Dulles’ reply was ignored by the daily press,
and before the Internet that meant it almost didn’t happen. But Toward Freedom obtained a transcript
and printed it verbatim. Editor Bill Lloyd said it seemed like “the most eloquent testimony
in many months on the inadequacy of U.S. policy regarding North Africa.” The
headline read:
DULLES HUMOR SLIGHTS TUNISIA POLICY
Dulles had been asked to
“define a little more specifically for us” the US interest in the Tunisian
crisis, basically, "what US objectives are in dealing with this situation?”
TF continues online & in communities |
“We would like to see in
Indonesia a government which is constitutional and which reflects the real
interests and desire of the people of Indonesia,” Dulles began. He went on to say
that the Indonesian people would never want a Communist government, especially
since “most of them are Moslems,” and wouldn’t want a government that “maintains
itself only by coercive methods and does not respond to the will of the
people.”
Only then did someone in
the press corps suggest that perhaps Dulles had misunderstood the question,
since he was being asked about Tunisia “and you replied on the Indonesian. But could
I ask the question again, sir?”
Dulles replied, “Maybe the
same answer applies.” What followed was laughter.
Eventually, Dulles did add that the US hoped to minimize the impact of any incident in Algeria. Nothing
should deflect “the trend toward cooperation which we believe is in the
interest on all concerned.”
Lloyd proceeded to
deconstruct the answer. By failing to push for peace, he explained, US policy was really
encouraging "bitter-enders" and undermining any cooperation trend. He also took
aim at Dulles’ exaggeration of the communist threat, and said his so-called
joke raised questions about his judgment and the information he received.
Lloyd also pointed to the banning of unions and mentioned a controversial topic, the “French tactic
of encouraging communist penetration to destroy nationalism.” Then this:
“The communist label
which was so playfully tossed on to Tunisia by Secretary Dulles also looks
pretty foolish when one reflects that there are no communists whatever in the
Tunisian assembly but that slightly more than one-fourth of the Deputies in
Paris are communists.
“The danger of communism
is North Africa arises largely from the repressive French policy and our
support of it with gifts of guns and money.”
Among the lessons for
today is to stay alert for signs of the establishment’s favorite fallback
strategy – distracting the public with a dehumanized enemy – and how the
actions of other countries can create unexpected ripples.
Father & son, 1957 |
President Bourguiba hoped the UN
Security Council would take up the Algerian crisis. But many in his own
political party were skeptical, and called British and US help in Tunisia’s
negotiations with France an “Angle-Saxon smothering operation.” Bill Lloyd admitted
that Tunisia really had no one in her corner. After all, the French used US
NATO planes to bomb Sakiet and the State Department opted to ignore it.
But President Eisenhower
had changed his tune since 1955. In March 1956, he had promised to do
everything possible for a peaceful settlement in Algeria. The State Department
pretended not to get the memo. The “smothering operation” apparently meant
burying Bourguiba’s efforts to make the Algerian war part of any larger North
Africa discussions, and blocking any push for separate Algerian nationhood.
Lloyd reached a common
sense conclusion. Only the US was in a position to speak firmly with France
about the necessity of peace and independence for Algeria. Until then
leaders would just be addressing fringe issues – or, in the case of Dulles on
Tunisia - or Indonesia, make matters worse.
Global
Visions
By the end of the 1960s the non-aligned agenda, the movement Toward Freedom had pioneered in the US,
was a plank in the foreign policy platform of many new nations. Making an
editorial adjustment, the newsletter gradually shifted focus to the emerging impacts of
neo-colonialism, acknowledging the complex economic challenges of independence,
and promoting a role for non-aligned countries as peacemakers.
Lloyd also took up a new
fight – promoting satellite broadcasting as a tool for development and peace.
Clearly ahead of his time, he offered a radical vision that still resonates
almost half a century later. He wrote:
“World communication are as important to the future of world
society as the nervous system is to the human body….A new structure
commensurate with today’s technological advances is necessary,
institutionalizing the concept of reciprocity, in which each nation will be
given the opportunity to broadcast its music, drama, literature and views on
world affairs to the rest of the world.”
Imagine: a true global
exchange of cultures beyond the reach of commercial media, embracing interdependence
and proudly promoting diversity.
The 1970s began with
groundbreaking reports on the proclamation of a “cooperative republic” in
Guyana, emerging disaster in Cambodia, and Gulf Oil’s support for Portuguese
colonialists in Africa.
Where was the US media by this time? Still ignoring
most struggles for freedom around the world. And when they did pay attention
the coverage frequently reinforced stereotypes. TF continued to correct the record and fill in the gaps by drawing on a network of independent correspondents Lloyd had recruited. Maps
were frequently used to reveal geopolitical dynamics (still a good note for
media covering international news).
As editor, Bill Loyd focused primarily
on the UN’s role, non-alignment and Africa. He saw hope in countries likes
Tunisia, and advanced new proposals for mediation and peacemaking. In 1973, for
example, he called for “a nonviolent international volunteer corps” that could
help reduce violence and perform essential tasks in threatened regions. That
was a decade before the launch of Witness for Peace.
At the end of the '70s
Bill lobbied for world authority over the radio spectrum and the geostationary
orbit for satellites. Covering a month-long International Telecommunications
Union conference in Geneva, he peppered the leadership with questions and
ideas. Here's a taste of his thinking on the subject:
“Direct satellite broadcasting should be freed from the
straightjacket of observing national boundaries at the receiving end and put on
the basis of a world forum, with every national having its right to speak. The
need for a world forum of nations is clear. US policy over the past 25 years
has been seriously flawed by the pervasive ignorance on the part of the US
public of the aspirations and demands of the majority of humankind living in
the developing world.”
“As the late Adlai E. Stevenson said, ‘What America needs is a
good hearing aid!’ All other countries need good hearing aids, too, in order to
understand the real world of which they are only a part. Therefore, a forum by
direct satellite broadcast, in which each nation had equal time to present its
music, literature, and view on world affairs, would be a valuable supplement to
existing news and cultural exchange channels.”
* * *
On The Road Toward
Freedom: A Cold War Story, part six of six. Greg Guma edited Toward Freedom from 1986-88, and 1994-2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment