Daniel Orr's Blog, page 26

March 22, 1979 – Israel’s parliament approves the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, ending the two countries’ state of war

Following the Yom Kippur War (October 1973), on January 18,1974, Egypt and Israelsigned a Disengagement of Forces Agreement (also known as the Sinai IAgreement). The agreement established a buffer zone between Egyptian andIsraeli forces that was to be monitored by the United Nations Emergency Force(UNEF). Only a limited amount of armament and forces were permitted inside thebuffer zone.

On September 4, 1975, Egypt and Israel signed the Sinai Interim Agreement (also known as Sinai II Agreement), where both sides pledged that conflicts between them “shall not be resolved by military force but by peaceful means.” A further withdrawal was agreed and a wider UN buffer zone was created.

These agreements paved the way for the Camp David Accords (in Camp David, Maryland), which led to the signing of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty on March 26, 1979. This landmark peace treaty ended their state of war and normalized relations, and Egypt became the first Arab state to officially recognize Israel. On March 22, 1979, Israel’s parliament (Knesset) approved the peace treaty.

Diplomatic relations between them came into effect in January 1980, with an exchange of ambassadors the following month. Israel withdrew from the Sinai, which Egypt reoccupied and promised to leave demilitarized. Israeli ships were allowed free passage through the Suez Canal, and Egypt recognized the Strait of Tiran and Gulf of Aqaba was international waterways.

(Taken from Yom Kippur War – Wars of 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background With its decisive victory in the Six-Day War in June 1967, Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank from Jordan.  The Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights were integral territories of Egypt and Syria, respectively, and both countries were determined to take them back.  In September 1967, Egypt and Syria, together with other Arab countries, issued the Khartoum Declaration of the “Three No’s”, that is, no peace, recognition, and negotiations with Israel, which meant that only armed force would be used to win back the lost lands.

Shortly after the Six-Day War ended, Israel offered to return the Sinai Peninsula andGolan Heights in exchange for a peace agreement, but the plan apparently wasnot received by Egypt and Syria.  In October 1967, Israel withdrew the offer.

In the ensuing years after the Six-Day War, Egyptcarried out numerous small attacks against Israeli military and governmenttargets in the Sinai.  In what is nowknown as the “War of Attrition”, Egyptwas determined to exact a heavy economic and human toll and force Israelto withdraw from the Sinai.  By way ofretaliation, Israeli forces also launched attacks into Egypt.  Armed incidents also took place across Israel’s borders with Syria,Jordan, and Lebanon.  Then, as the United States, which backed Israel,and the Soviet Union, which supported the Arab countries, increasingly becameinvolved, the two superpowers prevailed upon Israeland Egyptto agree to a ceasefire in August 1970.

In September 1970, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s hard-line president, passedaway.  Succeeding as Egypt’s head of state was Vice-President AnwarSadat, who began a dramatic shift in foreign policy toward Israel.  Whereas the former regime was staunchlyhostile to Israel,President Sadat wanted a diplomatic solution to the Egyptian-Israeliconflict.  In secret meetings with U.S. government officials and a United Nations(UN) representative, President Sadat offered a proposal that in exchange for Israel’s return of the Sinai to Egypt, the Egyptian government would sign apeace treaty with Israeland recognize the Jewish state.

However, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Golda Meirrefused to negotiate.  President Sadat,therefore, decided to use military force. He knew, however, that his armed forces were incapable of dislodging theIsraelis from the Sinai.  He decided thatan Egyptian military victory on the battlefield, however limited, would compel Israelto see the need for negotiations.  Egyptbegan preparations for war.  Largeamounts of modern weapons were purchased from the Soviet Union.  Egypt restructured its large, butineffective, armed forces into a competent fighting force.

In order to conceal its war plans, Egypt carried out a number ofruses.  The Egyptian Army constantlyconducted military exercises along the western bank of the Suez Canal, which soon were taken lightly by the Israelis.  Egypt’s persistent war rhetoriceventually was regarded by the Israelis as mere bluff.  Through press releases, Egypt underreported the truestrength of its armed forces.  Thegovernment also announced maintenance and spare parts problems with its warequipment and the lack of trained personnel to operate sophisticated militaryhardware.  Furthermore, when PresidentSadat expelled 20,000 Soviet advisers from Egyptin July 1972, Israelbelieved that the Egyptian Army’s military capability was weakenedseriously.  In fact, thousands of Sovietpersonnel remained in Egyptand Soviet arms shipments continued to arrive. Egyptian military planners worked closely and secretly with their Syriancounterparts to devise a simultaneous two-front attack on Israel.  Consequently, Syria also secretly mobilized forwar.

Israel’sintelligence agencies learned many details of the invasion plan, even the dateof the attack itself, October 6.  Israel detected the movements of large numbersof Egyptian and Syrian troops, armor, and – in the Suez Canal– bridging equipment. On October 6, a few hours before Egyptand Syriaattacked, the Israeli government called for a mobilization of 120,000 soldiersand the entire Israeli Air Force. However, many top Israeli officials continued to believe that Egypt and Syria were incapable of starting awar and that the military movements were just another army exercise.  Israeli officials decided against carryingout a pre-emptive air strike (as Israel had done in the Six-Day War)to avoid being seen as the aggressor.  Egypt and Syria chose to attack on Yom Kippur(which fell on October 6 in 1973), the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, whenmost Israeli soldiers were on leave.

March 21, 1975 – Ethiopian Civil War: The 3,000-year old Ethiopian monarchy is abolished

On September 12, 1974, military officers belonging to theDerg organization overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia in abloodless coup, leading away the frail, 82-year old ex-monarch to imprisonment.

The Derg gained control of Ethiopia but did not abolish themonarchy outright, and announced that Crown Prince Asfa Wossen, HaileSelassie’s son who was currently abroad for medical treatment, was to succeedto the throne as the new “king” on his return to the country.  However, Prince Wossen rejected the offer andremained abroad.  The Derg then withdrewits offer and in March 1975, abolished the monarchy altogether, thus ending the3,000 year-old Ethiopian Empire.  (OnAugust 27, 1975, or nearly one year after his arrest, Haile Selassie passedaway under mysterious circumstances, with Derg stating that complications froma medical procedure had caused his death, while critics alleging that theex-monarch was murdered.)

Ethiopia and nearby countries.

(Taken from Ethiopian Civil War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

The surreptitious means by which Derg, in a period of sixmonths, gained power by progressively dismantling the Ethiopian Empire andultimately deposing Haile Selassie, sometimes is referred to as the “creepingcoup” in contrast with most coups, which are sudden and swift.  On September 15, 1974, Derg formally tookcontrol of the government and renamed itself as the Provisional MilitaryAdministrative Council (although it would continue to be commonly known asDerg), a ruling military junta under General Aman Andom, a non-member Derg whomthe Derg appointed as its Chairman; General Aman thereby also assumed the roleof Ethiopia’s head of state.

At the outset, Derg had its political leanings embodied inits slogans “Ethiopia First” (i.e. nationalism) and “Democracy and Equality toall”.  Soon, however, it abolished theEthiopian parliament, suspended the constitution, and ruled by decree.  In early 1975, Derg launched a series ofbroad reforms that swept away the old conservative order and began thecountry’s transition to socialism.  InJanuary-February 1975, nearly all industries were nationalized.  In March, an agrarian reform programnationalized all farmlands (including those owned by the country’s largestlandowner, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church), reduced farm sizes, and abolishedtenancy farming.  Collectivizedagriculture was introduced and farmers were organized into peasantorganizations.  (Land reform was fiercelyresisted in such provinces as Gojjam, Wollo, and Tigray, where most farmersowned their lands and tenant farming was not widely practiced.)  In July 1975, all urban lands, houses, andbuildings were nationalized and city residents were organized into urbandwellers’ associations, known as “kebeles”, which would play a major role inthe coming civil war.  Despite theextensive nationalization, a few private sector industries that were consideredvital to the economy were left untouched, e.g. the retail and wholesale trade,and import and export industries.

In April 1976, Derg published the “Program for the NationalDemocratic Revolution”, which outlined the regime’s objectives of transformingEthiopia into a socialist state, with powers vested in the peasants, workers,petite bourgeoisie, and anti-feudal and anti-monarchic sectors.  An agency called the “Provisional Office forMass Organization Affairs” was established to work out the transformativeprocess toward socialism.

Ethiopian Civil War Thepolitical instability and power struggles that followed the Derg’s coming topower, the escalation of pre-existing separatist and Marxist insurgencies (aswell as the formation of new rebel movements), and the intervention of foreignplayers, notably Somalia as well as Cold War rivals, the Soviet Union andUnited States, all contributed to the multi-party, multi-faceted conflict knownas the Ethiopian Civil War.

The Derg government underwent power struggles during itsfirst years in office.  General Aman, thenon-Derg who had been named to head the government, immediately came intoconflict with Derg on three major policy issues: First, he wanted to reduce thesize of the 120-member Derg; Second, as an ethnic Eritrean, he was opposed tothe Derg’s use of force against the Eritrean insurgency; and Third, he opposedDerg’s plan to execute the imprisoned civilian and military officialsassociated with the former regime.  InNovember 1974, Derg leveled charges against General Aman and issued a warrantfor his arrest.  On November 23, 1974,General Aman was killed in a gunfight with government security personnel whohad been sent to arrest him.

Later that same day, in the event known alternatively as the“Massacre of the Sixty” or “Black Saturday”, Derg security units gathered agroup of imprisoned high-ranking ex-government and ex-military officials andexecuted them at the Kerchele Prison in Addis Ababa.  TheDerg’s stated reasons for the executions were that these officials had made“repeated plots … that might engulf the country into a bloodbath”, as well as“maladministration, hindering fair administration of justice, selling secretdocuments of the country to foreign agents and attempting to disrupt thepresent Ethiopian popular movement”. Among those executed included Haile Selassie’s grandson, other membersof the Ethiopian nobility, two ex-Prime Ministers, and seventeen army generals.

In late November 1974, Derg appointed General Tarafi Benti,also a non-Derg, to succeed as Derg Chairman and thus also became Ethiopia’s headof state.  At this time, Major Mengistu,Derg’s first vice-chairman, made attempts to expand his power base, which werecountered by rival Derg factions allied with General Benti.  For a time, the Benti faction appeared tohave gained the upper hand, relegating Mengistu’s supporters outside keygovernment posts.  However, in a decisivearmed confrontation that took place between the two factions in early February1977, General Benti was killed, along with some of his supporters, and MajorMengistu emerged as the undisputed leader of Derg.  Mengistu became Derg Chairman and the head ofgovernment; thereafter, his authority would not be challenged and he would rulewith dictatorial powers.  In November1977, the last remaining threat to Mengistu’s authority was eliminated whenMajor Atnafu, Derg’s vice-chairman, was executed.

Early on after Derg come to power, a number ofMarxist-Leninist groups, the two most prominent being the Ethiopian People’sRevolutionary Party (EPRP) and All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (MEISON),competed for influence in Derg for the role of “vanguard party” which wouldprovide direction for the country’s transition to socialism.  EPRP opposed Derg’s military control and soonrailed at the government for not carrying out a genuine “people’s revolution”along traditional Marxist lines; this criticism infuriated the Derg government.  MEISON, however, was agreeable to a gradualtransitional period under a military regime, a position that found favor withDerg.  Thereafter, Derg established aworking relationship with MEISON and appointed a number of MEISON party membersto government positions.

Armed conflict soon broke out between Derg and MEISON on theone hand, and EPRP on the other hand. Starting in February 1977, in what the Derg regime called “WhiteTerror”, EPRP militants assassinated Derg officials and MEISON members, and sabotagedgovernment infrastructures.  The Derggovernment responded with its own, and much more brutal, campaign of violenceagainst the EPRP called “Red Terror”. Local “kebeles” (urban residential associations) served as thegovernment’s eyes and ears; suspected state enemies were arrested, tortured,and executed by government-sanctioned local “kebeles” death squads.

By December 1978, the government’s sustained repression hadkilled or imprisoned thousands of EPRP militants and supporters and had forcedthe EPRP to leave the cities and transfer to AgamaProvince in northern Ethiopia whereit reorganized as a rural guerilla militia. The Derg regime soon also came to distrust MEISON, its political mentor,as it saw the latter’s increasing autonomy as a potential threat.  In mid-1977, the government launched acampaign to eliminate MEISON, arresting and executing the group’s members andpurging MEISON officials from government positions.  In total, the Red Terror may have caused upto 250,000 – 500,000 deaths.

With the EPRP and MEISON eliminated by 1978, Derg merged anumber of smaller socialist groups into the “Union of EthiopianMarxist-Leninist Organization”, which became the new “vanguard party” tosucceed MEISON under strict government oversight.  Thereafter, Derg’s transitional process tosocialism met little internal opposition.

The country’s militarization alienated many of therevolution’s early supporters, including teachers, students, and workers, whilemany officials of the previous regime who had not yet been arrested fled intoexile abroad.  Meanwhile, the regionalethnic insurgencies increased in magnitude under the Derg government.  In Eritrea, the Eritrean People’s LiberationFront (EPLF) had succeeded the ELF has the leading separatist movement, whilein Tigray province, many armed groups also had organized, foremost of which wasthe Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), whose (initial) goal wassecession of Tigray from Ethiopia.  Boththe Eritrean and Tigrayan insurgencies achieved considerable success,ultimately seizing control of some 90% of Eritrea and Tigray, respectively,mainly in rural and hinterland areas (government troops retained control of themajor urban centers), and turning back repeated Ethiopian Army offensives.

March 20, 1951 – Korean War: General MacArthur is told that the United States would first offer peace to China and North Korea before allowing UN forces to cross the 38th parallel into North Korea

On March 20, 1951, General Douglas MacArthur received acommunication from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff stating that the U.S. government was ready to offer peace talkswith China and North Korea, before President Truman would allowUN forces to cross the 38th parallel into North Korea.  Instead, on March 24, General MacArthurannounced an ultimatum, demanding that Chinawithdraw its troops or face the consequences of UN forces advancing into North Korea.  In early April 1951, with General MacArthur’sapproval, UN forces crossed the 38th parallel, and by April 10, had advancedsome 10 miles north to a new line designated the “Kansas Line”.

On April 11, 1951, in a nationwide broadcast, PresidentTruman relieved General MacArthur of his command in Korea, stating that acrucial objective of U.S. government policy in the Korean conflict was to avoidan escalation of hostilities which potentially could trigger World War III, andthat “a number of events have made it evident that General MacArthur did notagree with that policy.”  GeneralMacArthur had openly advocated an escalation of the war, including directlyattacking China, involvingforces from Nationalist China (Taiwan),and using nuclear weapons.

General Ridgway, Eighth U.S. Army commander, was named tosucceed as Supreme UN and U.S. Commander in Korea.  Unlike his predecessor who desired nothingshort of total victory, General Ridgway favored a limited war and accepted adivided Korea,and thus worked closely with the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Trumanadministration.

East Asia.

(Excerpts taken from Korean War – Wars of the 20th Century: Volume 5 – Twenty Wars in Asia)

Background During World War II, the Allied Powers met many times to decide the disposition of Japanese territorial holdings after the Allies had achieved victory.  With regards to Korea, at the Cairo Conference held in November 1943, the United States, Britain, and Nationalist China agreed that “in due course, Korea shall become free and independent”.  Then at the Yalta Conference of February 1945, the Soviet Union promised to enter the war in the Asia-Pacific in two or three months after the European theater of World War II ended.

Then with the Soviet Army invading northern Korea on August 9, 1945, the United States became concerned that the SovietUnion might well occupy the whole Korean Peninsula.  The U.S.government, acting on a hastily prepared U.S.military plan to divide Koreaat the 38th parallel, presented the proposal to the Soviet government, whichthe latter accepted.

The Soviet Army continued moving south and stopped at the38th parallel on August 16, 1945.  U.S. forces soon arrived in southern Koreaand advanced north, reaching the 38th parallel on September 8, 1945.  Then in official ceremonies, the U.S.and Soviet commands formally accepted the Japanese surrender in theirrespective zones of occupation. Thereafter, the American and Soviet commandsestablished military rule in their occupation zones.

As both the U.S. and Soviet governments wanted to reunifyKorea, in a conference in Moscow in December 1945, the Allied Powers agreed toform a four-power (United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and Nationalist China)five-year trusteeship over Korea.  Duringthe five-year period, a U.S.-Soviet Joint Commission would work out the processof forming a Korean government.  Butafter a series of meetings in 1946-1947, the Joint Commission failed to achieveanything.  In September 1947, the U.S.government referred the Korean question to the United Nations (UN).  The reasons for the U.S.-Soviet Joint Commission’sfailure to agree to a mutually acceptable Korean government are three-fold andto some extent all interrelated: intense opposition by Koreans to the proposedU.S.-Soviet trusteeship; the struggle for power among the variousideology-based political factions; and most important, the emerging Cold Warconfrontation between the United Statesand the Soviet Union.

Historically, Koreafor many centuries had been a politically and ethnically integrated state,although its independence often was interrupted by the invasions by itspowerful neighbors, Chinaand Japan.  Because of this protracted independence, inthe immediate post-World War II period, Koreans aspired for self-rule, andviewed the Allied trusteeship plan as an insult to their capacity to run theirown affairs.  However, at the same time, Korea’spolitical climate was anarchic, as different ideological persuasions, fromright-wing, left-wing, communist, and near-center political groups, clashedwith each other for political power.  Asa result of Japan’sannexation of Koreain 1910, many Korean nationalist resistance groups had emerged.  Among these nationalist groups were theunrecognized “Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea”led by pro-West, U.S.-based Syngman Rhee; and a communist-allied anti-Japanesepartisan militia led by Kim Il-sung. Both men would play major roles in the Korean War.  At the same time, tens of thousands ofKoreans took part in the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) and the ChineseCivil War, joining and fighting either for Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalistforces, or for Mao Zedong’s Chinese Red Army.

The Korean anti-Japanese resistance movement, which operatedmainly out of Manchuria, was divided alongideological lines.  Some groups advocatedWestern-style capitalist democracy, while others espoused Sovietcommunism.  However, all were stronglyanti-Japanese, and launched attacks on Japanese forces in Manchuria,China, and Korea.

On their arrival in the southern Korean zone in September1948, U.S.forces imposed direct rule through the United States Army Military GovernmentIn Korea (USAMGIK).  Earlier, members ofthe Korean Communist Party in Seoul(the southern capital) had sought to fill the power vacuum left by the defeatedJapanese forces, and set up “local people’s committees” throughout the Koreanpeninsula.  Then two days before U.S.forces arrived, Korean communists of the “Central People’s Committee”proclaimed the “Korean People’s Republic”.

In October 1945, under the auspices of a U.S. military agent, Syngman Rhee, the formerpresident of the “Provisional Government of the Republicof Korea” arrived in Seoul. The USAMGIK refused to recognize the communist Korean People’s Republic,as well as the pro-West “Provisional Government”.  Instead, U.S. authorities wanted to form apolitical coalition of moderate rightist and leftist elements.  Thus, in December 1946, under U.S.sponsorship, moderate and right-wing politicians formed the South KoreanInterim Legislative Assembly.  However,this quasi-legislative body was opposed by the communists and other left-wingand right-wing groups.

In the wake of the U.S. authorities’ breaking up thecommunists’ “people’s committees” violence broke out in the southern zoneduring the last months of 1946.  Calledthe Autumn Uprising, the unrest was carried out by left-aligned workers,farmers, and students, leading to many deaths through killings, violentconfrontations, strikes, etc.  Althoughin many cases, the violence resulted from non-political motives (such astargeting Japanese collaborators or settling old scores), American authoritiesbelieved that the unrest was part of a communist plot.  They therefore declared martial law in thesouthern zone.  Following the U.S.military’s crackdown on leftist activities, the communist militants went intohiding and launched an armed insurgency in the southern zone, which would playa role in the coming war.

Meanwhile in the northern zone, Soviet commanders initiallyworked to form a local administration under a coalition of nationalists,Marxists, and even Christian politicians. But in October 1945, Kim Il-sung, the Korean resistance leader who alsowas a Soviet Red Army officer, quickly became favored by Soviet authorities.  In February 1946, the “Interim People’sCommittee”, a transitional centralized government, was formed and led by KimIl-sung who soon consolidated power (sidelining the nationalists and Christianleaders), and nationalized industries, and launched centrally planned economicand reconstruction programs based on the Soviet-model emphasizing heavyindustry.

By 1947, the Cold War had begun: the Soviet Union tightenedits hold on the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, and the United Statesannounced a new foreign policy, the Truman Doctrine, aimed at stopping thespread of communism.  The United States also implemented the MarshallPlan, an aid program for Europe’s post-World War II reconstruction, which wascondemned by the Soviet Union as an American anti-communist plot aimed atdividing Europe.  As a result, Europebecame divided into the capitalist West and socialist East.

Reflecting these developments, in Koreaby mid-1945, the United States became resigned to the likelihoodthat the temporary military partition of the Korean peninsula at the 38thparallel would become a permanent division along ideological grounds.  In September 1947, with U.S. Congressrejecting a proposed aid package to Korea,the U.S.government turned over the Korean issue to the UN.  In November 1947, the United Nations GeneralAssembly (UNGA) affirmed Korea’ssovereignty and called for elections throughout the Korean peninsula, which wasto be overseen by a newly formed body, the United Nations Temporary Commissionon Korea (UNTCOK).

However, the Soviet government rejected the UNGA resolution,stating that the UN had no jurisdiction over the Korean issue, and preventedUNTCOK representatives from entering the Soviet-controlled northern zone.  As a result, in May 1948, elections were heldonly in the American-controlled southern zone, which even so, experiencedwidespread violence that caused some 600 deaths.  Elected was the Korean National Assembly, alegislative body.  Two months later (inJuly 1948), the Korean National Assembly ratified a new national constitutionwhich established a presidential form of government.  Syngman Rhee, whose party won the most numberof legislative seats, was proclaimed as (the first) president.  Then on August 15, 1948, southernersproclaimed the birth of the Republicof Korea (soon more commonly known as South Korea), ostensibly with the state’ssovereignty covering the whole Korean Peninsula.

A consequence of the South Korean elections was thedisplacement of the political moderates, because of their opposition to boththe elections and the division of Korea.  By contrast, the hard-line anti-communistSyngman Rhee was willing to allow the (temporary) partition of thepeninsula.  Subsequently, the United Statesmoved to support the Rhee regime, turning its back on the political moderateswhom USAMGIK had backed initially.

Meanwhile in the Soviet-controlled northern zone, on August25, 1948, parliamentary elections were held to the Supreme NationalAssembly.  Two weeks later (on September9, 1948), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (soon more commonly knownas North Korea) was proclaimed, with Kim Il-Sung as (its first) PrimeMinister.  As with South Korea, North Korea declared itssovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula

The formation of two opposing rival states in Korea,each determined to be the sole authority, now set the stage for the comingwar.  In December 1948, acting on areport by UNTCOK, the UN declared that the Republicof Korea (South Korea) was the legitimate Korean polity, a decision thatwas rejected by both the Soviet Union and North Korea.  Also in December 1948, the Soviet Unionwithdrew its forces from North Korea. In June 1949, the United Stateswithdrew its forces from South Korea. However, Soviet and American military advisors remained, in the Northand South, respectively.

In March 1949, on a visit to Moscow,Kim Il-sung asked Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader, for military assistance fora North Korean planned invasion of South Korea.  Kim Il-sung explained that an invasion wouldbe successful, since most South Koreans opposed the Rhee regime, and that thecommunist insurgency in the south had sufficiently weakened the South Koreanmilitary.  Stalin did not give hisconsent, as the Soviet government currently was pressed by other Cold Warevents in Europe.

However, by early 1950, the Cold War situation had beenaltered dramatically.  In September 1949,the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb, ending the United States’ monopoly on nuclearweapons.  In October 1949, Chinesecommunists, led by Mao Zedong, defeated the West-aligned Nationalist governmentof Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War, and proclaimed the People’sRepublic of China, a socialist state. Then in 1950, Vietnamese communists (called Viet Minh) turned the First IndochinaWar from an anti-colonial war against Franceinto a Cold War conflict involving the Soviet Union, China,and the United States.  In February 1950, the Soviet Union and China signed the Sino-Soviet Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance Treaty, where the Sovietgovernment would provide military and financial aid to China.

Furthermore, the Soviet government, long wanting to gaugeAmerican strategic designs in Asia, was encouraged by two recent developments:First, the U.S. government did not intervene in the Chinese Civil War; and second,in January 1949, the United States announced that South Korea was not part ofthe U.S. “defensive perimeter” in Asia, and U.S. Congress rejected an aidpackage to South Korea.  To Stalin, the United Stateswas resigned to the whole northeast Asian mainland falling to communism.

In April 1950, the Soviet Union approved North Korea’s planto invade South Korea, but subject to two crucial conditions: Soviet forceswould not be involved in the fighting, and China’s People’s Liberation Army(PLA, i.e. the Chinese armed forces) must agree to intervene in the war ifnecessary.  In May 1950, in a meetingbetween Kim Il-sung and Mao Zedong, the Chinese leader expressed concern thatthe United States mightintervene if the North Koreans attacked South Korea.  In the end, Mao agreed to send Chinese forcesif North Koreawas invaded.  North Korea then hastened itsinvasion plan.

The North Korean armed forces (officially: the KoreanPeople’s Army), having been organized into its present form concurrent with therise of Kim Il-sung, had grown in strength with large Soviet support.  And in 1949-1950, with Kim Il-sungemphasizing a massive military buildup, by the eve of the invasion, NorthKorean forces boasted some 150,000–200,000 soldiers, 280 tanks, 200 artillerypieces, and 200 planes.

By contrast, the South Korean military (officially: Republic of Korea Armed Forces), which consistedlargely of police units, was unprepared for war.  The United States, not wanting a Korean war, held back fromdelivering weapons to South Korea,particularly since President Rhee had declared his intention to invade North Koreain order to reunify the peninsula.  Bythe time of the North Korean invasion, South Korean weapons, which the United Stateshad limited to defensive strength, proved grossly inadequate.  South Korea had 100,000 soldiers(of whom only 65,000 were combat troops); it also had no tanks and possessedonly small-caliber artillery pieces and an assortment of liaison and traineraircraft.

North Koreahad envisioned its invasion as a concentration of forces along the Ongjin Peninsula.  North Korean forces would make a swiftassault on Seoulto surround and destroy the South Korean forces there.  Rhee’s government then would collapse,leading to the fall of South Korea. Then on June 21, 1950, four days before the scheduled invasion, KimIl-sung believed that South Korea had become aware of the invasion planand had fortified its defenses.  Herevised his plan for an offensive all across the 38th parallel.  In the months preceding the war, numerousborder skirmishes had begun breaking out between the two sides.

March 19, 1982 – Falklands War: Argentinean workers raise their national flag in South Georgia Island

By March 1982, the Argentinean military had completed itsinvasion plan.  Occasionally, Argentineanofficials made hinted references to the invasion, which apparently wereoverlooked by the British government.

The invasion plan called for Argentine forces first seizing South Georgia Island,located northwest of the South Sandwich Islands.  On March 19, 1982, Argentinean contractworkers in South Georgia Island raised theArgentine flag.  On April 3, fightingbroke out between the Argentinean invasion force and the small British garrisondefending the island.  The Britishinflicted some material damage to the invaders, but were overwhelmed and forcedto surrender.  South Georgia Islandthen came under Argentinean control.

The invasion of the Falklands began on April 2, 1982, with100 Argentinean commandos landing at Port Stanley,the capital, ahead of the main force of 2,000 soldiers who later were landedamphibiously.  After some skirmishes, theisland’s British garrison of 60 soldiers surrendered, and the Falklandscame under Argentine control.

In 1982, Argentina and Britain went to war for possession of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

(Taken from Falklands War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background Inearly 1982, Argentina’sruling military junta, led by General Leopoldo Galtieri, was facing a crisis ofconfidence.  Government corruption, humanrights violations, and an economic recession had turned initial public supportfor the country’s military regime into widespread opposition.  The pro-U.S. junta had come to power througha coup in 1976, and had crushed a leftist insurgency in the “Dirty War” byusing conventional warfare, as well as “dirty” methods, including summaryexecutions and forced disappearances.  Asreports of military atrocities became known, the international communityexerted pressure on General Galtieri to implement reforms.

In its desire to regain the Argentinean people’s moralsupport and to continue in power, the military government conceived of a planto invade the Falkland Islands, a Britishterritory located about 700 kilometers east of the Argentine mainland.  Argentinahad a long-standing historical claim to the Falklands,which generated nationalistic sentiment among Argentineans.  The Argentine government was determined toexploit that sentiment.  Furthermore,after weighing its chances for success, the junta concluded that the Britishgovernment would not likely take action to protect the Falklands, as theislands were small, barren, and too distant, being located three-quarters downthe globe from Britain.

The Argentineans’ reasoning was not without merit.  Britainunder current Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was experiencing an economicrecession, and in 1981, had made military cutbacks that would have seen thewithdrawal from the Falklands of the HMS Endurance, an ice patrol vessel andthe British Navy’s only permanent ship in the southern Atlantic Ocean.  Furthermore, Britain had not resisted when in 1976,Argentinean forces occupied the uninhabited Southern Thule, a group of smallislands that forms a part of the British-owned South Sandwich Archipelago,located 1,500 kilometers east of the Falkland Islands.

In the sixteenth century, the Falkland Islands first came to European attention when they were signed byPortuguese ships.  For three and a halfcenturies thereafter, the islands became settled and controlled at varioustimes by France, Spain, Britain,the United States, and Argentina.  In 1833, Britaingained uninterrupted control of the islands, establishing a permanent presencethere with settlers coming mainly from Walesand Scotland.

In 1816, Argentinagained its independence and, advancing its claim to being the successor stateof the former Spanish Argentinean colony that had included “Islas Malvinas” (Argentina’s name for the Falkland Islands), theArgentinean government declared that the islands were part of Argentina’sterritory.  Argentinaalso challenged Britain’saccount of the events of 1833, stating that the British Navy gained control ofthe islands by expelling the Argentinean civilian authority and residentsalready present in the Falklands.  Over time, Argentineans perceived the Britishcontrol of the Falklands as a misplacedvestige of the colonial past, producing successive generations of Argentineansinstilled with anti-imperialist sentiments. For much of the twentieth century, however, Britainand Argentina maintained anormal, even a healthy, relationship, although the Falklandsissue remained a thorn on both sides.

After World War II, Britain pursued a policy of decolonization thatsaw it end colonial rule in its vast territories in Asia and Africa,and the emergence of many new countries in their places.  With regards to the Falklands, under UnitedNations (UN) encouragement, Britainand Argentinamet a number of times to decide the future of the islands.  Nothing substantial emerged on the issue ofsovereignty, but the two sides agreed on a number of commercial ventures,including establishing air and sea links between the islands and theArgentinean mainland, and for Argentinean power firms to supply energy to the islands.  Subsequently, Falklanders (Falklandresidents) made it known to Britainthat they wished to remain under British rule. As a result, Britainreversed its policy of decolonization in the Falklandsand promised to respect the wishes of the Falklanders.

March 18, 1962 – Algerian War of Independence: France and Algerian revolutionaries sign the Évian Accords

In May 1961, the French government and the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic (GPRA; French: Gouvernement Provisionel de la République Algérienne) held peace talks in Évian, France, which proved contentious and difficult.  But on March 18, 1962, the two sides signed an agreement called the Évian Accords, which included a ceasefire (that came into effect the following day) and a release of war prisoners; the agreement’s major stipulations were: French recognition of a sovereign Algeria; independent Algeria’s guaranteeing the protection of the pied-noir community; and Algeria allowing French military bases to continue in its territory, as well as establishing privileged Algerian-French economic and trade relations, particularly in the development of Algeria’s nascent oil industry. Pied-Noirs were Algeria-born people of French and other European origin.

In a referendum held in France on April 8, 1962, over 90% ofthe French people approved of the Évian Accords; the same referendum held inAlgeria on July 1, 1962 resulted in nearly six million voting in favor of theagreement while only 16,000 opposed it (by this time, most of the one millionpieds-noirs had or were in the process of leaving Algeria or simply recognizedthe futility of their lost cause, thus the extraordinarily low number of “no”votes).

Map showing location of Algeria in North Africa.

(Taken from Algerian War of Independence – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Background Thefirst half of the twentieth century saw the rise of Algerian nationalism led byindigenous socio-political movements. Among these were the Algerian Communist Party, religious-basedAssociation of Algerian Muslim Clerics, and the successive organizations led byFerhat Abbas and Ahmed Messali Hadj, two nationalists who played major roles inthe early independence struggles as well as in the forthcoming war ofindependence.

At the global stage, a number of events helped to spur thegrowth of nationalism in colonial territories worldwide.  United States President Woodrow Wilson’s“Fourteen Points” speech to U.S. Congress, which became the basis for peacethat ended World War I, contained a stipulation (point 5) onself-determination, i.e. “free, open-minded, and absolutely impartialadjustment of all colonial claims…in determining all such questions ofsovereignty, the interests of the population concerned must have equalweight…”  Then in the midst of World WarII, the so-called “Atlantic Charter” issued by U.S. President Franklin D.Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill stipulated that “all people havea right to self-determination.”

Furthermore, World War II politically weakened the Frenchcolonial empire, particularly France’s humiliating defeat to Germany and thedestabilized political structure that emerged, with two rival regimes, VichyFrance (under Marshall Philippe Pétain) and Free France (under General Charlesde Gaulle), both vying for political legitimacy.  The early Algerian nationalist movements usedpeaceful means to achieve their goals, participated in the electoral process,and for the most part, did not seek outright independence but worked to achievepolitical autonomy within the French system, greater representation, or morerecognition of indigenous religious, cultural, and social rights.  For instance, in March 1943, Algeriannationalists led by Abbas, presented France with the “Manifesto of theAlgerian People”, which called for greater Algerian Muslim political participationand equality of indigenous peoples under the law.

Radicalization of Algerian nationalists occurred after WorldWar II when French authorities, who had promised to take up Algeria’s self-determination in exchange for theAlgerian Muslims’ support for Franceduring the world war, reneged on their word and were determined to hold onto Algeria.  Algerian nationalists were greatlydisappointed, as thousands of Algerians had fought for France in bothworld wars.

On May 8, 1945, the day World War II ended in Europe, likemany other locations around the world, Algeriacelebrated Germany’ssurrender to the Allied Powers.  But incelebrations in Sétif, a town located 300 kilometers west of Algiers, commotion broke out when policeauthorities violently dispersed a crowd that was celebrating the Allied victorytogether with calls for Algerian independence. For three days thereafter, a full-scale uprising (which involved some50,000 Algerians) took place that engulfed much of the territory, as armedbands roamed the countryside attacking European civilians, homes, and farms,and destroying government buildings and public infrastructures.  French reprisal was vicious, with the Frenchmilitary using land, air, and sea counter-measures that, by June 1945, had decisivelystamped out the rebellion.  Thisincident, which was felt greatest at Sétif and Guelma and for which the eventderives its name, the “Sétif and Guelma Massacres”, caused over 100 Europeanskilled and between 15,000 and 20,000 to as high as 45,000 Algerian Muslimskilled.

As a result of these massacres as well as the post-World WarII rise of nationalism among colonized peoples worldwide, Algerian nationalistsbecame increasingly radicalized in their efforts to achieveself-determination.  In 1946, theDemocratic Union of the Algerian Manifesto (UDMA; French: Union Démocratique duManifeste Algérien), recently formed by Abbas, called on France to end the “department” status of Algeria andgrant political autonomy to the territory. Also that year, the Movement for the Triumph of Democratic Liberties(MTLD; French: Mouvement pour le Triomphe des Libertés Démocratiques), led byHadj, demanded France togrant outright independence to Algeria.  These movements were deemed moderate as theysought to achieve their objectives through peaceful, democratic means.

The Special Organisation (OS; French: OrganisationSpéciale), however, which was a radical arm of the MTLD, was organized as aparamilitary that sought to achieve independence through armed rebellion; aswith the other nationalist groups at that time, the OS disbanded withoutachieving its aims.  Former elements ofthe OS and MTLD reorganized as the Revolutionary Committee of Unity and Action(CRUA; French: Comité Révolutionnaire d’Unité et d’Action) that had similarrevolutionary aspirations; after more changes, on October 14, 1954, CRUAmorphed into the National Liberation Front (FLN; French: Front de LibérationNationale).  The FLN set November 1, 1954as the start of the uprising which, unbeknown at that time, was the start ofthe eight-year Algerian War of Independence.

Early in the war, other Algerian nationalist groups wereassimilated by the FLN in a common struggle to end French rule.  Another independence organization, theAlgerian National Movement (MNA; French: Mouvement National Algérien), led byNajh, also fought a revolutionary war separate from the FLN, generating arivalry between the FLN and MNA for legitimacy and post-war supremacy.  Armed confrontations between these two groupstook place in Algeria,as well as France, which in the latter, the rivalry produced the so-called“Café Wars”, where each side carried out mafia-style shootings, disappearances,abductions, and bombings against the other side; some 5,000 people were killedin the Café Wars.  In the end, the FLNprevailed and the war essentially was fought between the FLN, particularly itsparamilitary wing called the National Liberation Army (ALN; French: Armée deLibération Nationale), which sought to end French rule and gain Algerianindependence; and France, which sought to suppress the insurgents’ separatistobjectives.

March 17, 1988 – Eritrean War of Independence: The start of the Battle of Afabet between Eritrean revolutionaries and Ethiopian Army units

For Ethiopia’sDerg regime, the end of Soviet support augured not only at the loss of Eritrea butmore ominously, the end of its own existence. On March 17, 1988, Eritrean revolutionaries of the Eritrean People’sLiberation Front (EPLF), anticipating a major Ethiopian offensive, struck firstat Afabet, this pre-emptive attack dealing the Ethiopian Army a crushing defeatwith 18,000 Ethiopian soldiers killed, wounded or captured; Ethiopia also lostsome of its best-trained units.  The EPLFalso seized large stockpiles of weapons and ammunitions.  By then, the rebels possessed tanks, armoredcarriers, and armed speedboats, and had advanced from guerilla warfare toopenly fighting in pitched battles.

Ethiopia, Eritrea, and nearby countries.

(Taken from Eritrean War of Independence – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Background InSeptember 1948, a special body called the Inquiry Commission, which was set upby the Allied Powers (Britain,France, Soviet Union, and United States),failed to establish a future course for Eritrea and referred the matter tothe United Nations (UN). The main obstacle to granting Eritrea its independence was that for much ofits history, Eritreawas not a single political sovereign entity but had been a part of andsubordinate to a greater colonial power, and as such, was deemed incapable ofsurviving on its own as a fully independent state. Furthermore, variouscountries put forth competing claims to Eritrea. Italywanted Eritrea returned, tobe governed for a pre-set period until the territory’s independence, anarrangement that was similar to that of Italian Somaliland.The Arab countries of the Middle East pressed for self-determination of Eritrea’s large Muslim population, and as such,called for Eritreato be granted its independence. Britain,as the current administrative power, wanted to partition Eritrea, with the Christian-population regionsto be incorporated into Ethiopiaand the Muslim regions to be assimilated into Sudan. Emperor Haile Selassie, theEthiopian monarch, also claimed ownership of Eritrea, citing historical andcultural ties, as well as the need for Ethiopia to have access to the seathrough the Red Sea (Ethiopia had been landlocked after Italy establishedEritrea).

Ultimately, the United Statesinfluenced the future course for Eritrea. The U.S. government saw Eritreain the regional balance of power in Cold War politics: an independent but weak Eritrea could potentially fall to communist(Soviet) domination, which would destabilize the vital oil-rich Middle East. Unbeknown to the general public at the time,a U.S. diplomatic cable fromEthiopia to the U.S. StateDepartment in August 1949 stated that British officials in Eritrea believed that as much as75% of the local population desired independence.

In February 1950, a UN commission sent to Eritrea to determine the localpeople’s political aspirations submitted its findings to the United NationsGeneral Assembly (UNGA). In December 1950, the UNGA, which was stronglyinfluenced by U.S. wishes,released Resolution 390A (V) that called for establishing a loose federationbetween Ethiopia and Eritrea to be facilitated by Britain and to be realized no laterthan September 15, 1952. The UN plan, which subsequently was implemented,allowed Eritreabroad autonomy in controlling its internal affairs, including localadministrative, police, and fiscal and taxation functions. TheEthiopian-Eritrean Federation would affirm the sovereignty of the Ethiopianmonarch whose government would exert jurisdiction over Eritrea’s foreign affairs, includingmilitary defense, national finance, and transportation.

In March 1952, under British initiative, Eritrea elected a 68-seatRepresentative Assembly, a legislature composed equally of Christians andMuslim members, which subsequently adopted a constitution proposed by the UN.Just days before the September 1952 deadline for federation, the Ethiopiangovernment ratified the Eritrean constitution and upheld Eritrea’s Representative Assemblyas the renamed Eritrean Assembly. On September 15, 1952, the Ethiopian-EritreanFederation was established, and Britainturned over administration to the new authorities, and withdrew from Eritrea.

However, Emperor Haile Selassie was determined to bring Eritrea under Ethiopia’s full authority. Eritrea’shead of government (called Chief Executive who was elected by the EritreanAssembly) was forced to resign, and successors to the post were appointed bythe Ethiopian emperor. Ethiopians were appointed to many high-level Eritreangovernment posts. Many Eritrean political parties were banned and presscensorship was imposed. Amharic, Ethiopia’s official language, was imposed, whileArabic and Tigrayan,  Eritrea’smain languages, were replaced with Amharic as the medium for education. Manylocal businesses were moved to Ethiopia,while local tax revenues were sent to Ethiopia. By the early 1960s, Eritrea’sautonomy status virtually had ceased to exist. In November 1962, the EritreanAssembly, under strong pressure from Emperor Haile Selassie, dissolved theEthiopian-Eritrean Federation and voted to incorporate Eritrea as Ethiopia’s14th province.

Eritreans were outraged by these developments. Civiliandissent in the form of rallies and demonstrations broke out, and was dealt withharshly by Ethiopia,causing scores of deaths and injuries among protesters in confrontations withsecurity forces. Opposition leaders, particularly those calling forindependence, were suppressed, forcing many to flee into exile abroad; scoresof their supporters also were jailed. In April 1958, the first organizedresistance to Ethiopian rule emerged with the formation of the clandestineEritrean Liberation Movement (ELM), consisting originally of Eritrean exiles inSudan.At its peak in Eritrea, the ELM had some 40,000 members who organized in cellsof 7 people and carried out a campaign of destabilization, including engagingin some militant actions such as assassinating government officials, aimed atforcing the Ethiopian government to reverse some of its centralizing policiesthat were undercutting Eritrea’s autonomous status under the federatedarrangement with Ethiopia. By 1962, the government’s anti-dissident campaignshad weakened the ELM, although the militant group continued to exist, albeitwith limited success. Also by 1962, another Eritrean nationalist organization,the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), had emerged, having been organized in July1960 by Eritrean exiles in Cairo, Egypt which in contrast to the ELM, had asits objective the use of armed force to achieve Eritrean’s independence.

In its early years, the ELF leadership, called the “SupremeCouncil”, operated out of Cairoto more effectively spread its political goals to the international communityand to lobby and secure military support from foreign donors.

March 16, 1979 – Sino-Vietnamese War: Chinese forces withdraw from Vietnam

Chinese forces of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) attackedLang Son, taking the city on March 4, 1979 after bitter house-to-housefighting.  The following day, the Chinesegovernment, declaring that it had sufficiently punished Vietnam, ordered its forces to withdraw from Vietnam.  On their withdrawal, the PLA carried out ascorched-earth campaign, destroying buildings, properties, and farmlands,before crossing into Chinaon March 16, 1979.  But the PLA did notcede the 60 km2 strip of disputed border territory which it had captured duringthe invasion.  The continued hold by theChinese of this territory would become a source of dispute in the ensuingdecade.

The Sino-Vietnamese War was over.  No official casualty figures exist, as China and Vietnam have not released theirbattlefield human losses incurred during the war.  But perhaps the PLA suffered some 60,000 troopskilled or wounded, with Vietnamese forces suffering a nearly equivalent numberof casualties.

China and Vietnam, and other countries in Southeast Asia.

(Taken from Sino-Vietnamese War – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia)

Background Inlate December 1978, Vietnaminvaded Cambodia,and within two weeks, its forces toppled the Khmer Rouge government, and set upa new Cambodian government that was allied with itself (previous article).  The Khmer Rouge had been an ally of China,and as a result, Chinese-Vietnamese relations deteriorated.  In fact, relations between China and Vietnam had been declining in theyears prior to the invasion.

During the Vietnam War (separate article), North Vietnam received vital military andeconomic support from China,and also from the Soviet Union.  But as Chinese-Soviet relations had beendeclining since the early 1960s (with both countries nearly going to war in1969), North Vietnam was forced to maintain a delicate balance in its relationsbetween its two patrons in order to continue receiving badly needed weapons andfunds.  But after the communist victoryin April 1975, the reunified Vietnamhad a gradual falling out with Chinaover two issues: the persecution of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam, and a disputed border.

Following the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese central governmentin Hanoi launched a campaign to break down thefree-market economic system in the former South Vietnam to bring it in linewith the country’s centrally planned socialist economy.  Ethnic Chinese in Vietnam (called Hoa), whocontrolled the South’s economy, were subject to severe economic measures.  Many Hoa were forced to close down theirbusinesses, and their assets and properties were seized by the government.  Vietnamese citizenship to the Hoa was alsovoided.  The government also forced tensof thousands of Hoa into so-called “New Economic Zones”, which were located inremote mountainous regions.  There, theyworked as peasant farmers under harsh conditions.  The Hoa also were suspected by the governmentof plotting or carrying out subversive activities in the North.

As a result of these repressions, hundreds of thousands ofHoa (as well as other persecuted ethnic minority groups) fled the country.  The Hoa who lived in the North crossedoverland into China, whilethose in the South went on perilous journeys by sea using only small boatsacross the South China Sea for Southeast Asiancountries.  Vietnamalso initially refused to allow Chinese ships that were sent by the Beijing government to repatriate the Hoa back to China.  The Hanoigovernment also denied that the persecution of Hoa was taking place.  Then when the Hanoi government allowed the Hoa to leave thecountry, it imposed exorbitant fees before granting exit visas.  Furthermore, North Vietnamese troops in thenorthern Vietnamese frontier regions forced ethnic Chinese who lived there torelocate to the Chinese side of the China-Vietnam border.

Vietnamand China also had a numberof long-standing territorial disputes, including over a piece of land with anarea of 60 km2, but primarily in the Gulfof Tonkin, and in the Spratly and Paracel Islandsin the South China Sea.  The dispute over the Spratly and Paracel Islands became even more pronouncedafter it was speculated that the surrounding waters potentially contained largequantities of petroleum resources.

The Vietnamese also generally distrusted the Chinese forhistorical reasons.  The ancient Chineseemperors had long viewed Vietnamas an integral part of China,and brought the Vietnamese under direct Chinese rule for over a millennium (111B.C.–938 A.D.).  Then during the VietnamWar, the Vietnamese accepted Chinese military support with some skepticism, andlater claimed that Chinaprovided aid in order to bring Vietnamunder the Chinese sphere of influence. Furthermore, China’simproving relations with the United Statesfollowing U.S. President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijingin 1972 also was viewed by North Vietnam as a betrayal to its reunificationstruggle during the Vietnam War.  In May1978, with Cambodian-Vietnamese relations almost at the breaking point, China cut back on economic aid to Vietnam;within two months, it was ended completely. Also in 1978, Chinaclosed off its side of the Chinese-Vietnamese land border.

Meanwhile, just as its ties with Chinawere breaking down, Vietnamwas strengthening its relations with the Soviet Union.  In 1975, the Soviets provided large financialassistance to Vietnam’spost-war reconstruction and five-year development program.  Two events in 1978 brought Vietnam firmlyunder the Soviet sphere of influence: in June, Vietnam became a member of theSoviet-led Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) and in November,Vietnam and the Soviet Union signed the “Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation”,a mutual defense pact that stipulated Soviet military and economic support toVietnam in exchange for the Vietnamese allowing the Soviets to use air andnaval facilities in Vietnam.  The treatyalso formalized the Soviet and Chinese domains in Indochina, with Vietnam aligned with the Soviet Union, and Cambodia aligned with China.

China nowsaw itself surrounded by the Soviet Union to the north and Vietnam to the south.  But Vietnamalso saw itself threatened by hostile forces in the north (China) and southwest (Cambodia).  Vietnamthen made its move in late December 1978, when it invaded Cambodia and conquered the countryin a lightning offensive.  Chineseauthorities were infuriated, as their ally, the Khmer Rouge regime, had beentoppled by the Vietnamese invasion. Since one year earlier (1978), tensions between China and Vietnam had been rising, causingmany incidents of armed clashes and cross-border raids.  In January 1979, the Hanoigovernment accused Chinaof causing over 200 violations of Vietnamese territory.

By February 1979, 30 divisions of the People’s LiberationArmy, or PLA (China’sarmed forces) were massed along the border. On February 15, 1979, Chinaannounced its plan to attack Vietnam.  Also on that day, China’s1950 “Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and MutualAssistance” with the Soviet Union ended, thus freeing China from its obligation to pursuenon-aggression against a Soviet ally. Because of the threat of Soviet intervention from the north, on February16, Chinese authorities declared that it was also prepared to go to war withthe Soviet Union.  By this time, the bulk of Chinese forces(some 1.5 million troops) were concentrated along the northern border, while300,000 Chinese civilians in these border regions were evacuated.

March 15, 1991 – Gulf War: Sheikh Jaber III returns to Kuwait

Immediately following the Gulf War, Kuwait experienced some internal security problems, with crime and lawlessness widespread because of the temporary absence of central authority and the large number of loose firearms that had been left behind by the Iraqi Army.  Leaders of the Kuwaiti resistance movement appeared to be in control of the country and pledged their loyalty to Jaber III, Kuwait’s exiled emir.  Jubilant youths roamed the streets firing their weapons into the air and rejected calls to turn in their weapons.  On March 3, 1991, while still in Saudi Arabia, Jaber III declared martial law in Kuwait (on the advice of U.S. military authorities) and installed Crown Prince Sheik Saad al Abdullah al Sabah as Prime Minister and military governor of Kuwait.  Jaber III and his government-in-exile subsequently returned to Kuwait 12 days later, March 15, 1991.

(Taken from Gulf War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Aftermath, continuingcrisis, and Saddam’s fall from power On March 3, 1991, coalition militaryleaders, led by General Schwarzkopf, and Iraqi military representatives, led byIraq’s Defense Minister, General Sultan Hashim Ahmed, held ceasefire talks atSafwan airfield in southern Iraq.  TheAllies dictated the ceasefire terms, which the Iraqi panel accepted, thatcontained the following provisions: a separation of forces; release by both sidesof prisoners of war and Kuwaiti civilians held in Iraq; withdrawal of coalitionforces from occupied Iraqi territory upon signing of the agreement and Iraq’scomplying with UN resolutions, ceasing its claims to Kuwait, and agreeing topay war reparations to Kuwait; and Iraq’s providing information on the locationof land mines in Kuwait and sea mines in the Persian Gulf.  On March 4, 1991, the Iraqi governmentofficially ratified the ceasefire agreement.

Immediately following the war, Kuwait experienced some internalsecurity problems, with crime and lawlessness widespread because of thetemporary absence of real authority and the large number of loose firearms thathad been left behind by the Iraqi Army. Leaders of the Kuwaiti resistance movement appeared to be in control ofthe country and pledged their loyalty to Jaber III, Kuwait’s exiled emir.  Jubilant youths roamed the streets firingtheir weapons into the air and rejected calls to turn in their weapons.  On March 3, 1991, while still in Saudi Arabia, Jaber III declared martial law in Kuwait (on the advice of U.S. military authorities) and installed CrownPrince Sheik Saad al Abdullah al Sabah as Prime Minister and military governorof Kuwait.  Jaber III and his government-in-exilesubsequently returned to Kuwait12 days later, March 15, 1991.

A military tribunal was set up to prosecute war-timecollaborators, who consisted of non-Kuwaitis, i.e. Palestinians, Jordanians andIraqis, who were sympathetic to the Iraqi occupying forces.  Several hundred were arrested and indicted,many of whom were declared guilty and handed down the death sentence or prisonterms.  Kuwaiti civilians or vigilantegroups also attacked suspected collaborators (mostly Palestinians) and capturedIraqi soldiers, beating them up and even killing them.

Martial law, which was planned for three months, wasextended for 30 days more and subsequently lifted on June 26, 1991, partlybecause of international pressure. Military rule thus came to an end, although Jaber III, who had ruled bydecree since 1986 after dissolving the constitution and parliament, continuedto govern with absolute powers.  Kuwaitisalso had begun the long and difficult process of rebuilding their devastatedcountry.

In Iraq,despite incurring a crushing defeat in the war, Saddam Hussein continued tohold absolute power of the central government. Iraq’s regular armywas incapacitated by the war but the elite Republican Guard, fiercely loyal toSaddam, remained a powerful force equipped with thousands of tanks, armoredvehicles, and artillery pieces that had remained in Iraq during the war and had escapeddestruction by the coalition air strikes.

The United Nations (UN), which had played a decisive role inthe political, economic, and eventually military pressures on Iraq (with twelveUNSC resolutions) that led to the Gulf War, also made great efforts toinfluence the post-war period.  On March2, 1991, or two days after President Bush announced the Gulf War ceasefire, theUNSC issued Resolution 686, some provisions of which were the following: an endto the war and the carrying out of a ceasefire; release of prisoners of war;and multinational assistance in Kuwait’sreconstruction.  It also required Iraq to provide records on the location of minesthat had been laid on the ground by the Iraqi Army during the war, as well asinformation on Iraq’sbiological and chemical weapons. Finally, Resolution 686 reaffirmed the UNSC’s previous resolutionsagainst Iraq, e.g. a ban on Iraqi weapons purchases; economic and tradesanctions, excluding items destined for humanitarian needs such as food andmedicines.

On April 3, 1991, the UNSC released the more comprehensiveResolution 687, which contained and expanded on Resolution 686, some of whichwere as follows: First, Iraq was to pay Kuwait U.S. $350 billion in warreparations; Second, to prevent renewed fighting, a demilitarized zone (DMZ)was established, extending 10 kilometers into Iraq and 5 kilometers intoKuwait.  A peacekeeping force, called theUN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) was established and which soonarrived to monitor the DMZ.  Third, Iraq wasrequired to stop production of, remove, and destroy its chemical and biologicalweapons, as well as cease development of nuclear weapons, all of which werecollectively referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  To ensure compliance, the UN created theUnited Nations Special Commission (UNSOM), which was mandated to enter Iraq, andsearch for and disarm Iraqi WMD.

On March 1, 1991, one day after the Gulf War ended, theSunni-dominated government of Saddam Hussein faced two separate major localunrests, as Muslim Shiites in southern Iraqand Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraqrose up in rebellion and seized control of large sections of the country.  Saddam unleashed his Republican Guard and ina series of retaliatory campaigns, by early April 1991, had quelled theinsurgencies, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and over two million fleeinginto exile in neighboring countries.  OnApril 5, 1991, the day Saddam declared the uprisings crushed, the UNSC issuedResolution 688, which demanded that the Iraqi government end the repression andhuman rights violations against its own people

Meanwhile, following the end of the Gulf War, the U.S.government strengthened military ties with Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain (PersianGulf states) and maintained a mainly air force presence in Saudi Arabia, withthe consent of King Fahd, the Saudi ruling monarch.  As a result of the Iraqi uprisings and toempower UNSC Resolution 688 (i.e. to prevent Saddam from further repressing hisown people), the United States, joined by the air forces of Britain and Franceas a coalition force and operating from air bases in Saudi Arabia, set up ano-fly zone in southern Iraq to protect Iraqi Shiites; Iraqi planes wereprohibited from flying inside the no-fly zone and violators faced the risk ofbeing shot down by coalition aircraft.  Ano-fly zone also had been established earlier (April 1991) by the air forces ofthe United States, Britain, and Turkey(operating from air bases in Turkey)over the skies in Kurdish regions in northern Iraq in order to allow humanitarianaid to reach the affected civilian populations there.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government did not cooperate fully withUNSCOM inspectors who were looking for WMD, by withholding records, denyinginterviews, and restricting access to suspected sites.  As a result, in December 1998, the United States and Britain launched Operation DesertFox, a four-day series of air strikes against Iraqi military sites believed tocontain WMD.  Thereafter, Saddam refusedentry into Iraq of UNSCOM, which also was alleged to have been infiltrated byAmerican and British intelligence agents who spied on Iraq’s military infrastructures and alsosupposedly gave false information indicating that Iraq possessed WMD.  Also as a result of Operation Desert Fox, Iraq challengedthe coalition’s no-fly zones, and fired its anti-aircraft guns on and sent itsplanes to do battle with coalition aircraft. In turn, U.S.and British planes attacked Iraqi air defense systems, resulting in anescalation of air combat activity.

On September 11, 2001, the United States was struck byterrorist attacks, where Islamic militants that were later identified asbelonging to al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization, hijacked four commercialplanes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center in New York City andanother at the U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon); the fourth plane,originally targeting Washington, D.C., crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.  These events, known as the 9/11 attacks,killed close to 3,000 people, including over 300 firefighters and 70 policeofficers (and the 227 passengers and crew, and 19 hijackers aboard theplanes).  In an effort to bring tojustice the 9/11 perpetrators, U.S. President George Bush declared a “war onterror”, which soon was supported by most of the international community, andbrought Saddam’s regime into closer scrutiny.

On November 8, 2002, the UNSC passed Resolution 1441 thatgave Iraqa “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”.  Saddam acquiesced and allowed the UNMonitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC, which wasorganized and replaced the discredited UNSCOM in December 1999) and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to enter Iraq.  These agencies’ inspection teams did not findevidence of WMD in Iraq, although in March 2003, UNMOVIC released a report thatindicated that Iraq’s cooperation with the WMD inspections was encouraging butmust be stepped up further.

Meanwhile, President Bush was determined that only theoverthrow of Saddam would remove the threat to regional and internationalpeace.  In October 2002, the U.S.Congress passed the Iraq Resolution (officially: “Authorization for Use ofMilitary Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”), a joint resolution empoweringthe United States Armed Forces “to use any means against Iraq”.  In March 2003, the British Parliament alsopassed a motion that authorized military action against Iraq.  On March 19, 2003, a U.S.-led coalition forceof 200,000 troops (with 145,000 American soldiers), which included contingentsfrom Britain (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194), invaded Iraq, withthe following stated objectives: the overthrow of a regime that possessed andthreatened to use WMD, that supported terrorists, and that committed humanrights violations.

The invasion drew controversy and widespread criticisms(including large-scale protests in many countries) from a segment of theinternational community.  The United States and Britainhad sought UNSC approval but faced a veto threat from permanent members Franceand Russia.  Instead, the U.S.and British governments cited UNSC Resolution 678 and 987, which both containeda clause authorizing the use of all necessary means to enforce Iraq’s compliance with the UNSC resolutions, assufficient justification for using armed force against Iraq.  In the invasion, subsequently known as theIraq War, the Iraqi Army was soundly defeated; Saddam was overthrown and wentinto hiding, and was subsequently found and arrested, tried, and executed forcrimes against humanity.  In subsequentsearches by the Iraq Survey Group, an investigative agency set up by thecoalition partners, no WMD were found in Iraq.

March 14, 1978 – 1978 South Lebanon Conflict: Israel invades Southern Lebanon

On March 14, 1978, Israel launched Operation Litani, with its warplanes attacking Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) bases in Southern Lebanon. Some 25,000 Israeli soldiers in mechanized units and supported by heavy armor and artillery then crossed into South Lebanon along two fronts, from northern Israel and from the Golan Heights.  Another Israeli force was tasked to cut off PLO escape routes to Syria, while the Israeli Navy blockaded the coast of Southern Lebanon.

In the face of the overwhelming Israeli offensive and toavoid being trapped, the PLO retreated north from South Lebanon, which allowed the Israelis to advance rapidly and meetonly light opposition.  The Israelisstopped at the southern bank of the LitaniRiver; by then, they had seizedcontrol of South Lebanon, except for the city of Tyre.

The Lebanese government condemned the invasion and filed aprotest at the UN.  On March 19, 1978,the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed two resolutions thatcontained the following stipulations: a ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli forcesfrom South Lebanon, and establishment of a security zone between Israel and Lebanon.  On March 23, Israel accepted the ceasefire; fourdays later, the PLO approved it as well. Facing strong domestic pressure, Israelwithdrew its forces from South Lebanon in June1978.  Israel,however, turned over its areas of control to the SLA.  Also on March 23, the United Nations InterimForce in Lebanon (UNIFIL) arrived in South Lebanonto enforce the two UNSC resolutions.

(Taken from 1978 South Lebanon Conflict – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background In1947, the United Nations (UN) approved a plan to partition Palestineinto two new states: Israeland Palestine,for the Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs*, respectively.  But following two wars that broke out inPalestine (the 1947-48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948Arab-Israeli War), the country of Israel was established but a Palestinianstate was not, and some 700,000 Palestinians lost their homes and lands andbecame refugees in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and South Lebanon (Map 15).  There, the Palestinians radicalized andformed militias that carried out armed attacks into Israel.  The Palestinians were determined to destroy Israel and expel the Israelis from Palestine, and establisha Palestinian state.  However, theseplans were dealt a major blow in the Six-Day War, where Israel defeated Egypt,Jordan, and Syria, gained control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (thereby thewhole of Palestine), and secured Israel’s military power over the region.

In 1964, a Palestinian militant group called the PalestineLiberation Organization (PLO) was formed that grew rapidly to become a majorthreat to Israel’ssecurity.  In 1971, after being expelledfrom Jordan, the PLO movedto South Lebanon, which soon became the center of militant activities forcross-border raids into Israeland international terrorist attacks against governments and civilian targets inother countries.  The Palestiniandiaspora into South Lebanon and the arrival of the PLO greatly upset thefragile balance within Lebanon’sreligion-based political and military institutions, a destabilization thatultimately plunged Lebanoninto a long and bitter civil war starting in 1975.

The weakened Lebanese government lost authority of SouthLebanon to the Palestinians, who, led by the PLO, established in South Lebanon a “state within a state” with the formationof a quasi-government with its own civilian and military institutions.  Thereafter, the PLO increased its attacks on Israel, which in turn, were met with Israelicounter-strikes in South Lebanon.

Then on March 11, 1978, a team of PLO commandos secretlyentered Israeland went on a killing rampage before and after seizing two civilian buses inthe Coastal Highwayand Tel Aviv-Haifa Road.  A shoot-out with Israeli security forcesended the attack.  The PLO attack caused38 Israeli civilians killed and 71 others wounded; 9 of the 11 PLO commandosalso were killed.  The PLO claimedresponsibility for the attack.

Israelthen made the decision to invade South Lebanonto put an end to the cross-border attacks. The aim was to expel the PLO from South Lebanon and allow Israel’sLebanese ally, the South Lebanon Army (SLA), a Maronite Christian militia, toestablish authority in the region.

March 13, 1979 – The New Jewel Movement (NJM), a communist group, seizes power in a coup in Grenada

On March 13, 1979, the New Jewel Movement (NJM), a Marxist-Leninist group, seized power in Grenada, overthrowing the government of Prime Minister Eric Gairy in a nearly bloodless coup. The coup’s leader, Maurice Bishop, took over government authority, declared himself head of the “People’s Revolutionary Government”, suspended Grenada’s constitution, and thereafter ruled by decree in a dictatorship. The “Jewel” in New Jewel Movement is the acronym for “Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education, and Liberation”.

Diagram showing location of Grenada in the Caribbean Sea and just north of the South American mainland. Grenada consists of the main island (Grenada) and six very small islands located in its northern and southern ends.

(Taken from U.S. Invasion of Grenada – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background Grenada is a small island country located in thesoutheastern section of the Caribbean Sea (Map36).  In 1974, the country gained itsindependence from the United Kingdom and thereafter experienced a periodof political unrest starting with the contentious general elections of1976.  After the 1976 elections, agovernment was formed, which imposed repressive policies to curb politicalopposition and dissent.  Then on March13, 1979, communist politicians staged a coup that overthrew the government.

A socialist government was formed led by Maurice Bishop, whotook the position of prime minister.  Thenew government opened diplomatic relations with communist countries.  In particular, Grenadabecame allied with Cuba andthe Soviet Union, and supported their foreignpolicy initiatives.  Prime MinisterBishop dissolved the Grenadian constitution, banned elections and multi-partypolitics, and suppressed free expression and all forms of dissent.

The government began many social and economic projects,which ultimately proved successful.  Forinstance, sound financial policies allowed Grenada’s economy to grow andreduce the country’s dependence on imported goods.  The government made major advances inupgrading the educational system, health care, and socialized housingprograms.  Public infrastructure projectswere implemented.

Despite being officially socialist, the Grenadian governmentmaintained its traditional ties to the West. Grenada retained its British Commonwealth membership, with Queen Elizabeth IIas its symbolic head of state, and the British-inherited position of GovernorGeneral being maintained.  Westernforeign investments were encouraged, and investors from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada – among other countries –operated freely in the islands.  Foreigntourists, who brought in substantial revenues to the local economy, werewelcomed by the Grenadian government.

However, hardliners in Grenada’s communist party (calledthe New Jewel Movement) disagreed with Prime Minister Bishop’s double-sidedpolicies.  They demanded that he stepdown from office or agree to rule jointly with staunch communist party members.  Prime Minister Bishop rejected bothsuggestions.  On October 12, 1983, thecommunist hardliners overthrew the government in a coup, and Prime MinisterBishop and other high-ranking government officials were arrested and jailed.  A military council was formed to rule the country.

Widespread street protests and demonstrations broke out as aresult of the coup, as Prime Minister Bishop was extremely popular with thepeople.  The protesters demanded thatBishop be set free.  Bishop’s militarycaptors acquiesced, and released the ex-prime minister.  But in the ensuing chaos, government troopsopened fire on the protesters, killing perhaps up to a hundred persons.  Bishop and other top government officialswere rounded up and executed by firing squad.

The U.S.administration of President Ronald Reagan, following the events in Grenada with grave concern, believed that Cuba hadplanned the overthrow of Prime Minister Bishop’s moderately socialistgovernment in order to install a staunchly communist regime.  The United States believed that Cubawould then take full control of Grenada.  Four years earlier in 1979, when theGrenadian communists took over power, U.S.president Jimmy Carter’s government had moved diplomatically to isolate Grenada by stopping U.S. military support and discouragingAmericans from travelling there.

But President Reagan took an aggressive approach against Grenada: he ordered joint military exercises andmock amphibious operations in U.S.-allied countries in the Caribbeanregion.  He also warned of Soviet-Cubanexpansionism in the Western Hemisphere.  Of particular concern to President Reagan wasthe construction of an airport at Point Salines at the southern tip of Grenada, which the U.S. military believed would be aSoviet airbase because its extended runway could land big, long-range Russianbombers.  The U.S.government surmised that the Soviets planned to use Grenadaas a forward base to supply communists in Central America, i.e. the Sandinistagovernment in Nicaragua andthe communist rebels in El Salvadorand Guatemala.  Increasing the Americans’ suspicion was thepresence of Cuban construction workers at the Point Salines site – after thewar, the U.S.military learned that these were Cuban Army soldiers.

However, the Grenadian government insisted that the PointSalines facility would be used as an international airport for commercialairliners.  As diplomatic relationsdeteriorated between the United Statesand Grenada, PresidentReagan ordered the evacuation of American citizens living in Grenada, the majority of whom were the 800medical students enrolled at the American-owned St. George’s University.  The U.S. government feared for thesafety of the students, as the Grenadian Army had posted soldiers at the schoolgrounds and a nighttime curfew had been imposed on the island, with ashoot-to-kill order imposed against violators. As commercial flights to Grenadawere cancelled already, President Reagan decided that the U.S. Armed Forcesshould implement the evacuation.

On October 21, 1983, the Organization of Eastern CaribbeanStates asked the United Statesto intervene militarily in Grenada,fearing that the political instability in that island could spread across the Caribbean region. The United States Armed Forces then revised its plan from an evacuationto include an invasion of Grenada.

Invasion The United States identified three targets for theinvasion: Point Salines, Pearls Airport in Grenville, and St. George’s. Just before dawn on October 25, 1983, a battalion of U.S. Rangers wasairdropped at the Point Salines Airportconstruction site.  The soldierssucceeded in taking control of the facility. The Rangers originally were planned to be landed by plane; the plan wasaborted when U.S.reconnaissance detected that the airport runway was littered withobstacles.  The anti-aircraft gunfirefrom the Grenadian defenses was silenced by strikes from U.S. helicoptergunships.  The U.S. Rangers soon securedand cleared the Point Salines Airportsite, allowing American planes to land more troops, weapons, and supplies.

A few hours later, U.S.troops located St. George’s campus and evacuatedthe American students back to the United States.  Advancing from Point Salines, U.S.forces met some sporadic resistance, including a Grenadian attack using Sovietarmored carriers.  By nightfall, theAmericans were in control of much of the Point Salines outlying areas and hadcaptured hundreds of Grenadian troops and the Cuban soldiers who had posed asconstruction workers.  The prisoners wereturned over to the Eastern Caribbean peacekeepingforces that had arrived to carry out policing duties.

Occurring simultaneously with the Point Salines invasion,U.S. Marines landed in Grenville, located east of the island (Map 37), whichwas taken with little opposition.  Pearls Airportthen came under American control, where more troops, weapons, and supplies werelanded by U.S.planes.  American forces then moved northand east from Grenville, extending the occupation zone.

At St. George’s, Grenada’s capital (Map 37), U.S.helicopters carrying the American attack forces arrived in broad daylight andwere met by heavy anti-aircraft fire from Grenadian ground forces that had beenalerted by the landings earlier in other parts of the island.  However, the American helicopters landedsuccessfully at St. George’s.  There, U.S. Navy SEALs who were tasked torescue Grenada’sGovernor General at his residence were pinned down by enemy fire.  A U.S.air attack on two Grenadian military garrisons in the capital suffered somehelicopter gunship losses and many U.S. soldier casualties.  That night, U.S. Marines were landedamphibiously north of St. George’s.  The Marines soon relieved the beleagueredU.S. Navy SEALs and helped rescue the Governor General, who was flown out tosafety.

By morning of the invasion’s second day, American air andground attacks, including armored and artillery units that had been brought tothe front, overcame fierce resistance from the two Grenadian garrisons at St. George’s.  More American medical students were found atthe Grand Anse campus located six kilometers south of the capital; they wereflown out to safety by U.S.military helicopters.

By the third day, Grenadian resistance had ceased, withfighting ending in all combat sectors. The American operation to capture Caviligny Barracks, however, met abizarre accident when four U.S.helicopters crashed, killing many soldiers on board.