Advertisement

Africa as an Out-of-Area Problem for NATO

  • Douglas T. Stuart

Abstract

From time to time during the last 36 years events in Africa have intruded upon the debates within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. In a few cases the result has been a coordinated allied position on an issue of recognised common interest. More often the result has been acrimonious dispute within the alliance. In only one case, Suez, did the dispute reach the stage of intra-alliance crisis, but in a few instances — most notably, Algeria — resentments that were harboured by one or more of the alliance members as a result of disagreements over African policies contributed to subsequent crises within the alliance.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Policy Coordination North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Military Assistance Belgian Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Quoted in Guy de Carmoy, The Foreign Policies of France: 1944–1968 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970), p. 19.Google Scholar
  2. 6.
    It is worth mentioning, however, that the public attention accorded to the possibility of a Soviet conventional offensive against Western Europe in the late 1940s was encouraged by a leadership in Washington that had ample evidence of the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. See, in particular, Matthew Evangelista, ‘Stalin’s Postwar Army Reappraised’, International Security, vol. 7, no. 3, Winter 1982/83, pp. 110–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Regarding Operation Torch, see in particular Luis Pasqual Sanchez-Gijon, La Planificacion Militar Britanica y Espana (Madrid: Instituto de Cuestiones Internacionales, 1983).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    The colonialist geo-strategic perspective was reflected in a number of French journals in the 1950s of which Revue de Défense National is the most well known. For a survey of these writings, see Raoul Girardet, L’Idee Coloniale in France: 1871–1962 (Paris: Le Table Ronde, 1972). Regarding the guerre revolutionnaire, see, in particular, L. M. Chassim, ‘Vers un encerclement de l’occident’, Revue du Défense Nationale, May 1956, pp. 531–52.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Message from John Ohly, Deputy Director, Mutual Defense Assistance Program, to Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Washington, 20 November 1950, FRUS, VI 1950, pp. 924–5.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation (New York: Norton, 1969), p. 638.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Edgar Furniss, De Gaulle and the French Army (New York: 20th Century Fund, 1964), pp. 182–3.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    Quoted in Donald Neff, Warriors at Suez (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), p. 390.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    The French reaction to JFK’s speech is discussed by Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1965), pp. 510–12. See also Chester Bowles’ study of Africa’s Challenge to America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956).Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    Quoted in Alistair Horne, A Savage War of Peace (New York: Penguin, 1977), p. 243.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Regarding De Gaulle’s new policies for security in Africa, see, in particular, Pierre Dabezies, ‘La Politique Militaire de la France en Afrique Noire sous le General de Gaulle’, in La Politique Africaine du General de Gaulle (1958–1969) (Paris: Pedone, 1980), pp. 229–62.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Dulles Telegram to Eisenhower, 6 February 1959, reprinted in Bernard Ledwidge, De Gaulle et les Americains (Paris: Flammarion, 1984), p. 70.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Kennan, George, Memoirs (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 150.Google Scholar
  14. See also Hugh Kay, Salazar and Modern Portugal (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1970), pp. 151–70.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    See the chronology regarding base usage in Giles Binney, ‘The “Portuguese Platform” — Reflexions About its Usefulness in the Context of the East/West Confrontation’, in The Seaford House Papers: 1983 (London: Royal College of Defense Studies, 1983), p. 97.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    Between 1949 and 1961 total US economic and military assistance to Portugal was $370 million. Data are provided in S. J. Bosgra and C. Van Krimpen, ‘Portugal and NATO’, reprinted in Africa, Contemporary Record, 1969–70 (London: Rex Collings, 1970), page C-131.Google Scholar
  17. 25.
    James Penfield, ‘The Role of the United States in Africa: Our Interests and Operations’, Department of State Bulletin, 8 June 1959, p. 842. Quoted in Stephen Weissman, American Foreign Policy in the Congo: 1960–1964 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), p. 51.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    George Ball, The Past Has Another Pattern (New York: Norton, 1982), p. 181.Google Scholar
  19. 28.
    Roger Hilsman, To Move a Nation (New York: Doubleday, 1967), p. 249.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    Cited in Luc Crollen, Portugal, the US and NATO (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1973), p. 127.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    Regarding the relativisation of NATO in contemporary US foreign policy, see Pierre Hassner, ‘Intra-Alliance Diversities and Challenges: NATO in an Age of Hot Peace’, in Kenneth Myers (ed.), NATO: The Next 30 Years (Boulder: Westview, 1980), p. 384.Google Scholar
  22. 35.
    Great Britain, Portugal’s traditional ally and chief sponsor at the time of NATO’s formation became increasingly disenchanted with Lisbon in the wake of the Portuguese government’s violent repressions of the 1961 Angola revolt. Domestic criticism of Portugal was coordinated by Protestant groups in Britain, against what was seen as an anti-Protestant repression in Angola. According to one Protestant fact-finding mission in 1961, ‘a review of Portugal’s membership [in] the NATO alliance is long overdue in view of her denial of the Christian and democratic principles which are supposed to form the basis of the NATO alliance’. Quoted in John Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, Vol. 1 (1950–1962) (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969), p. 148.Google Scholar
  23. 45.
    Text of a Note from Foreign Minister Gromyko to the Belgian Ambassador in Moscow, 13 July 1960. Reprinted in W. J. Ganslof Van der Meersch, Fin de la Souveraneté Belge au Congo (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1963), p. 480.Google Scholar
  24. 46.
    See Jules Gerard-Libois, Katanga Secession (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), p. 112.Google Scholar
  25. 47.
    P. H. Spaak, Combats Inacheves Vol. II (Paris: Fayard, 1969), p. 239.Google Scholar
  26. 49.
    Discussed in Madeleine Kalb, The Congo Cables (New York: Macmillan, 1982), pp. 204–5.Google Scholar
  27. 55.
    John Newhouse, De Gaulle and the Anglo Saxons (London: Andre Deutsch, 1970), p. 130.Google Scholar
  28. 68.
    This, acording to Cyrus Vance, Hard Choices (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. 70–71.Google Scholar
  29. 69.
    Robert Turner, The War Powers Resolution: Its Implementation in Theory and Practice (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Policy Papers, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1983), pp. 68–9.Google Scholar
  30. 70.
    See comments by Tanzanian and Nigerian heads of state, cited in Christopher Coker, NATO, the Warsaw Pact and Africa (London: Macmillan, 1985) pp. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 77.
    Alfred Grosser, ‘General De Gaulle and the Foreign Policy of the Fifth Republic’, International Affairs (London), April 1963, p. 199. Cited in Michael Harrison, The Reluctant Ally (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar
  32. 79.
    Henri Grimal, Decolonization (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), p. 322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal United Services Institute 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas T. Stuart

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations