Among the clutches of withdrawal

The history of the United States in the post -war era is full of American efforts to change other countries.Often these projects have failed to achieve their goals, but a few of them have met a complete failure similar to the last project in Afghanistan.Twenty years later, many lives were exhausted, and the countless billions were spent, the Taliban, the same group that the United States intervened to remove at the beginning, was able to return to power while American employees were still in the middle of the evacuation process.

In fact, withdrawal from Afghanistan follows a pattern that has been pursued by the United States' policy towards part of the world that was known in the past in the third world, but is currently referred to more commonly as "the countries of the south".During the decades that followed the United States into a great global power in the 1940s, it relied in its dealings with that large area of the world that includes a large part of Africa, Asia and Latin America, an approach that changed between two contradictory poles (between two different views)).Sometimes, Washington, as it claimed, tried to use its authority to make the countries in those areas more prosperous and democratic, as they did recently in Afghanistan and Iraq.At other times, the United States policy avoided such transformational aspirations.Instead, it gave priority to stability, which often means supporting non -democratic systems if this serves Washington's interests.

In the wake of World War II directly, the US makers in the United States were generally sympathetic to the aspirations of the peoples of the third world, such as the liberation of India and Indonesia from colonial rule..On the other hand, as the Cold War intensified, the priorities of American policy turned towards the containment of communism.Thus, in the 1950s, Washington was fully prepared to work with authoritarian governments (such as those in South Korea and Taiwan) as long as it is reliable anti -communism, similarly, was ready to help topple democratically elected governments (such as Iran and Guatemala) if it turns out.She is a supporter of communism.In the name of Maadat al -Sulawisah, the United States also supported the French war to restore and defend the French colonial rule in Indoch.When the French suffered from the decisive defeat in the battle of "Diane Bayan Fu" in 1954, Washington endured the burden of communism in Southeast Asia..

In the book "The End of Ambition: The United States and the third world in the era of Vietnam, the historian Mark Atwood Lawrence argues that the election of the young man with the charismatic personality" John F..Kennedy, "President of the United States, carried another short wave of optimism about the transformational ability in the United States with the third world.And with the countries of the countries that have recently gained independence at the speed of the pioneering European empires, especially in Africa, the American administration expressed its support for the aspirations expressed by the peoples of the Third World for Democracy and Development.But with the assassination of Kennedy and the escalation of the war in Vietnam, Washington's approach began to transform.By the end of the decade, Richard Nixon arrived at the White House, the United States publicly returned to giving priority to the anti -Communist instead of liberation in the third world.

John Kennedy's presidency granted a spark of optimism about the United States' relations with the third world.

Lawrence tracks the short rise and the rapid decline in Washington's newly independent world support in the 1960s.Although his book begins with the election of Kennedy and ends with the emergence of the "Nixon Doctrine", his basic chapters focus on the "Lindon Johnson" presidency, when he began to retreat from the ambition that prevailed in the years of Kennedy's rule, according to Lawrence discussed..

Lawrence notes that the escalation of the American war in Vietnam was a major cause of dispelling the great hopes of Kennedy's years..In fact, the war kept the American policy makers dispersed and the image of the United States abroad was disturbed, which made it difficult for Washington to present itself as an ally of third world countries.Later, the humiliating defeat in that war caused the anger of American public opinion on military interventions abroad, and led to insistence, even temporarily, to withdraw from involvement in external conflicts.

However, if the Vietnam War had spent American policy makers from their high aspirations in the third world, the focus on this conflict in most of the history of American foreign relations has overwhelmed a number of other methods that the Americans adopted in dealing with the world.It is worth noting that looking at the foreign relations of the United States through the lens of the White House, the National Security Council and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regardless of the great importance of these devices, tends to obliterate global aspirations and the influence that other parts of the American government and other parties inThe United States, which was working abroad, is similar to charitable institutions and NGOs.In fact, those actors played important roles in the very ambitious transformational initiatives that occurred in the third world in that era, including the green revolution in agriculture and the elimination of smallpox disease globally.

Today, media coverage and academic analysis of US foreign policy also tend to focus on American military activities and high -level discussions in Congress and the White House.As was the case with the comments during the Vietnam era and the history that was narrated from the period that followed this, this focus contributes to paying attention away from the ambitious work performed by other parts of the United States government and other sectors of American society in the "South countries", knowing that that workIn the long run, it may have an impact on the role of the United States in the world more than the stories that lead the main headlines.

The rule of the four

In the book "The End of Ambition", Lawrence is deeply dived into the views of senior politicians in the White House and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in the deliberations that take place between them.By following an old saying in Washington that "the employees are politics", the writer follows the care of the people who ascended and those who fell in those agencies in the 1960s, and shows how those changes contribute to the interpretation of politics decisions.Also, he also writes, albeit less, about officials of the Ministry of Defense and the Army, the CIA and members of Congress.Moreover, instead of scrutinizing American policy towards the third world in its entirety, Lawrence focuses on relations with five countries, chosen due to its geographical diversity and geopolitical importance, namely, Brazil, India, Iran, Indonesia and the white minority system in what was then known as "Rodisia" and now as"Zimbabwe".

Lawrence is concerned in particular the views that directed the major American decision -makers to form a specific policy towards the third world during the 1960s, and provides a useful classification for four different curricula towards those regions.The first group is called "Ansar Al -Globalization", knowing that this group has included officials such as "Chester Bulls" and "John Kenneth Galbaraith", who were two ambassadors in India in that period;And "Adalay Stevenson", US Ambassador to the United Nations;And Kennedy Advisor, "Arthur Sildzenger, Jr.".It is worth noting that the members of this group opposed European imperialism, supported the self -determination and the United Nations, and they greatly believed that post -colonial countries should be allowed to find their own paths in political and social development..In fact, the supporters of globalization had an impact on Kennedy, but the president expressed concern about the local political risks of their approach, which critics considered very optimistic about the risks of communism, so kept them at a distance of it.During the reign of Johnson, their influence fell more yet.Despite the emergence of supporters of globalization in the elite circles, it was found that their influence was relatively small on political decisions in that era..

As for the second group, it was "the nation's builders", and he represented it significantly "Walt Rosto", who served as director of policy planning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and then the National Security Adviser to President Johnson.The "builders of the nation" adopted some basic basic ideas with supporters of globalization, but they were more concerned about the communist expansion and did not believe that the newly independent countries could succeed in stopping that expansion alone and without intervention.Instead, those countries needed firm American directives to be provided through comprehensive aid programs that would direct them to the right track..Despite this, the efforts of the "nation's builders" have failed again and again to persuade or force the third world governments to move in the desired direction..Instead, post -colonial leaders managed to create differences between the great powers, with the aim of maintaining their freedom to act..

The third group that Lawrence describes is the one that adopted what he calls the "point of strength point".She consisted of officials who simply believe that the third world is of great importance for the interests of the United States;Therefore, Washington should not get involved in it a lot.On the other hand, the greatest importance was due to the US alliances in the industrial world, primarily with Japan and countries in Western Europe.In fact, Foreign Minister Lawrence, "Dean Rask" and the Undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry, George Paul, sees as a major viewer of that point of view.Although those officials took control of the highest levels of leadership in the Foreign Policy Corporation throughout most of the sixties, they were constantly frustrated in their efforts to keep the United States away from involvement in the third world, especially in Vietnam.In the end, they were also unable to escape from the grip of the "anti -communist" ruler in American politics during the Cold War era.

Finally, Lawrence describes the fourth group, "singles" (or unilateral tendency), which is primarily represented by military and intelligence officials..Accordingly, the members of that group ruled out cooperation with other governments, even the main allies.Instead, they preferred the direct application of the power of the United States, whether through military action or secret operations.It should be noted that this approach is receiving less attention than the other three in the book, which focuses on the White House officials, the National Security Council and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs more than its focus on those in the army or the CIA..This is not a typical: In the end, the last group tends to publish fewer books and give fewer speeches that historians can cite, and the ability to access the archive of its organizations is often less lower.Despite this, it can be said that "solidarians" had the greatest influence on the United States' policy in the third world in that era.In the end, it was their outlook that led to the invasion of the "Bay of the Pigs" in 1961, and a few years later, she played a major role in escalating the American war in Vietnam.

Inclusion of containment

In the formulation of his book's argument, Lawrence stressed the way Washington's policy in the third world has shifted during the sixties of the great promise in Kennedy's years to caution against disengagement during the era of Nixon.Lawrence asserts that the transformation began during the reign of Johnson, which, compared to Kennedy, depends more on the principle of reciprocity in his approach to foreign policy, and therefore less keen to provide American aid to governments, such as India, which refused to comply with Washington in the Cold War.

read more

This section contains relevant folds, placed in (Related Nodes Field)

While the book turns into a detailed narration on the United States' policy in the studies of the five cases it deals with, it seems that these differences, between different departments, and between the different curricula of politics, are often overshadowed by the continuous strenuous work that aims to make policies amid changing, complicated and mysterious conditions.The image that appears in the end is the one in which the United States policy has not changed as much as it was expected towards the five countries that Lawrence focuses on, despite some changes in style and individuals with the years of that contract..

Of course, each situation was different, but several common threads appeared.First, during the 1960s, the differences within the Foreign Policy Foundation often reinforced the frequency and dodging.Secondly, the perceptions of the local political risks led to the pushing of the sympathetic officials with the aspirations of the third world even, to proceed with the fear of being accused of demonstrating communism.The last point, and perhaps the most important, is that the third world leaders, who are keen on their sovereignty, which they have seen as hard -working, resisted the efforts of the United States to form their behavior, whether by desire or intimidation.For example, Lawrence found that when Washington tried to use aid to increase development in order to bring governments closer to its orbit, it was often opposite: as post -colonial leaders instead contacted other powers, often the Soviet Union, in order to achieveThe balance against the influence of the United States and maintains their freedom to act.

During the era of President Nixon, the United States gave public priority to hostile communism rather than liberation in the third world.

As far as a consistent line appears in the policy that Washington adopted towards those places, it can be summarized in an expected word: "containment"..It seems that almost every decision regarding the party to be supported, the amount of assistance that must be provided, and the type of public discourse that must be used, has been calculated to ward off any risk that involves achieving communisms, or the emergence of such gains.In fact, the impression that one takes from the detailed narration in this book is that no matter how Kennedy, Johnson, or some of their advisers, reach the aspirations of the peoples of the third world, the political necessities of containment are tightly restricted to their political options..

Here lies the paradox.Lawrence argues that the escalation in Vietnam, and the fears of the Cold War in general, made American policy makers less responsive to the aspirations of the peoples of the third world, and therefore, there was a "lost opportunity" to establish better relationships with those peoples and help them achieve gains in democracy and development.On the other hand, the story it tells that the position of the United States on all five issues, if we judge it accurately according to the container standards, may improve in the sixties..In that context, Brazil and Indonesia witnessed military coups that replaced the left governments with loyal generals of the West..As for Iran, which was tending towards the United States in the early 1960s, its position was established in the American camp at the end of the decade.On the other hand, India, which embodied extreme neutrality, witnessed early, to diminish its influence due to regional conflict and internal turmoil..It seems that South Africa, where it seemed that the rule of the white minority may cause a regional conflict, in which the situation has settled largely by the end of the decade, at least from the perspective of Washington..In short, if the sixties of the last century show that the support of the friendly dictators helped Washington to contain communism in the third world, it is not surprising, as Lawrence concluded that the Nixon administration has adhered to this strategy with greater firmness.

Nevertheless, if one looks beyond the scope of the time sequence in this book, it becomes clear that the reduction of the principle of Nixon was only temporary..In fact, Washington soon regained enthusiasm to change the third world in the years of Carter and Rigan, first in the form of a Crusader campaign for human rights and then as a very hostile position of communism..

Then the end of the Cold War ignited a greater ambition in Washington.After the 1990-1991 Gulf War, which President George W. Bush photographed as a defense of the right to self-determination that Kuwait enjoys in the face of the Iraqi aggression, American interventions occurred in Somalia, Balkans and other places.Then came the attacks of September 11th and the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, as Washington's ambition reached another tragic peak when the United States sought to restructure entire societies in the name of prosperity and democracy (and of course the fight against terrorism).In the past half -decade or so, with the shameful collapse of these projects, the United States has again returned to reducing its involvement in foreign affairs, at least now..

Various ambitions

A fairly different opinion appears on the history of the United States' involvement in the affairs of the "South Countries" if one looks beyond politics in the White House and the use of American military power.During the 1960s, Johnson and the important figures supporting his external policy became increasingly involved in Vietnam and retracted any liberal expansionist ambitions in the third world, preferring to work with friendly dictators..But at the same time, a large number of other Americans, along with many others around the world, participated in two of the most ambitious and influential global efforts in the last century..

The first effort was the green revolution that introduced the "South Countries" a group of new agricultural technologies, which greatly expanded the global food supplies and awarded the American agricultural expert Norman Buralg the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.The second is the World Health Organization program to eliminate smallpox headed by American epidemics, Donald Henderson, who was not satisfied with rid the world of smallpox, and it is a fatal virus that affected humanity for centuries, but also helped to enhance vaccination initiatives in most parts of the "South countries" by laying the foundations of the programThe expanded immunization of the World Health Organization.The US Department of Agriculture and the Center for Infectious Diseases (now known as centers of control and prevention of diseases for conditions control and Prevention) played decisive roles in those efforts, as did the research institutions and institutes and public and private networks that were based in the United States or funded by American funds.

The most successful programs in the countries of the south led by wide and multinational collaborative relations.

This perspective carries lessons that can be used at the present time.Perhaps, if the American foreign policy pattern, which is highlighted by the book "The End of Ambition", continues, then the catastrophe that took place in Afghanistan, similar to the one that happened in Vietnam, will be just another work in the familiar drama of intervention, retreat and intervention again.But as was the case in the mid -twentieth century, this pattern is only one part of the interactions between the United States and the "South Countries".

Let us take, for example, global health, which Corona's pandem.In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States cooperated with the Soviet Union, in addition to a number of other countries, in eliminating smallpox even when Washington was launching a brutal war in Southeast Asia.The two forces succeeded in cooperating in this way, even in the midst of the strategic conflict because their interest required smallpox removal from the "South countries" (national vaccination programs had ever been destroyed in the "North Countries"), and because their scholars were able to speak each other and work together,Likewise, because of the presence of an international organization, which is the World Health Organization, through which we were able to coordinate these efforts between them and with dozens of other countries.

Today, the world is witnessing what some have called a new cold war between the United States and China, even at a time when the most deadly epidemic has faced a century..So far, it seems that Washington and Beijing are focusing on the fingers of accusation and national competition.Despite this, just as it happened from half a century, the two great powers have a common interest in ending the epidemic, and their scholars can speak to each other (knowing that they were doing this long ago, when they were allowed), and in a parallel way, it is still organizedWorld Health, regardless of their faults, allows the two countries to coordinate their efforts with the efforts of dozens of other countries.Thus, it seems that the current epidemic is an ideal opportunity to provide cooperation in the midst of conflict, such as those that allowed the elimination of smallpox.

On a wider scale, if the Americans see that it is in their interest to enhance the positive change in the "South Countries", as they should do, this date indicates that the best way to do this is not using unilateral military force or even bilateral assistance agreements.Instead, the most successful programs were widely multinational cooperation and often included partnerships between the public and private sectors.Although cooperation with China may be unavailable at the present time, the global distribution of vaccines Corona will represent an ambitious similar to the elimination of smallpox..In fact, it can be left to take bold multi -party measures regarding climate change, similar to that of the one who arises from the green revolution..After the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, it seems that Washington is heading towards reducing its external interference, as it did in the wake of the war in Vietnam, at least temporarily.But as it was shown throughout history, this does not mean that the ambitious global efforts are far -reaching.

Iris Manila, a history professor at Harvard University and a co -editor of the book "Century Development: World History"