DOCSLIB.ORG

Vietnam's Struggle for Independence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vietnam's Struggle for Independence Vietnam’s Struggle for Independence (A short sentence outline/timeline of events. Although not described here, there was continuous fighting just about every day in some form or another from the 1900s to 1975, then the Khmer Rouge episode in the late 70s ) 1850s: French invade (1858) Vietnam near Da Nang; consolidate Indo-China in 10 years. Established puppet Emperors….colonization. Early 1900s: Rise in nationalism; hatred of French. 1919: WWI Armistice discussions. Young nationalist, Ho Chi Minh, petitions President Wilson for release from colonial rule..just wanted his country back. No response. 1920s/30s: Ho Chi Minh studies Lenin in Russia; becomes Communist. He travels to NYC, works menial jobs in exile. 1940-41: Japan takes control of Indo-China from French 1941: Ho Chi Minh returns to Vietnam, setting up “headquarters” in the mountains near Chinese border. He hates the Japanese (starved Vietnamese) and the French collaborators. While in hiding, Ho forms the Vietnam Independence League (Viet Minh). Everybody wants to join! Including Giap, who became a general and worked with Ho to formulate a plan of guerrilla warfare. 1941-1945: Ho Chi Minh invades French storehouses and redistributes the rice to Vietnamese. Early 1945: America looking for ally to overthrow Japan. O.S.S. air-drops into Ho’s encampment to meet the Viet Minh. American Medic helps Ho Chi Minh, who is deathly ill, to regain health. Although a Communist, Ho viewed Americans as liberators/saviors. 1945: Japan is defeated by the Americans. Ho Chi Minh calls on all people to rise up and take back the country before the French can re-establish power. And they did. September 1945: Ho Chi Minh makes speech in Hanoi, quoted Thomas Jefferson…”…all created equal… Rights… Life, Liberty, etc…” Ho had great hope that U.S. would support their independence. Roosevelt believed and respected the right of all peoples to have the type government they choose. Sadly, the promises Roosevelt made for the post war world died with him. Enter Truman: The alliance with Russia collapses with Soviet expansion, followed by the Cold War. Enter De Gaul: If U.S. does not support French colonies, he would take France into the Russian orbit. (WHAT!!?) The U.S. is officially neutral, however O.S.S. had 7-man secret operation to try and have the Viet Minh and the French work out a solution. Not to be; continued low- level warfare. Following WWII, Allied leaders agreed to divide Vietnam into 2 separate zones. The Nationalist Chinese troops in the North, and British in the South. Continued unrest in South. O.S.S. still trying to work with French and Viet Minh with the objective of Vietnam independence. British upset, feel O.S.S. is a subversive force….The British wanted the French to retake control. Fighting continues…. O.S.S. departs Vietnam. While leaving, the mission leader (Dewey) is shot and killed by Viet Minh by accident/mistake. Ho laments the death and wrote letter to U.S. Fall of 1945: More French troops arrive to take over for British. French (heavier firepower then Viet Minh) establish control in South. Chinese remain in North. Ho Chi Minh believed in the American ideal in that America liberated Europe and Pacific, and never occupied anything in Asia and never exploited the Asians. He went on in a letter to Truman, do not be blinded by the issue of Communism, support our independence. The letter is in the current C.I.A. files. Truman never saw the letter. 1946: Ho Chi Minh goes to France to see if they would live up to the promise of more autonomy for their country. Fruitless attempt. In Ho’s absence General Giap cleans house with ruthless force in the South and wiped out other small nationalist parties/factions, as well as Vietnamese/French collaborators. He wanted a Communist system. December 1946: Ho calls for huge uprising to “fight with what you have”….big time nationalism movement. Became a civil war at the family level, in that, some supported Viet Minh, some the French. French had been there a long time….business arrangements, marriages, etc. 1948: Another French build up. This time with “pacification objective”…built roads, canals, vaccinated citizens, etc. Viet Minh conducting guerilla warfare. People of South lived under two aggressors: The French during the day and the Viet Minh at night. Things deteriorated for the French. Low morale, homeland didn’t care, etc. They were losing…. 1949: Cold War heats up between Russia and U.S. Russia has nuclear bomb, Chinese communists take over China. Dominos falling. Burma and Malaya, and others…? 1950: Mao recognizes Ho’s insurgency and provides military support. Soviets as well. Korean war starts; North Korea is Chinese ally. Truman encounters great political pressure for not containing communism. He approves $23 Mil aide program for French in Vietnam. U.S. is no longer neutral in Vietnam. Truman commits thousands of troops to South Korea. At the same time China is building a fighting force in North Vietnam to conquer French occupiers…. Truman supplies 35 advisors to Vietnam….nobody spoke Vietnamese. More U.S. supplies continued to flow. U.S. officially in Vietnam. Fall 1951: Senator Kennedy visits Vietnam with delegation. The French, assured Kennedy and delegation that with more support they would prevail. Kennedy learned otherwise from reporters that the French were losing, and many of the Vietnamese despised the U.S. for helping the French. 1952: Eisenhower elected president, pledges tougher stance on communism. U.S. funding already at 30% of war effort. In 2 years it grew to 80%. V.P. Nixon briefs U.S. people on the strategy; essentially containing the ‘domino effect’. 1953: French are failing after 7 years of war…..In France it was viewed as a dirty war and the returning veterans were treated poorly. July 1953: Korean War ends; proof that communism could be contained. Fall 1953: Ho Chi Minh and French agree to meet. Both sides seek to improve their positions before negotiations. French build fortification at Dien Bien Phu to lure Viet Minh into decisive battle. 11,000 French soldiers and heavy artillery and armaments. General Giap sees the opportunity: 250,000 porters move 200 big guns and supplies into placements surrounding the valley. 50,000 Viet Minh soldiers in place. A huge logistical victory. March 1954: Viet Minh attack. French getting beat: need airlift to help French during siege. French seek Ike/American help. Ike refuses without Congressional support. Congress says “no”. Europe says “no”, Britain says “no”. Ike sends aide in secret to no avail. May 1954: After 55 day siege, French surrender. French lose 8,000 men, Viet Minh lose 24,000 men but achieve victory! General Giap defeats the French!! It should have been the end of Colonial Rule….. The U.S. viewed it as another potential domino. 1954 Geneva Talks: 9 nations to decide the future of Vietnam. Despite Ho’s victory at Dien Bien Phu he still needed support to continue to build a country. The Chinese lost thousands in Korea, said “no”. Soviets wanted to appease the West, said “no”. Both urged Ho to negotiate a settlement. The Geneva Accords: The 9 nations settled after 2 and one half months of negotiations by dividing the country at the 17 parallel….just like Korea. Ho had no options. No one is satisfied. French had to withdraw to the South. The Viet Minh moved to the North. Country divided by DMZ. Furthermore, there was a clause in the settlement promising an election to re-unify the country. That election which all knew that Ho would win, never happened. Now it gets really messy…. Families/civilians had 300 days to relocate to the North, or to the South. Approximately 900,000, mostly Catholics and Buddhists left the communist north on American ships. Most nationalist, including Viet Minh in South Vietnam, moved north resulting in split families and much discontent. 1955: Ngo Dinh Diem, a skilled politician who hated the communists and the French was supported by U.S. proclaimed President and created new government. He starts to clean house of several political parties, paramilitary units, syndicates, and armed gangs in South Vietnam. Dinh is ruthless against Buddhists, uprising in streets, much killing…. Dinh is deemed a Messiah without a message. U.S. (Ike) cuts support of Dinh. U.S. wants legitimate government and calls for referendum on Dinh government. Amazingly he gets 98% of the vote. The French depart Vietnam. Now Dinh is a hero….drove French out. In fall of 1955 Dinh goes to Washington to seek aide. Kennedy says we’re locked in, Ike had no choice but to support him. Late Fall ‘55/Early ’56: Ike sends American civilians and advisors to build ARVN. Utilized/taught conventional, instead of guerrilla warfare…..it seems that’s all we knew. Dinh aggressive/ruthless behavior against the remaining Viet MInh and political enemies got attention in North Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh still focused on reunification of country but not aggressive enough for some. 1959: North Vietnam policy change….hardliners gain control with a much more aggressive intent. Build up Viet Minh in south (via Ho Chi Minh trail) and eliminate Dinh by force. Fighting starts. First American Advisor is killed by Viet MInh. 1960: Kennedy elected. Very noble speech about American role in world to support the freedom of choice, etc. In South Vietnam the National Liberation Front is formed (orchestrated from the North)…… later known as the Viet Cong. 1961: Another Presidential speech by Kenney elaborating again on our noble efforts for democracy, supporting freedom, confronting communism, and curtailing aggressive dictators the world over.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Whitlam and China
    WHITLAM AND CHINA Prime Ministers Series November 2014 FRONT COVER IMAGE: Gough and Margaret Whitlam visit the Temple of Heaven in Beijing November, 1973. © File photo/NLA/Xinhua CONTENTS Introduction 4 Whitlam and China: 6 Transcript of Panel Discussion, Sydney, November 6 2014 A Note from Graham Freudenberg - Terrill and Taiwan (November 9 2014) 35 Whitlam Timeline 38 Further Reading 40 The Panellists 42 Published by Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI) University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia t: +61 2 9514 8593 f: +61 2 9514 2189 e: [email protected] w: www.acri.uts.edu.au © Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI) 2015 ISBN 978-0-9942825-0-7 The publication is copyright. Other than for uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without attribution. INTRODUCTION ACRI is proud to have hosted this discussion of Gough Whitlam’s 1971 visit which opened up the contemporary relationship between Australia and China. It is sad that we weren’t able to interview Gough Whitlam about China in the way we intend to interview other Australian Prime Ministers. But we are honoured to add this transcript to the many tributes to Australia’s 21st Prime Minister. In our panel conversation, a long-term Whitlam advisor and friend, 81 year old Graham Freudenberg, recreated the tension around the visit. Mr Whitlam was Opposition Leader; he was taking a political risk in going to ‘Red China’. Mr Freudenberg, a master of story- telling, captured the sense of excitement felt by the Whitlam party encamped at the Peking Hotel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Department of Communication Arts and Sciences THE LONG TWILIGHT STRUGGLE: PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE COLD WAR, 1945-1974 A Dissertation in Communication Arts and Sciences by Sara Ann Mehltretter Drury © 2011 Sara Ann Mehltretter Drury Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2011 The dissertation of Sara Ann Mehltretter Drury was reviewed and approved* by the following: J. Michael Hogan Liberal Arts Research Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Jeremy Engels Assistant Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences J. Philip Jenkins Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Humanities Department of History and Religious Studies Thomas W. Benson Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Rhetoric Head of Department of Communication Arts and Sciences *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This study explores the discourse of U.S. presidents as they defined and redefined the concept of “national security” during the Cold War. As commander-in- chief and the most visible spokesman for the United States in world affairs, the president has enormous power to shape understandings of national security strategy and foreign policy. The project consists of a series of four case studies in presidential speech making on national security: Harry S. Truman’s “Truman Doctrine” speech; Dwight Eisenhower’s “Age of Peril” radio address; John F. Kennedy’s “Inaugural Address”; and the speeches of Richard Nixon during his February 1972 trip to the People’s Republic of China. I argue that each of these episodes marked a significant moment in the rhetoric of national security, as each president promoted a new understanding of the nature of the threats to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Guided Viewing Unit.Pdf
    ©Reading Through History Excerpt from The Cold War by Jake Henderson & Robert Marshall ©2012 To this videos series, click one of the links below!: Reading Through History on YouTube: The Cold War Reading Through History: The Cold War ©Reading Through History Name________________________ Communism: Guided Viewing: Fill in the blanks below to create complete sentences. 1. For many years, communism was the dominant economic system used in many countries across __________________________ and Asia. 2. The modern idea of communism was first proposed by German philosophers __________________________ and Friedrich Engels. 3. Together, they wrote a short book known as The Communist _______________. 4. One of the key principles of communism is the concept of a _____________________ society. 5. More importantly, the salaries of employees, regardless of the job performed, were all _____________________________. 6. The eventual goal of this 'classless society' would be a state in which there was no _____________________ at all. 7. In a true communist nation, there is to be no private ownership of _______________________. 8. This would also mean that the state controlled all means of producing __________________________. 9. Finally, in 1917, a group of Communists in Russia, known as _______________________, started a revolution. 10. At one point during what came to be known as the Cold War era, a full ___________ of the world’s population lived under some type of communist rule. ©Reading Through History Page 1 Name________________________ The Soviet Union: Guided Viewing: Fill in the blanks below to create complete sentences. 1. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were the world's only two “___________________________”.
    [Show full text]
  • Nixon's Communications Strategy After Lam Son
    Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons War and Society (MA) Theses Dissertations and Theses Winter 12-9-2019 Stop Talking about Sorrow: Nixon’s Communications Strategy after Lam Son 719 Dominic K. So Chapman University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/war_and_society_theses Part of the Military History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation So, Dominic K. Stop Talking about Sorrow: Nixon’s Communications Strategy after Lam Son 719. 2019. Chapman University, MA Thesis. Chapman University Digital Commons, https://doi.org/10.36837/ chapman.000102 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in War and Society (MA) Theses by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stop Talking about Sorrow: Nixon’s Communications Strategy after Lam Son 719 A Thesis by Dominic K. So Chapman University Orange, CA Wilkinson College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in War and Society Studies December 2019 Committee in charge: Gregory Daddis, Ph.D., Chair Lori Cox Han, Ph.D. Robert Slayton, Ph.D. The thesis of Dominic K. So is approved dis, Ph.D., Chair Lori Cox Han, Slayton, Ph.D December 2019 Stop Talking about Sorrow: Nixon’s Communications Strategy after Lam Son 719 Copyright © 2019 by Dominic K. So III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, thank you to my advisor, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SYLLABUS the Modern US Presidency
    SYLLABUS The Modern U.S. Presidency – Fifty Years of Political Evolution BLHV-461-01 Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies Program, Georgetown University, Spring 2014 Day and Time: Mondays – 5:20 p.m. to 7:50 p.m. Location: TBA Instructor: Ambassador Paul A. Russo Adjunct Professor of Liberal Studies Telephone: (202) 256-3467 E-Mail: [email protected] The syllabus is subject to change. Course Summary This course will present an overview of the American political process, with focus on the executive branch of the U.S. Government, comparing and contrasting the role and style of modern presidents and their decision- making process in dealing with crisis situations – from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama --with emphasis on foreign policy decisions. We will also consider the changing role of the U.S. President at the beginning of the 21st Century, specifically discussing the impact of terrorism, two wars, and the financial crisis, on the governing process. The course offers an insider’s perspective on how major events shape both foreign and domestic White House policy. We will examine America’s new role in a rapidly changing world, with emphasis on how the White House is affected by modern technology, the 24-hour news cycle, and globalization. The course will also scrutinize the functions of key White House staff and their expanding role in the governing process, and consider the mechanics and the politics of staffing over 3,500 senior federal positions, including the U.S. Senate confirmation process. Students are expected to keep abreast of current affairs, and also to read historical materials on modern U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher's Guide
    1970–1979 Lesson 8 LESSON 8 The Decade of 1970–1979 LESSON ASSIGNMENTS You are encouraged to be very attentive while viewing the video program. Review the video objectives and be prepared to record possible answers, in abbreviated form, as you view the video. The topics and time periods may differ from the chapters of the textbook your school system is using. Each video program chronicles a wide array of events and personalities during a specific decade of the 20th century. Keep in mind that one of the overarching goals of each lesson is to help you understand how past historical events and actions by historical personalities did not occur in a vacuum, and that they are inextricably interwoven in your society today. Video: “The Decade of 1970–1979” from the series, The Remarkable 20th Century. Activities: Your teacher may assign one or more activities for each lesson. OVERVIEW The decade of the 1970s saw the end of the Vietnam War, the death of Elvis Presley and the revelation of Watergate and the birth of the microprocessor, or “the computer on a chip.” Videocassette recorders changed home entertainment forever. The sites of DNA production on genes were discovered, and the fledgling research in genetic engineering was temporarily halted pending further development of safer techniques. Three presidents (Nixon, Ford, and Carter) tried to provide leadership for the nation as it marched towards advances for women, civil rights, the environment, and space exploration. Many of the “radical” ideas of the 1960s reached fruition in the 1970s and were mainstreamed into American life and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Nixon-China and Trump-Korea Policies* D
    2018 ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА Т. 11. Вып. 4 МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ UDC 324 Permanent сampaigning as an issue for foreign policy analysis: A comparison of Nixon-China and Trump-Korea policies* D. A. Lanko, I. S. Lantsova St. Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation For citation: Lanko D. A., Lantsova I. S. Permanent campaigning as an issue for foreign policy analysis: A comparison of Nixon-China and Trump-Korea policies. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Inter- national Relations, 2018, vol. 11, issue 4, pp. 404–414. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2018.406 The article seeks to extend the limits of applicability of permanent campaigning as a concept helpful in understanding politics in the field of foreign policy analysis. It should start with ex- ploring how applicable the saying “it took Nixon to go to China” is not only to foreign policy analysis, but also to the studies of public and even business administration. In early 1970s Nixon’s reputation of a tough anti-Communist helped him win domestic support to his policy towards Communist China. In a similar manner, in 2017 Trump sought a reputation of a fierce critic of North Korea, by means of publicly threatening the latter with ‘fire and fury’, in order to not only convince North Korea’s Kim to make concessions, but also to gain domestic support to possible change in U.S.-North Korean relations. The Trump-Korea situation differed significantly from the Nixon-China situation, which limited Trump’s ability to win domestic support to possible rapprochement with North Korea by means of permanent campaigning.
    [Show full text]
  • EUI WORKING PAPERS Access European Open Author(S)
    Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. Cadmus, EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE EUI WORKINGEUI PAPERS on University Access European Open Author(s). Available The 2020. © in Library EUI the by produced version Digitised Repository. Research Institute University European European University Institute 3 Institute. 0001 Cadmus, on 0036 University 3926 Access European 9 Open Author(s). Available The 2020. © in Library EUI the by produced version Digitised Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. Cadmus, on University Access Ross: EUI Working Paper RSC No. 99/4 European Open “BeyondLeft andRight": The New 'Partisan' Politics of Welfare Author(s). Available The 2020. © in Library EUI the by WP 3 0 9 EUR produced version Digitised Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. directed by Professors Maurizio Ferrera (Universities of Pavia and Bocconi, Milano) and This Working Paper has been written in the context of the 1998-1999 European Forum European European welfare states; a broad, Adopting long-term comparative and the perspective, will aim to: Forum Rhodes Martin (Robert Schuman Centre). programme on sub-national sub-national and supra-national level; scrutinize the ■ complex web of social, economic and political challenges to contemporary • and, more generally, outline broad the and scenarios change. trajectories of • discuss the • role of the various actors in promoting or hindering this reform at the the national, various optionsidentify and constraints for, on institutional reform; - Cadmus, on University Access Recasting Recasting the European Welfare State: Options, Constraints, Actors, European Open Author(s). Available The 2020. © in Library EUI the by produced version Digitised Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. Cadmus, EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE on BADIA FIESOLANA, SAN DOMENICO (FI) University The New Access Jean Monnet Fellow, European Forum Forum (1998-99) Jean European Monnet Fellow, EUI EUI Working EUFPaper No.
    [Show full text]
  • Thank God for That
    Rich Pliskin Washington, DC [email protected] richpliskin.com 202-549-1453 THANK GOD FOR THAT A novel by Rich Pliskin 84,000 words THANK GOD FOR THAT/1 OUR BRAND IS OUR BUTTER Denny Dash worked fast. He ripped the pencil drawer from his office desk and poured the debris of a once-glittering marketing career into a Felcher Communications Corp. travel tote: one leaky tube of 3-2-1 BlistOff lip balm, some loose change from no- count countries, a sample baggy of Quendle’s CheeseChumps, and a handful of Horvath for President buttons: “I Think Not,” “Thank God for That,” “Enough With the Slogans Already!” and the emotive core of the campaign: “In Your Heart, You Know He’s Wrong. But So What?” And the crumpled envelope with the key in it. The one thing he was looking for. It had been a week since CEO Harold Felcher, Denny’s ostensible boss, had thrust the key on him. Denny had been fingering through restive correspondence from the New York State Family Court when Harold padded in, waving the envelope over his head like Chamberlain bringing home the Munich Agreement. Had Chamberlain been a hundred pounds heavier, wheezed often and been unable to keep his shirttail tucked in, the resemblance would have been uncanny. Goering was a closer match. THANK GOD FOR THAT/2 Harold had correctly judged that Denny Dash, FC2’s erstwhile creative engine, had hurtled off the rails and plunged into a very deep, weed-choked mental gully that nothing less than an open-ended tropical sabbatical could hoist him out of.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era
    Bryant University Bryant Digital Repository History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal History and Social Sciences Faculty Articles Publications and Research Summer 2006 U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era John W. Dietrich Bryant University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/histss_jou Recommended Citation Dietrich, John W., "U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era" (2006). History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles. Paper 78. https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/histss_jou/78 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History and Social Sciences Faculty Publications and Research at Bryant Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Bryant Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era: Continued Structural Constraints Across Time and Administrations John W. Dietrich Bryant University 1 Historically, the implementation of U.S. human rights policy has been a case of “two steps forward, one step back.” From its earliest days, the United States has attempted, at least to some degree, to include morality, the protection of individual rights, and the spread of democracy in foreign policy calculations. These efforts became more prominent after World War II. By the late-1980s, human rights concerns were firmly embedded in U.S. foreign policy rhetoric, policy-making institutions, and global actions. Despite these long-term trends, full policy implementation of human rights principles was constrained over time by lack of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Revolt: a Former Law-And-Order Conservative Takes a Lead on Criminal-Justice Reform
    June 29, 2015 Issue Prison Revolt: A former law-and-order conservative takes a lead on criminal-justice reform. By Bill Keller Patrick J. Nolan’s own experience led him to challenge decades of conservative policy. Illustration by Stanley Chow n the mid-nineteen-eighties, shortly after the convictions of six members of the House of Representatives and one senator in the IF.B.I. bribery sting code-named Abscam, one of the bureau’s anticorruption units turned its attention to the California legislature, where an informant had reported that lawmakers were on the take. Agents posing as representatives of a shrimp-processing company announced plans to build a plant near Sacramento, provided that a state-loan guarantee could be procured. They offered to reward legislators who would help secure their financing. The operation, inevitably, was known as Shrimpscam. Patrick J. Nolan, an earnest law-and-order conservative representing Glendale and Burbank, was the leader of the Republican minority in the assembly. He had already voted for a bill making the company eligible for the guarantee, but Governor George Deukmejian, who was aware of the sting, had vetoed it. Now one of the agents wanted to meet Nolan to entice him to intercede with Deukmejian. On June 29, 1988, Nolan and a legislative aide, Karin Watson, arrived at a bugged suite in the Sacramento Hyatt Regency, across from the Capitol. They declined the agent’s offer of champagne (it was not yet noon) in favor of Diet Pepsi, admired the view, engaged in some awkward small talk, and left twenty minutes later, with two five-thousand-dollar checks.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 U.S. Foreign Policy in Transition
    U.S. Foreign Policy 9 in Transition Is the United States relinquishing its global supremacy?distribute By Bill Wanlund or AP Photo/Jim Mone At an annual security conference of the United States’ European Michael Petefish stands inside a soybean bin at his allies in February, a gathering that normally celebrates trans-Atlantic farm near Claremont, Minn., in July 2018. When unity, German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered a harsh assess- President Trump imposed $250 billion in tariffs on mentpost, of U.S. foreign policy. Chinese exports, China responded with its own Merkel criticized the Trump administration’s unilateral tariffs. The trade war, which has cooled, has hurt approach to international affairs, specifically questioning U.S. some U.S. farmers. China is the largest buyer of American soybeans. plans to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan and a decision to abandon the 31-year-old intermediate-range nuclear weapons treaty with Russia. Both actions, she said, would endanger Europe while strengthening Moscow’s position. copy, The liberal world order—the U.S.-led system of institutions and alliances created after World War II and credited with establishing postwar global peace and prosperity—“has collapsed into many tiny parts,” Merkel said.1 not Attendees gave the German leader a standing ovation, in contrast to the cool reception that met Vice President Mike Pence hours later when he extended greetings from Trump. In that speech, Pence defended the administration’s foreign policy, saying that under Do President Trump, “America is leading the free world once again.” From CQ Researcher, Pence also urged Europeans to “do more” in their own defense and March 29, 2019 “stop undermining” U.S.
    [Show full text]