Pavlac B.A. A Concise Survey of Western Civilization: Supremacies and Diversities throughout History

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

356

CHAPTER 14

Arabs). The Jews eagerly accepted the proposal and declared their independence

on 14 May 1948.

The Palestinian Arabs, however, supported by the Arab League, refused the offer

and launched the ﬁrst Arab-Israeli War (1948–1949). They intended to destroy the

new Jewish state. They lost. Victorious Israel seized part of what had been assigned

to Palestine, while Jordan and Egypt took control of the rest. The state of Palestine

vanished from the map before it even had a chance to begin. Hundreds of thou-

sands of Palestinians who ﬂed Israel thus lived under the rule of Egypt and Jordan,

who refused to integrate them, or lived in exile in Lebanon and Syria in internment

camps, without rights, seemingly without a future.

Israel organized itself as a Western state, not surprising, since so many Jews had

lived in the West. It had a parliamentary government dominated by a socialist party

and a conservative party (with other, smaller, liberal and religious parties). Its econ-

omy was thoroughly Western, based on markets, investments, private property, and

the welfare state. Some Israelis did experiment with socialist living in communes

called kibbutzim, but these were more important for building a strong sense of com-

munity than for contributing to the overall economy and social structure. Most Israe-

lis believed in Judaism, although the level of devotion varied widely. The government

practiced religious toleration, helping the 10 percent of its citizens who were Muslim

Arabs. Jews revived the virtually dead language of Hebrew as a living tongue, both to

read their scriptures and for daily interaction. Ongoing immigration by J ews from all

over the world, including some from non-Western countries in North Africa, Russia,

India, and even Ethiopia, increased tensions within the Israeli state, especially

between the secularist and traditionalist religious factions.

Ongoing hostility from its Arab neighbors, however, meant that Israel had to

ﬁght for its existence, supported by most states of the West. The next war between

Israel and the Arabs, the Suez Crisis of October 1956, also marked the last time the

Europeans acted as independent great powers. In that year, Egypt had nationalized

the Suez Canal, violating British property rights and international agreements when

they closed it to Israeli shipping. The British and French, in collusion with the

Israelis, launched a surprise attack on Egypt. Overwhelmed by the successes of the

enemy invaders, Egypt appealed for help from the Soviet Union. The United States

feared that the Suez Crisis might escalate to involve the superpowers. The U.S. sent

its NATO allies home. The former great powers of France and Great Britain could

no longer intervene at will in world affairs.

The ongoing opposition to Israel by Arab states and Palestinians continued,

however. By 1964 some Palestinians uniﬁed different political factions under the

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO began a more aggressive ter-

rorist campaign, intending, ultimately, to destroy Israel. In turn, the Israelis carried

out a preemptive strike against their Arab neighbors and won a signiﬁcant victory

in the Six-Day War. Israel conquered the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank

from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. These acquisi-

tions, however, left millions of Muslim Arabs without any rights of citizenship and

living under Israeli domination. Israel had no idea what to do about this situation,

settling for a military occupation that deprived the Palestinians of civil rights. So

Israel’s continued oppression made it a target of worldwide criticism, increasingly

PAGE 356.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:20 PS

AWORLDDIVIDED

357

losing the sympathy that had existed at its founding, handing over that sympathy to

the Palestinian cause.

The brief Yom Kippur War in 1973 was the last war so far to attempt Israel’s

destruction. Attacking by surprise on a Jewish holy day, the Arab states made some

signiﬁcant gains, especially for Egypt in the Sinai. The Arab states also tried to

weaken support for Israel among its Western allies using their dominance in the

petroleum trade group, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC). They imposed an oil embargo on Western states that supported Israel.

While this embargo and the resulting fuel shortages did damage Western economies

brieﬂy, Israel survived. Subsequent peacemaking efforts, usually mediated by the

United States, have failed to fully remove hostility in the region.

The legacy of occupation and ongoing economic and political interests kept

Western states involved in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The direct imperialism

of colonial possessions had largely vanished by 1965. Although neo-imperialism

began with noble aspirations and patriotic fervor only a century before, it had obvi-

ously failed. The Europeans had used their power around the world to compete with

one another, build up their economies, and spread their culture. After letting their

colonies go, the W est continued to cope with the ongoing political and economic ties

of Europeans living in foreign parts and non-W estern immigrants moving to Europe,

reviving some kind of international order. Since the W est controlled the bulk of the

world’s wealth and power, it could hardly avoid responsibility for some of the legacy

of its century of colonialism.

Review: How did the decolonization of Africa and Asia succeed yet force choices

between Communist or Third World status?

Response:

AMERICAN HEGEMONY

The unquestioned leadership of the West lay, of course, with the United States of

America. Its unique position as the shield against communism led America to

expand its global inﬂuence in numerous ways. Within the Western Hemisphere,

the United States intensiﬁed its involvement with Latin America. In reaction, Latin

PAGE 357.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:21 PS

358

CHAPTER 14

Americans tended to blame the ‘‘Yankees’’ rather than themselves for their political,

economic, and social problems.

Among these problems were great social inequities derived from class and eth-

nic divisions, dating back to Latin America’s westernization as part of the Spanish

and Portuguese empires. Creoles, those of European descent, exploited those of

Native American or African ancestry. Since the Creole elites feared the results of

votes by the alienated poor majorities, they avoided expanding democratic partici-

pation beyond their own ranks. Many countries alternated between corrupt civilian

leaders and juntas, cliques of military ofﬁcers ruling as dictators. Meanwhile, the

dominant Roman Catholic hierarchy, often drawn from the ruling elites, too often

accepted exploitation of the poor. The priests preached to the peasants and the

poor to accept their lot as something unchanging, promising rewards after death.

But change was inevitable as Western modernity penetrated the traditional con-

servative culture. Increased food production and improved health care caused a

population explosion among those impoverished by a lack of jobs, as Latin America

failed to industrialize. Just outside most urban centers, shanty towns of the suffer-

ing poor multiplied. They, as well as dissatisﬁed members of the middle class, began

to listen to communist revolutionary ideas. Some Roman Catholic priests in the

1970s even began to preach liberation theology, which called for social justice in

this life instead of waiting for the next. The papacy discouraged such speculation

and ordered ministers to be silent. The juntas silenced opponents through vio-

lence. For example, in 1980 they assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero of San

Salvador while he presided at the Eucharist in a hospital chapel.

The history of Argentina reﬂects many of the tensions between ruling elites

holding onto power and the masses seeking opportunity and fairness. As World

War II ended, a junta with fascist inclinations ruled Argentina (making it hospitable

to ﬂeeing war criminals like Joseph Mengele, the ‘‘Butcher of Auschwitz’’). But one

member of that junta, Juan Pero

n (b. 1895–d. 1975), toyed with socialist ideas. His

wife, Evita Duarte, who had risen from a broken lower-class family to fame in the

movies, helped her husband appeal to the masses, especially the los descamisados

(‘‘shirtless ones,’’ those too poor to afford even a shirt). Pero

n seized power in

1945, and for the next ten years he nationalized businesses, increased social welfare

beneﬁts, censored the media, criticized the Roman Catholic Church, and used vio-

lence and force to maintain power. Evita’s death and economic failures encouraged

a new junta to drive Pero

n out in 1955. Succeeding governments that rejected

socialism likewise failed to make Argentina prosper. Memories of Pero

n allowed

him to return to power from exile in October 1974, but he died within a year. His

second wife tried to rule as his successor, but a coup replaced her in March 1976.

A new regime tried to adopt strict laissez-faire policies.

As the economy continued to fail, however, the government launched the so-

called Dirty War against left-wing political opponents. They secretly arrested sus-

pected radicals, tortured them, and then murdered hundreds, often by dumping

victims from helicopters over the Atlantic Ocean. Instead of joining a conspiracy of

silence, hundreds of mothers and grandmothers were picketing before the presi-

dential palace, asking for their lost children.

The government then tried to use a patriotic success to distract people’s atten-

PAGE 358.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:21 PS

AWORLDDIVIDED

359

tion, by invading the nearby Falkland Islands possessed by Great Britain, called by

the Argentines the Islas Malvinas. The islands’ inhabitants were a few thousand

British citizens, of British descent, who were outnumbered by their sheep ten to

one. Surprisingly, the British decided to ﬁght back. The Falklands War (April–June

1982) ended with almost a thousand dead, but a British victory. Argentina’s failure

led to the collapse of the junta and the exposure of the secrets of its ‘‘Dirty War.’’

Since then, successive civilian governments have tried to promote prosperity. Even

another experiment with unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism at the end of the cen-

tury has been unable to make the country truly competitive.

While Argentina remained free of direct political intervention by the United

States, other Latin American nations felt the power of their northern neighbor. A

case in point is Guatemala, where the CIA helped to depose President Jacobo

Arbenz Guzman in 1954 when his land reform policies threatened the proﬁts of

U.S. banana companies. By 1960, a virtual civil war had broken out between the

government, usually run by juntas, and various guerrilla factions, often organized

by communists. By the war’s end in 1996, military, paramilitary, guerrilla, and

terroristforceshadkilledperhaps200,000Guatemalans.TheCIAlikewisehelped

overthrow President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973, as his socialist policies

began nationalizing U.S. businesses. A military junta led by A ugusto Pinochet

killed Allende and several thousand of his suspected supporters. Embracing ‘‘neo-

liberal’’ economic policies, Pinochet’s government ruled until 1989, when the end

of the Cold War made his dictatorship less useful to the United States. Before his

death in 2006, various European courts tried to put him on trial for the crimes of

human rights abuses and tax evasion. The removal of the president of Panama

came with the direct intervention of the United States. America did give the Pan-

ama Canal to Panama in 1978. But in 1989–1990, American troops literally kid-

napped Panamanian president Manuel Noriega in order to bring him t o trial for

drug trafﬁcking (an activity he claimed to have carried out on behalf of the CIA).

France recently found Noriega guilty of tax evasion because of drug money laun-

dering.

The most notorious U.S. intervention was with Cuba, which for the most part

had been a U.S. protectorate since the Spanish-American War. In the 1950s, Fulgen-

cia Batista

, a semifascist dictator, offered a haven for both legitimate U.S. business

interests and criminal organizations. Batista

faced a rebellion led by Fidel Castro

(b. 1927), the privileged son of a Cuban sugar planter, who at ﬁrst wanted to play

professional baseball. Castro converted to radical politics and began subversive

activities all over Latin America. He invaded Cuba in 1956, ﬁnally achieving a sur-

prising victory on New Year’s Eve 1958. Once in control, Castro set up a one-party

socialist state that made him dictator. He arrested his enemies, nationalized most

foreign property, tossed out crime syndicates, redistributed land, and provided free

health care and education to all the people. Thousands of Cubans ﬂed the island,

most settling in the state of Florida. Nevertheless, Castro and the image of Castro’s

lieutenant Che Guevara symbolized for many Latin Americans a better, socialist

future, free of Yankee capitalist exploitation.

The U.S. reaction was to try to get rid of Castro. The CIA organized some 1,500

exiles in an attempted counterrevolution. These Cubans tried to reconquer Cuba

PAGE 359.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:24 PS

360

CHAPTER 14

with the Bay of Pigs Invasion (17 April 1961), named after their landing site. With-

out open support from the United States or popular backing from the Cuban peo-

ple, the invasion failed miserably and embarrassed the new administration of U.S.

president Kennedy. Castro became worried enough about future U.S. intervention

that he began to cooperate even more closely with the Soviet Union. He persuaded

the Russians to build missile bases in Cuba.

In October 1962, American U-2 spy planes photographed the missile installa-

tions. The resulting Cuban Missile Crisis brought the superpowers closer to

nuclear war than ever in history. Although Soviet ICBMs located in Russia and on

Russian submarines could already target any place they wanted in the United States,

the Cuban missile sites seemed a direct threat so close to American shores. From

the Russian point of view, though, they were merely imitating American policy: U.S.

missiles based in Turkey were just as close and threatening to the Russian border

as Cuba was to America.

Kennedy, however, was determined to remove the missiles from Cuba. None-

theless, he took the moderate step of declaring a ‘‘quarantine’’ of Cuba, meaning

that while any military technology bound for Cuba would be stopped at sea by the

U.S. navy, other ships could continue. This measure was not quite a blockade,

which would have been technically an act of war. The Soviets declined to push the

United States into shooting. Instead of forcing the issue, both sides reached an

agreement because nobody wanted World War III. The Russian missiles left Cuba.

But also, while less publicized, the American missiles left Turkey. The United States

also promised never to invade Cuba again. As a result, Castro still rules Cuba today

(despite some half-hearted and harebrained attempts at assassination by the CIA,

such as exploding cigars). Thus, while both sides gained something, the resolution

of the crisis appeared to the public as an American victory.

Cold War rivalries continued in other countries throughout Latin America. Jun-

tas suppressed their opponents in the name of ﬁghting communism. Communists

organized revolts in the name of liberating the poor from capitalist oppression.

U.S. and European corporations dominated the economy to provide exports for

themselves. Middle and peasant classes saw too little proﬁt from that trade. These

ideological differences guaranteed that Cold War tensions would ﬁnd their way into

political and social divisions.

Review: How was Latin America entangled in the Cold War?

Response:

PAGE 360.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:24 PS

AWORLDDIVIDED

361

THE UNEASY UNDERSTANDING

Under the protection of NATO, the Western European nations had managed to

create stable parliamentarian, democratic governments that represented most peo-

ple within each state through fair and competitive elections. Alternating coalitions

of conservative, liberal, or social democratic parties, with occasional participation

by regional, nationalist, or communist parties on the fringes, governed in most

countries. Only tiny states such as Liechtenstein and Monaco remained ruled by

princes, although even they were modiﬁed with gradual concessions to representa-

tion by the people. The last fascist dictatorships, in Greece, Spain, and Portugal,

ended in the 1970s with almost no violence during the transition to parliamentary

democracies.

The only serious threat to stability broke out in the year 1968. Riots and revolts

led by students in cities ranging from Warsaw to Berlin, to Paris, and to Madrid.

They protested against war or nuclear weapons, to improve university conditions,

to gain civil rights for women, ethnic minorities, or indigenous peoples, or for more

democracy. In France, after striking workers joined student riots, the government

almost fell. By the end of the year, though, most governments remained ﬁrmly in

control, enforced by police using clubs and tear gas, sometimes guns, and a few

tanks. A ‘‘spirit’’ of 1968 nevertheless continued to inspire young people to ques-

tion authority. In the next few years, sporadic attacks by terrorist groups, such as

Red Brigades in Italy and Baader-Meinhof in West Germany, or by organized crimi-

nals, such as the Maﬁa, caused more feelings of insecurity rather than any actual

instability.

European prosperity recovered from World War II, but Europe’s standing as a

center of military power did not. The Western Europeans had grown used to being

the center of world affairs since the neo-imperialism of the nineteenth century.

Western Europe found the Cold War duality of the United States versus the Soviet

Union hard to deal with. These concerns led them to take a surprising step toward

peace and cooperation with one another. For a thousand years, since the collapse

of Charlemagne’s empire, rival states had been ﬁghting over which share of the

European heartland each should reign supreme. The horrors of the last such con-

ﬂict, World War II, convinced Western European leaders to take a new path.

In the early 1950s, the leaders of West Germany and France began instead to

promote international cooperation. They started with the nationalized coal and

steel industries, creating an international body to regulate and supervise the joint

Coal and Steel Authority of both France and West Germany in 1950. This arrange-

ment succeeded so well that it expanded the next year into the European Coal and

Steel Community, bringing in Italy and the Benelux countries (the Lowland nations

of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg).

Within a few years, these nations integrated their economic and political sys-

tems more intensively. They agreed to the Treaty of Rome on 25 March 1957, which

founded the Common Market or the European Economic Community. Soon

this international organization aimed at closer political as well as economic union,

reﬂected in its name change to the European Community in 1967. Several neutral

PAGE 361.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:25 PS

362

CHAPTER 14

countries, such as Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and Austria, formed themselves

into a rival European Free Trade Association. At ﬁrst, England hesitated to join the

Common Market, relying on its special friendship with the United States and the

lingering British Empire held together by the economic ties and trade with the

Commonwealth. Still, Great Britain gained membership by 1973. Rivalries, political

grudges, and inﬂation in the EC took longer than hoped for to overcome. But

slowly, the improving prosperity of the members of the European Community made

it a more attractive and serious competitor in the international economy. The Euro-

pean Community’s political achievement was another signiﬁcant achievement.

Combined with NATO (after a very weak attempt to recruit a common European

defense force), the European Community greatly reduced, if not outright elimi-

nated, the chances of war between members who had literally fought one another

every few years for a millennium.

A possible outbreak of World War III remained a concern for Europeans. NATO

troops based all over Western Europe provided some reassurance of slowing down

a Russian land invasion. The nuclear weapons possessed by the United States, Brit-

ain, and France theoretically deterred even that invasion, but would likely destroy

the continent if used. President de Gaulle of France remained resentful of American

hegemony and vainly tried to assert French leadership by asking U.S. forces to leave

France in 1966. NATO headquarters moved from Paris to Brussels, the capital of

both Belgium and the European Community. Germany felt most painfully the divi-

sions of the Cold War, separated into its East and West states and aware that it was

on the front line of any conventional war. To reduce the possibility of war, Social

Democratic leaders of West Germany began a concentrated Ostpolitik (East poli-

tics) in the early 1970s. They began to talk with the leader of the Social Unity Party

in East Germany, hoping to improve relations between communists and capitalists.

The real turning point in Cold War relations resulted from the United States’

involvement in the Vietnam War (1964–1973). The French had withdrawn from

their colonies of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam in Indochina in 1956, after being

beaten by communist insurgencies, despite secret ﬁnancial support from the United

States. A fragile Vietnam was left divided between the communists, led by Ho Chi

Minh, in power in the north, and westernized (and Roman Catholic) elites running

the south. The Americans feared, rightly, that Ho Chi Minh would unite the country

and make it part of the Communist Bloc. They believed in the domino theory—

which asserted that if one state fell to communism, so would its neighbor, followed

by the next state, and so on, just like domino blocks knocking one another down.

Thus after Vietnam would go the rest of Indochina, then Thailand, the Philippines,

and, perhaps, the rest of the world. An alleged attack in the Gulf of Tonkin that

killed or injured not a single American provided the U.S. president Johnson with

the ‘‘justiﬁcation’’ to commit combat troops beginning in 1964. Congress gave him

a blank check to defend American interests as he saw ﬁt, although without declaring

war.

As more troops poured in to protect South Vietnam, it seemed inconceivable

that North Vietnam could defeat the strongest empire in world history. Yet the

Russians quickly claimed protection of North Vietnam under their nuclear

umbrella. A troubling guerrilla war developed, one which the United States could

PAGE 362.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:26 PS

AWORLDDIVIDED

363

not win as long as Russia and China both supplied North Vietnam. By 1968, protest-

ers in Europe and, more importantly, a majority of Americans called for U.S. troops

to pull out of Vietnam.

In 1968, Richard Nixon (r. 1969–1974) won the U.S. presidential election

partly because he claimed to have a plan to end the ﬁghting in Vietnam. By that

time, the Cold War had been ongoing for twenty years. Again and again, the super-

powers had managed to annoy and provoke each other and frighten the globe with

the risk of World War III. Nixon came to power mired in the unwinnable Vietnam

conﬂict and looking for ‘‘peace with honor.’’ The United States’ heavy bombings of

North Vietnam had failed. Indeed, the country dropped more bombs on Vietnam

than it had in all of World War II.

Suddenly and surprisingly, Nixon and his foreign policy advisors, especially the

German immigrant Henry Kissinger, came to the realization that they had been

mistaken about the Cold War. They ﬁnally ﬁgured out that China and Russia were

not allies; the two Communist states had not gotten along for years and were ene-

mies and rivals themselves. Thus, the Americans began a new strategy to exploit

Sino-Soviet tensions and increase the level of peace. Touring ping pong or table

tennis teams paved the way for American and Chinese diplomats to begin talking.

Soon, the former anticommunist crusader Nixon was visiting China, toasting and

treating the former vile despot Mao as a respected equal. Next, Nixon visited Russia,

toasting and treating Brezhnev, who had crushed Czechoslovakia, as a colleague.

These leaders of the three most powerful nations on the planet then agreed to

disagree on many ideological issues but to work together wherever they could to

create order and stability. They called this policy de

tente, using a French term for

a formally cordial, yet distrusting relationship.

Securing the cooperation of China and Russia to manage their North Vietnam-

ese ally, the United States was able to withdraw its armed forces from Vietnam in

1974. When the shooting stopped, more than ﬁfty thousand U.S. troops were dead,

as were several million Vietnamese. Two years later, the Communist north easily

overran the south. When Laos and Cambodia also were seized by communists,

some feared that the domino theory was about to succeed and roll through South-

east Asia and the Paciﬁc. But the stability of Thailand and the quarrels of the com-

munists halted any further progress.

Tragic developments in Cambodia illustrated the worst possible legacy of West-

ern imperialism intensiﬁed by Cold War conﬂict. The totalitarian regime of Khmer

Rouge communists there carried certain Western ideas of anarchism and revolution

further than any other modern government. In a wild reaction against capitalism

and industrialized society (and even Marxist ideology), the Cambodian communists

agriculturalized the nation, renamed Kampuchea. Urban populations were driven

into the countryside to become farmers or die trying in the notorious ‘‘killing

ﬁelds.’’ The Khmer Rouge burned and desecrated all past culture to create their

version of modernity. Exalting equality, they rooted out all traditional or industrial

social differences. They eliminated most scientists, teachers, artists, intellectuals,

and priests. Even families were broken up. The Khmer Rouge slaughtered as much

as a third of its own population in this self-inﬂicted genocide. By 1979, the Vietnam-

ese were so disgusted that they invaded Cambodia, drove the Khmer Rouge into

PAGE 363.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:26 PS

364

CHAPTER 14

the jungles, and installed a satellite regime. The United States, because of its dislike

of communist Vietnam, then hypocritically found itself supporting the exiled com-

munist Khmer Rouge in its attempts to throw the Vietnamese out. Once more,

Western ideologies confronted and confused one another.

Still, de

tente continued as a policy between the major states of the world

throughout the 1970s. The linkup of a Soviet Soyuz and an American Apollo space-

craft symbolized the high-ﬂying spirit of cooperation. The high point came in the

capital of Finland, where the representatives of most European states and the

United States fashioned documents to provide a basis for future cooperation. These

Helsinki Accords (August 1975) ﬁnally ended World War II, thirty years after the

shooting had stopped. A new body, the Conference for Security and Cooperation

in Europe (CSCE) provided a forum for representatives from all European states

(along with the United States) to prevent any accidental outbreak of violence or

war. The Helsinki Accords also asserted basic human rights of liberty and freedom

for all the signatory states. These agreements soon gave people living under com-

munist dictatorships the opportunity to criticize their regimes’ failures to live up to

such rights.

tente provided a new way for the industrialized world to live with its ideolog-

ical differences. Nonetheless, this uneasy truce could not have gone on for the long

term. Sooner or later, ideological hostility would have provoked some incident that

brought in Russians and Americans to become angry at or even shoot at each other.

At its worst, world history could have ended in nuclear annihilation, with all sides

losing. Instead, de

tente’s collapse resulted in an American victory in the Cold War.

Review: How did the policies of de´tente ease Cold War tensions?

Response:

PAGE 364.................

17897$

CH14 10-08-10 09:42:27 PS

CHAPTER

Into the Future

The Contemporary Era, 1980 to the Present

he end of the Cold War startled most intelligence analysts, politicians, and

pundits (a new kind of commentator in modern media whose strength was

opinion more than analysis). A conﬂict that had framed international actions

and domestic policies for more than four decades came to a close with little warn-

ing. Nevertheless, the increasing interaction of the earth’s peoples challenged the

place of westerners and their wealth as never before. Still, international commerce,

science, industry, and politics guaranteed that Western civilization would con-

tinue—and go on to change.

A SURPRISE ENDING

The end of the Cold War followed directly from the end of the coexistence policy

of de

tente. The ﬁrst step came when the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan in

December 1979 to prop up a recently installed Communist regime. Afghanistan

PAGE 365.................

17897$

CH15 10-08-10 09:40:49 PS