Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Ford and Foreign Policy: Snapshots from the 1970s

Former President Gerald Ford has died at 93. A Wolverine star of the early 1930s at the University of Michigan, Ford passed up an opportunity to play for the Detroit Lions in the new NFL, going instead to law school. He was Richard Nixon's vice president during the Watergate scandal and so became president when Nixon resigned. Ford was well liked as president, but faced seemingly intractable problems. These included the increasing price of petroleum after the 1973 OPEC boycott, the simultaneous economic stagnation and inflation (something many economists had considered impossible), relatively high unemployment, the fall of South Vietnam, the Soviet and Cuban challenge in Angola, the beginnings of the Lebanese Civil War, nuclear proliferation threats in Israel, India, Brazil and Iran, and the Cyprus controversy with Turkey.

Ford did the country the enormous favor of allowing it to transition out of the poisonous Nixon and Vietnam eras, with a gentleman at the helm of state. I can remember the enormous relief I experienced when I saw the picture of him striding confidently once he had become president. Many of us had been afraid Nixon would stage a military coup. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, I have been told by one interviewee then in government, shared that fear and ordered the senior officers to accept no command directly from Nixon unless they checked with Schlesinger first.

Ford was clearly unwilling to risk further military entanglements in Asia. The one exception was his aggressive response to the Cambodian capture of the Mayaguez, which was enormously popular at the time, though critics argued that the strike was premature since the Cambodians had begun releasing their captives. 41 Americans died in the course of this operation.

Ford pursued "detente" with the Soviet Union (though the Right made him give up the term). He renewed US bases in Franco's Spain, though half of Spaniards opposed them, in part because they objected to them being used to resupply Israel in its battles with the Arabs. He worried about the Communist parties of France, Italy and some other Western European allies. He had Kissinger conduct "step by step" and then "shuttle" diplomacy with the Egyptians and the Israelis, pushing them toward accommodation and peace and setting the stage in important ways for Jimmy Carter's later Camp David negotiations.

One of the things Ford was proudest of in his 1976 presidential campaign was that under his administration, the country was at peace.

Ford did not come in strong on foreign policy, and he had some difficulty reining in Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. He also faced challenges from a triumphal Democratic Congress that frequently over-ruled him on foreign policy. He fired Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who was too much of a hawk for Ford. Ford believed in negotiating with one's enemies where possible and where fruitful, and in cutting one's losses in the face of overwhelming odds, so as to live to play another day.

Ford faced a powerful challenge from Ronald Reagan and the then-small far-right wing of the Republican Party, which accused him of under-estimating Soviet military strength and the Soviet threat, blamed him for losing Angola and was suspicious of Ford's increasing skittishness about dealing with white supremicist Rhodesia. Although it is often pointed out that many officials in the George W. Bush administration got their start under Ford, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and (in a supporting role) Paul Wolfowitz, in fact these individuals went on to convert to Reaganism and to abandon the moderate Republican principles of Ford.

I thought readers might enjoy some news clippings from that era on foreign policy, skewed because of my interests toward the Middle East.

January 18, 1975. The Economist reports that Ford warned that American support for Israel cannot be taken for granted.

' Asked if there were any limits on America's commitment to Israel, he replied:
It so happens that there is a substantial relationship at the present time between our national security interests and those of Israel. But in the final analysis we have to judge what is in our national interest above any and all other considerations. '

The Economist noted that many Americans felt that Israel could hardly expect to get peace if it continued to sit on land it occupied from Arab states in 1967, and implied that they could not see why they should pay various sorts of price for Israeli expansionism and intransigence.

February 8, 1975: Facts on File reports that the US Congress cut off military aid to Turkey because of lack of progress on the Cyprus issue.
'President Ford immediately called on Congress to restore the aid, warning that the cutoff would "affect adversely not only our Western security but the strategic situation in the Middle East." He stressed that military aid to Turkey was based "on our assumption that the security of Turkey is vital to the security of the eastern Mediterranean and to the U.S. and its allies." '


Turkey's acting prime minister responded angrily and threatened to rethink Turkey's commitments in NATO.

March 1, 1975: Ford approved in principle the proposal by the Shah's Iran that it take a 10% share in the troubled PanAm airline. Iran was flush with petrodollars and Kissinger had worked out with the shah ways of recycling them back into Western economies. Among the major such methods was sophisticated arms sales, a direction criticized by presidential contender Jimmy Carter of Georgia.

April 12, 1975: A Harris poll summarized in the Economist showed that over 60% of Americans supported sending Israel whatever military hardware it needed in its struggle with the Arabs. The poll showed groundless the fear voiced by some pro-Israel advocates that the Arab oil weapon might cause Americans to turn against Zionism. On the other hand, there were some indications in the poll that Americans felt that Israel was taking US support for granted.

April 14, 1975: Newsweek reported on the fall of South Vietnam:

' Misery became a way of life in Indochina long ago, but the tide of human suffering that suddenly engulfed South Vietnam last week swept forward with unprecedented cruelty. Along the coastline of the South China Sea, major cities tumbled like tenpins, and exhausted and terrified refugees died by the hundreds in their desperate forced marches to escape the onrushing troops of North Vietnam. The toughest generals of the army of South Vietnam abandoned their command posts, and ARVN soldiers turned to banditry, shooting their way aboard the few evacuation ships that made the beachheads . . . a mercy flight evacuating war orphans . . . crashed and burned only minutes after leaving Saigon - a capital whose own life expectancy dwindled with every passing hour. '


May 24, 1975: Facts on File reports that 76 US Senators sign a letter to President Ford opposing any attempt to reduce military aid to Israel. (Ford was trying to get the Israelis to make peace with Egypt and was using aid as an incentive. The Israelis used their Lobby on the Hill in an attempt to paralyze Ford and Kissinger on this front.)

June 9, 1975: Newsweek reports on Ford's European tour, where he met with 12 European leaders in Brussels, and had one on one meetings with Helmut Schmidt of Germany, the Pope, the premier of Turkey, Anwar El Sadat and others. Ford
' also conferred privately with no fewer than twelve European leaders during his two days in Brussels - receiving all but Giscard in the rococo reception room of the American ambassador's residence in a manner somewhat reminiscent of an eighteenth-century European monarch. . . . He and West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt spent the opening moments of their meeting discussing the pleasures of pipe smoking, and Ford revealed that the Presidential pipe collection now numbered 50. When Kissinger told Turkish Premier Suleiman Demirel, "I gained 50 pounds in Turkey last week," Ford interrupted with a booming laugh and retorted. "He's using the trip as an alibi. It's an old problem." '


and on the Middle East, Newsweek said,
' there were several signs that virtually all sides wanted a compromise. Both Saudi Arabia's conservative King Khaled and the militant socialist government in Iraq have recently expressed - in terms never heard before - their willingness to accept the existence of the state of Israel if it withdrew from all occupied Arab territories. What's more, Syria, which only two weeks ago extended the mandate of the United Nations peace force on the Golan Heights for six additional months, indicated that it could accept a second-stage Egyptian-Israeli accord before the extent of further Israelis withdrawals on the Golan Heights was settled. Syria's ambassador to Washington predicted "that Sadat will be bringing good signs to Ford." '


August 2, 1975. Facts on File summarizes an interview by Ford with the NYT on his accomplishments. The first was restoration of confidence in the presidency on the domestic front. The second was its restoration internationally. He was also proud of having "kept our cool" in the face of both recession and inflation. He added:

' As his largest disappointments, Ford mentioned the fall of non-Communist governments in South Vietnam and Cambodia and the breakdown of negotiations in the Middle East in March.

The President said there was "no possibility" of re-establishing a U.S. presence in Vietnam or Cambodia under current circumstances. As for the Middle East currently, he felt that an agreement could be reached if both Israel and Egypt were "more flexible."

Ford reaffirmed his policy to go to Helsinki, Finland to sign the international accord on European security, but he was cautious on the strategic arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union. '


October 25, 1975: Egypt and Israel each pressure Ford not to sell the other certain weaponry.

December 20, 1975: Facts on File reports:
' American and Israeli sources said Dec. 15 that President Ford had urged Premier Yitzhak Rabin to consult with Washington on any future Israeli military action against Arab guerrillas in Lebanon. The Ford message, reportedly discussed by the premier in a cabinet meeting Dec. 14, also contained a pledge to oppose any attempt by the U.N. Security Council to impose a peace settlement in the Middle East.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reporting on the Ford note, said the President had "expressed his wish . . . that there should be coordination between the two countries or at least Israel should let the United States know ahead of time what its intentions are."

The U.S. was said to have been embarrased by the Israeli air strike on Palestinian camps in Lebanon Dec. 2 at a time when the U.S. was attempting to block anti-Israeli resolutions before the Security Council. '


March 15, 1976: Newsweek reports on Iranian ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi's Washington parties, which it deems the best in the city at that time:
' With an entertainment budget the size of an oil field, the 47-year-old Zahedi is legendary for his kilos of caviar (flown in twice a month from Iran), his seemingly limitless supply of Dom Perignon champagne (dispensed as presents like candy canes at Christmas-time), and his sophomoric sense of partying, which includes impromptu congalines, smooth-tummied belly dancers and drinking and kissing games guaranteed to take the prude out of Washington protocol. In an average month, Zahedi may give three formal dinner dancers for 75, two or three buffet dinners for 300, one or two large receptions for 150, and countless business lunches, late-night suppers or poolside barbecues at his own residence. "It's business and pleasure at the same time," says the debonair Zahedi, who once trickled droplets of champagne into Cristina Ford's cupped hand, then kissed each one away. "If you see your friends at a party, you exchange ideas and views without actually being committed to each other." '


April 17, 1976: Facts on File reports:
' Israeli officials April 9 criticized U.S. Ambassador Malcolm Toon for having accused Israel April 8, of trying to pressure the U.S. Congress to approve more aid [than] requested by President Ford. Toon had spoken at a news briefing and had asked that he be referred to only as "a Western diplomat," but his identity was subsequently disclosed by an Israeli television analyst. . . Toon had said that Israel's alleged pressure was close to interference in the internal affairs of the U.S. and that Israel was "playing dirty pool." He also said it was unwise for Israel's Finance Ministry to budget sums not actually received. '


Toon made his remarks because Ford had threatened to veto a $550 million "transitional" grant to Israel by Congress, on top of the $2.2 billion already approved.

June 19, 1976: Facts on File reports:
' Francis E. Meloy Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, and Robert O. Waring, his economic counselor, were kidnapped and shot to death by unidentified gunmen in Beirut June 16. Zoheir Moghrabi, their Lebanese driver, also was slain. Palestinian security agents reported June 17 the arrest of three Lebanese in connection with the assassinations. '


This incident foreshadowed the subsequent decades of US involvement in Lebanon, including the taking of hostages and Iran-Contra, the blowing up of the US embassy in Beirut, the assassination of the CIA station chief, the blowing up of the Marine Barracks, and more recent involvement on the side of the anti-Syrian political coalition.

July 31, 1976: The Economist reports on American unhappiness about a German company's willingness to supply the entire nuclear fuel cycle to countries like Brazil and possibly Iran:

For Germany's major nuclear power station company, Kraftwerk Union (KWU), the Brazil deal represented great leap forward . . . Early in July KWU landed a contract from Iran for two nuclear power stations in a deal worth more than DM 7 billion. This did not include a reprocessing plant, but Iran is known to be shopping around for one. Is KWU to be barred from trying for a follow-up contract? After all, Iran, in contrast to Brazil, has adhered to the nonproliferation treaty. But for the Americans the prospect of a national reprocessing plant on the fringe of the Middle East brings nightmares. Americans have suggested to Iran that it should share with an industrialised country control over any reprocessing plant built there. And they have advocated the creation of multinational regional enrichment centres. But Iran is likely to feel insulted at being picked on in this way. . . '


Of course, it had been the Eisenhower Administration's "atoms for peace" program that had encouraged the Iranians to develop nuclear reactors in the first place . . .

August 7, 1976: Facts on File reports that the US will sell Saudi Arabia sophisticated missiles and "laser-guided bombs" previously given only to Israel.

October 30, 1976: As the presidential campaign heats up, the Economist reports that President Ford was constrained to apologize for remarks by the Chairman of his Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. George Brown, to the effect that Israel is a military burden on the United States. Ford called the statement "very ill-advised."

Jimmy Carter attacked Ford for presiding over a situation in which the US was becoming "the arms merchant of the world." But he seemed to contradict himself by demanding that more arms be sent to Israel. Ford responded by loosening some restrictions placed by his bureaucrats and sending more weapons to Israel.

Carter also attacked Ford for not being more confrontational with Arab states about their boycott of Israel, and about the possibility that they might deploy an oil boycott against the West again. He insisted that if he became president, there would be no boycott.

Carter said that under Ford, diplomacy had been conducted with too much secrecy, and that the public needed to be kept fully informed. He accused Ford of being insufficiently awake to changes in southern Africa and of being complacent toward the Soviet Union. But Carter pledged that he would never go to war over a Soviet occupation of Yugoslavia.

Kissinger in response expressed alarm that Carter seemed to be giving the Kremlin a green light in the Balkans. [Tito had pursued an autonomous Communist policy in Yugoslavia, now the independent states of Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro and . . . I can't keep up.]

When he presided over intelligence reform in the wake of earlier abuses, Ford wrote,

'I believe it essential to have the best possible intelligence about the capabilities, intentions and activities of governments and other entities and individuals abroad. To this end, the foreign intelligence agencies of the United States play a vital role in collecting and analyzing information related to the national defense and foreign policy.

It is equally as important that the methods these agencies employ to collect such information for the legitimate needs of the government conform to the standards set out in the Constitution to preserve and respect the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens.'


He was against just assassinating people, and insisted on warrants for the wiretapping of US citizens.

All presidents make errors, and some abuses occurred on Ford's watch, though they often were initiated by Kissinger. But Ford faced with no illusions the challenges of his era, of detente with the Soviet Union, continued attempts to cultivate China, the collapse of Indochina, the fall-out of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and the beginnings of the Lebanese Civil War. Ford was right about detente, right about China, right about Arab-Israeli peace, right about avoiding a big entanglement in Angola, right to worry about nuclear proliferation (one of his worries was the increasing evidence that the Middle East had a nuclear power, Israel, and India was moving in that direction).

Ford's challengers on the Reagan Right were wrong about everything. They vastly over-estimated the military and economic strength of the Soviet Union (yes, that's Paul Wolfowitz). They wanted confrontation with China. They dismissed the Arab world as Soviet occupied territory (even though the vast majority of Arab states was US allies at that time) and urged that it be punished till it accepted Israel's territorial gains in 1967. They insisted that the Vietnam War could have been won.

But despite its illusions and Orwellian falsehoods, the Reagan Right prevailed. Ford only momentarily lost to Carter. Both of them were to lose to Reagan, who resorted to Cold War brinkmanship, private militias, death squads, offshore accounts, unconstitutional criminality, and under the table deals with Khomeini, and who created a transition out of the Cold War that left the private militias (one of them al-Qaeda) empowered to wreak destruction in the aftermath. The blowback from that Reaganesque era of private armies of the Right helped push the US after 2001 toward an incipient fascism at which Ford, the All-American, the lawyerly gentleman, the great Wolverine, must have wept daily in his twilight years.

13 Comments:

At 4:54 AM, Blogger Michael Murry said...

Gerald Ford pre-emptively pardoned Richard Nixon, thereby short-circuiting the American system of justice and igniting a firestorm of political revulsion that led to his defeat at the hands of Democrat Jimmy Carter. As they say, one "aw, shit!" like that wipes out a hundred "atta-boys" (not that Gerald Ford ever accumulated anywhere near that many kudos).

Some "national healing." It still took the American Congress to cut off funding for a long-lost war in Southeast Asia that neither Gerald Ford nor his Svengali/Rasputin Henry Kissinger would ever voluntarily countenance. When the last of a series of puppet Saigon governments finally collapsed, no one noticed or cared. In fact, no one in America wanted to hear one more word about Vietnam -- or Vietnam Veterans -- for almost another decade, if even today. Stand by for a reprise of all this active amnesia when the Baghdad Green Zone Castle crumbles in the near future.

Few Americans wanted to vote for Gerald Ford when given the chance to do so. Not Republicans, who preferred the free-lunch radicalism of Ronald Reagan, or Democrats, who preferred the reasonableness of Jimmy Carter; which explains why Gerald Ford re-entered obscurity as rapidly as Spiro Agnew's disgraced resignation allowed him briefly to escape from it. As a popular saying at the time put it: "We always say that any American can become President; and now with Gerald Ford as President, any one of us is." Only a certifiable disaster like George W. Bush, though, could have possibly made a non-entity like Gerald Ford somehow look appealing in retrospect.

 
At 6:46 AM, Blogger David Wearing said...

Juan

One of the few rays of hope coming out of the last few years is the possibility that the ruthless, imperialistic nature of western power has now been decisively revealed, and that it will henceforth be recognised and dealt with as such by those who had previously mistaken it for something else (i.e. the virtuous force it pretends to be).

The flipside of this is the danger that the tactical changes made by the current set of imperial managers have been so dramatic that the differences between them and their predecessors may be taken to be qualitative, or more substantive than they actually are. By extension, future administrations that can successfully present themselves as substantively different from the present one will be free to carry on the standard imperial pattern, with the recognition of the reality of what’s happening put safely back in the box (step forward Barak Obama?).

Gerald Ford appears to have been a sensible and pragmatic, rather than a reckless and ideological imperialist. Since these differences affect policy, they’re non-trivial. But the commonalities are non-trivial as well, so I make these observations to augment rather than contradict what you’ve said here.

Ford signed off on and materially supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor - commencing immediately after his 1975 visit to Jakarta - which went on to wipe out about a quarter of the East Timorese population.

The Suharto regime had committed, ten years earlier, what the CIA described as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century” when it exterminated hundreds of thousands of opponents upon coming to power. Given the record, the potential human cost of backing the invasion of East Timor will have been very clear to Ford. But the national security threat posed to the US by less than a million East Timorese peasants was obviously an urgent danger which he felt compelled to address.

With respect to the Middle East policies that you focus on, it appears that Ford was prepared to take a tougher line with Israel. But a tougher line in the interests of living up to basic moral obligations or in terms of managing an imperial alliance? The former seems to me to be the more important consideration (though both are of course relevant topics of academic interest for us).

You quote Newsweek saying that Arab states were expressing a “willingness to accept the existence of the state of Israel if it withdrew from all occupied Arab territories”.

Yet despite this opening, the Ford administration, according to the Facts on File quotes you give, “was attempting to block anti-Israeli resolutions before the Security Council” and had promised Tel Aviv that it would “oppose any attempt by the U.N. Security Council to impose a peace settlement in the Middle East”. These “anti-Israel” impositions presumably consisted of the demand that Israel return to its 67 borders, which everyone knows, still, is the only basis for meaningful peace (and justice). That blocking of a peaceful and just settlement continues to this day . How much bloodshed and misery could have been avoided if Ford’s White House had taken a different path?

All powers are ruthless and all compensate by projecting a virtuous self-image. And while the US is no different, its own self-image is a particularly seductive one. To the point where current crimes can be readily seen as a fall from grace, rather than as part of a long established pattern. The differences between Ford and Bush II are real enough, but they have their limits.

David Wearing
The Democrat’s Diary

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Thanks for the historical perspective on Ford; I too remember (I was in my 20s) my relief when he became president. As you point out, he got more things right than wrong. However, in addition to keeping Kissinger on, he also pre-emptively pardoned Nixon - I regard both of these as major errors, and the latter has set a bad precedent. I hope that we will have fair trials, or at least a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for the Bush Gang after they are removed from office.

 
At 10:09 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

Whatever Ford's private virtues or team-player style, didn't his policies rely almost entirely on the guidance of Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Bush the Elder, and young Cheney? Like the current Bush the Lesser, Ford was something of a tabula rasa on foreign affairs and was also somewhat clueless on handling stagflation. Three vexing questions from that era: 1) would a US "surge" or change in policy have prevented S. Vietnam from collapse, the subsequent mass emigration of "boat people, or the murderous rule of Pol Pot in Cambodia; 2) was the Ford "realist" policy towards Iran a "success" and did the subsequent Carter human rights stance contribute towards the rise of Khomeni; and 3) why have their been no subsequent oil embargos in protest over US or Israeli policies? Were a Ford in office in 2001-9, would he have done about the same as W or pursued detente with Saddam, adopted only a mild Patriot Act, and limited military action to a Mayaguez type incursion into Afghanistan?

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger California Writer said...

Thank you very much for this blog about Ford, and particularly for the comparison between Ford and Reagan. Yours is the first writing anywhere I've read revaluating Reagan. What has always bothered me in the U.S. response to 9-11 is the refusal in the mass media to look at how Reagan funded the private militias such as al-Qaeda and the other mujuahadin in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviet "menace." Reagan even had the mujahadin to the White House and called them "freedom fighters."

I'd just like to add that besides Regan's awful foreign & military policy he also intitateed the truly awful policy of privitazation of public resources such as higher education. I would hope one day that all of Reagan's polices--foreign, military, and domestic--would be evaluated and then repudiated.

 
At 11:53 AM, Blogger Ben said...

Juan Cole wrote
>>> Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, I have been told by one interviewee then in government, shared that fear and ordered the senior officers to accept no command directly from Nixon unless they checked with Schlesinger first. <<<

BUT IT WASN'T ONLY SCHLESINGER.

Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft wrote
>>> http://nytimes.com/books/00/11/05/letters/letters.html
New York Times Book Review
Sunday, November 5, 2000
"...Defense Secretary James Schlesinger did apparently in Nixon's last days direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ignore orders from their commander in chief -- an unprecedented arrogation of authority. Whatever his motives, Schlesinger never came to either of us (or anyone else, so far as we know) with his concerns and what to do about them..."
- - Henry A. Kissinger, New York
- - Brent Scowcroft, Washington <<<

KISSINGER WAS ONLY HALF TRUTHFUL.
(SHOCKING, EH?)
HERE'S THE REST OF THE STORY:

Barry A. Toll wrote
>>> http://nytimes.com/books/00/12/03/letters/letters.html
New York Times Book Review
Sunday, December 3, 2000
In his and Brent Scowcroft's letter (Nov. 5), former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger denied having been associated with Defense Secretary James Schlesinger in directing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ignore orders from President Richard Nixon. As one who during 1973-75 served on one of the Battle Staff units, on permanent standby to brief the president and top commanders in the event of a nuclear crisis, I know otherwise. As I have testified in secret debriefings and in both open and closed sessions of House and Senate committees as far back as 1975, Kissinger signed or countersigned at least three such orders in the final year of the Nixon presidency. I have so testified under penalty of perjury several times.

After the first such order in 1973 signed by Kissinger, the Joint Chiefs demanded that any subsequent ones be countersigned by at least one other Nixon cabinet officer. A second such order, again an instruction not to obey the president until further notice, was signed by Kissinger and, to the best of my recollection, Elliot Richardson. At least one other was jointly signed by Kissinger and Defense Secretary Schlesinger. Such orders were always sent ''Top Secret, Eyes Only, Limited Distribution,'' bypassing other traffic. Sometimes they remained in effect for a week, most times only two to four days. The orders were issued at times of perceived Nixon mental instability. I repeatedly received them in my own hands, as did numerous others serving in sensitive nuclear control positions during that last horrific year of the Nixon presidency.

Barry A. Toll
Painesville, Ohio <<<

For many of us who remember 1974, our memory of President Ford is forever entangled with our immense relief that Nixon was gone.

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

Awesome post! Truly awesome. Professor Cole, you should consider writing an encyclopedia of twentieth century American politics composed of such articles as this one.

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger Juhani Yli-Vakkuri said...

I think any post with heading "Ford and Foreign Policy" should mention that this "gentleman at the helm" of the U.S. ship of state authorized Suharto's Indonesia's genocidal invasion and annexation of East Timor in December 1975. To quote from Joseph Nevins' excellent recent book, _A Not-So Distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor_ (Cornell University Press, 2005):

"President Gerald Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, met with Suharto in Jakarta the day prior to the invasion. They were fully cognizant of Indonesia's plans to invade. According to the transcript of the meeting, Ford assured Suharto that, with regard to East Timor, '[We] will not press you on the issue. We understand ... the intenions you have.'

"In previous months the Ford admninstration had cautioned Indonesia against using American weaponry in any planned invasion. (According to the State Department, about 90 percent of Indonesia's military equipment at the time was from the United States.) As laid out in a 1958 agreement with the U.S. government, Indonesia assured the United States that it would use U.S.-origin weaponry 'solely for legitimate national self defense' as defined by the U.N. Charter. But any reservations that the administration may have had previously about the deployment of U.S. weaponry seems to have disappeared by December 1975" (pp. 51-2).

"Soon thereafter the Ford adminstration ended even the pretense of limiting military sales to Indonesia, using as an excuse Indonesia's signing into law East Timor's formal integration into Indonesia on July 17, 1976. From then on, the official U.S. position was to accept Indonesia's annexation of East Timor as a fait accompli, and therefore as a de facto (but not de jure) part of Indonesia [...] The advantage of this position was that it put an end to any discussion regarding the use of American arms in East Timor, as the 1958 'mutual defense agreement' between the United States and Indonesia allowed Jakarta to employ U.S. weaponry 'to maintain internal security. And East Timor was now an internal Indonesian matter--at least from the perspective of the White House. Thus the Ford administration had few qualms about delivering to Indonesia in September 1976 a squadron of U.S.-made OV-10 Bronco ground attack planes, Vietnam War-era aircraft that were highly useful for counterinsurgency operations, especially against those without effective anti-aircraft weaponry" (p. 53).

Thus it was with Ford's authorization that Indonesia went on to kill perhaps a third of the population of East Timor--we'll never know for sure, since Western-supported massacres are not investigated and preferably erased from history. The policy of supporting Indonesian "counterinsurgency" in East Timor continued under Carter and subsequent administrations until fall 1999, but Ford is certainly the most directly complicit in Indonesia's crimes among all U.S. presidents.

Apparently Ford's UN ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynihan did some soul searching about this before he died. According to my informants he privately described his own role in the Indonesian annexation of East Timor as "despicable" a few years before he died. In his memoir _A Dangerous Place_, written two decades earlier, he explained (with no expression of regret) that he was under orders to ensure that the UN "prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook" to terminate Indonesia's aggression, noting that within two months of the invasion East Timor had suffered "almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War" (p. 247). As for Ford himself, as far as I'm aware, he never acknowledged that his conduct was less than gentlemanly.

 
At 1:23 PM, Blogger Ben said...

Some people who are old enough to remember 1974 don't remember feeling relief at Nixon's departure, but instead remember feeling stabbed in the back.

For instance, Peggy Noonan wrote
>>> http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006763
PEGGY NOONAN
The Legend of Deep Throat
Was Mark Felt really a hero?
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Some wounds don't fully heal because they're too deep and cut too close to the bone. The story that Deep Throat was Mark Felt has torn open old wounds. Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and Chuck Colson--all at the top of their game 30 years ago, all very much in the game today--were passionate in their criticism, saying Mr. Felt has little to be proud of, was unprofessional, harmed his country...
...Nixon's ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events--the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions--millions--killed in his genocide... <<<

I have no doubt that if Ford had been a Democrat, the GOP pundits today would be characterizing him as "the man who loved genocide."

I'd say, instead, that he made some bad mistakes, and he had some bad advisors, and also that not everything that happens in the world is to the fault or credit of an all-powerful supreme POTUS.

 
At 1:39 PM, Blogger Ben said...

Ted Kennedy Praises Ford
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_361083227.html
Dec 27, 2006 8:29 am US/Eastern

Sen. Kennedy Praises Former President Ford

(CBS4) WASHINGTON -- Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said the late President Gerald Ford's "straightforward leadership" helped bring the nation through one of its "darkest hours."

Kennedy's comments came in a statement released early Wednesday morning in which he called Ford's life "a tribute to public service."

The former president died Tuesday at the age of 93.

Kennedy criticized Ford's 1974 decision to pardon Richard Nixon. But he eventually changed his view, years later calling the pardon "an extraordinary act of courage that historians recognize was truly in the national interest."

In 2001, the Kennedy family presented Ford with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

The award is presented annually to public servants who have withstood strong opposition to follow what they believe is the right course of action.

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_361083227.html
Dec 27, 2006 8:29 am US/Eastern <<<
<<<<<<<<<<

Not all historians agree that Ford was correct to pardon Nixon, but everybody should be able to agree that Ford knew he was harming himself politically, and he very possibly lost enough votes in 1976 to lose that election because of the pardon. That certainly qualifies as a "Profile in Courage".

 
At 4:27 PM, Blogger daryoush said...

Juan,

You said:

Many of us had been afraid Nixon would stage a military coup. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, I have been told by one interviewee then in government, shared that fear and ordered the senior officers to accept no command directly from Nixon unless they checked with Schlesinger first.

Well, someone did! As you pointed out:

...Although it is often pointed out that many officials in the George W. Bush administration got their start under Ford, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and (in a supporting role) Paul Wolfowitz, in fact these individuals went on to convert to Reaganism and to abandon the moderate Republican principles of Ford.

 
At 10:41 PM, Blogger InplainviewMonitor said...

On courage

The way courage was redefined in May 2001, shortly before 9-11, Ford's whitewash of Watergate was called courageous, he got a special medal for this. Not surprisingly, WFB appreciated the idea. One hardly needs stronger proof of how different was political climate in the 1970-ies when crookery was still called crookery.

 
At 5:40 PM, Blogger InplainviewMonitor said...

What the next Ford will do?

Keeping it simple stupid, Gerald Ford was the first US President to preside over the loss of a major war. Knowing that Rove's PR machine does not do anything without purpose, this provides reasonable explanation why Ford's funeral was so heavily overdone by the US MSM. The way it has been presented was quite helpful to mitigate the Iraqi problem.
Foreign policy-wise, Ford's administration is also remarkable for its detente policies and Helsinki agreements. For the neocons, that's clear case of appeasement, so they did their best to downplay this part of Ford's legacy. Stable long-term international legal frameworks of any kind - from the UN to Kyoto - is exactly what they wanted and still want to dispose or undermine at any cost.

Economy-wise, brief look through Ford's 1976 SOTU shows his belief in "small government" and tax cuts magic which is perfectly OK with the current state of the GOP ideology.

In the whole, Gerald "I am not Lincoln" Ford was a perfect example of a lame duck leadership which is exactly what makes him especially attractive for this administration which could not care less about finding real any solutions for anything starting from Iraq. Also, Ford's way of dealing with military defeat is especially interesting when compared with Gorbachev's treatment of Afghanistan as well as modern semantic games around war and peace.

What happens is that Ford (born in 1913) and his generation did not need to read Ambrose Bierce to tell the difference between a major war and a parade. For them, WW2 was just about 30 years away - like Vietnam is for us. So, for a lame duck type like Ford, the most natural way to deal with a complicated situation was to follow "not broken, don't fix" principle, avoid any sharp moves - and cover all this up by generic rhetoric of some sort. This is exactly how post-WW2 consensus building worked in real life.

After Ford left the political scene, the real live experience of WW2 was gone from major political decision making. It was replaced by the semantic manipulations: "prevent new Munchen", "why WW2 was so cruel?", "why not enough was done to save the Jews?", etc, etc.

On the Soviet side, the demise of Brezhnev (born in 1907) was followed by the introduction of Gorbachev's reforms which conveniently omitted the question of what is to be done about the lost war in Afghanistan. Even the lamest politician of the previous generation would never start the reforms without clear understanding of this issue, but for Gorbachev what we now call spin was everything, so he had no doubts whatsoever that simple redefinition of loss and victory is enough. The results are well known.
Now we have Iraq in place of Iraq and the neocons who combine the ineptness of Ford with Gorbachevian pointless reformism, but on hyper-rightist amphetamines. Backed by virtually unlimited resources, they are determined to outmaneuver the dems and blame them for the natural consequences of their follies. There is little doubt that they will avoid resolving the Iraqi problem, so the next President will find himself in Nixon/Ford's position.

Now the main question is, how the last helicopter dilemma be resolved in the coming years. One thing is for sure - it is in the best interests of the neocons to keep the real situation out of the scope of public attention for as long as possible, and they will do their best to keep it this way.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home