emu_history/documentation/chapter2/1969021 2en015coordineconpoli.pdf Kleinstaaterei, Wikipedia

Soft over Hard

Conference of Heads of State or Government , FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE CONFRENCE OF HEADS OF STATE OR GOVERNMENT ON 1 AND 2 DECEMBER 1960 AT THE HAGUE (2 December 1969), Conference of Heads of State or Government, 2 December 1969 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_nance/emu_history/documentation/chapter3/1969120 2fr02nalcommunsumconf.pdf Deschamps, Etienne, Plans for the EDC European Navigator http://www.enu.lu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinstaaterei Maddison, Angus, Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 12008AD University of Groningen http://www.ggdc.net/maddison Members, European Parliament http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do;jsessionid=7DE216 6C77D6D5AB44FC3D624760AFEE.node1?language=EN&id=45&pageRank=3 Nuclear power plants in Europe European Nuclear Society http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-europe.htm Schuman, Robert, Declaration of 9 May 1950 European Union http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm

34

The rst attempt to create EMU (1969), European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/economy_nance/emu_history/history/part_a_2_a.htm Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community European Union ! http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_euratom_ en.htm Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC Treaty European Union http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_ecsc_en. htm Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty original text (non consolidated version), European Union http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_eec_en.h tm Treaty of Maastricht on European Union, European Union, 7 February 1992 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/economic_and_monetary_affairs/institutional _and_economic_framework/treaties_maastricht_en.htm The Single European Act, European Union, 17 February 1986, 28 February 1986 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact _en.htm Zollverein, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein !

35