Home › Books & Reviews › Capsule Reviews › African Conflict Resolution: The U.S. Role in Peacemaking

African Conflict Resolution: The U.S. Role in Peacemaking

Edited by David R. Smock and Chester A. Crocker
Reviewed by By Gail M. Gerhart
November/December 1996
Print Email
Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.
Edited by David R. Smock and Chester A. Crocker
U.S. Institute of Peace Press
1995
163 pp.
$14.95

An overview of America's actions and options in promoting peace in Africa. The contributors propose building the capacity of Africans -- in governments, military establishments, universities, nongovernmental organizations, regional bodies, and especially the Organization of African Unity -- to prevent and resolve conflicts, with practical suggestions for diplomatic action, training, logistical backup, and institutional support. Unfortunately, the book is marred by shamelessly distorted presentations of Reagan administration policies of "constructive engagement" and "linkage" in southern Africa. Crocker, who was assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1981 to 1989, claims these policies were successful "leadership in African peacemaking," but most Africa experts blame them for prolonging the wars in Angola and Namibia and encouraging South Africa's aggression and intransigence. Robert Oakley, U.S. special envoy to Somalia in 1992-93, turns the "success" story into an even more imaginative fable in which South Africa "actively discussed and negotiated rather than . . . relying on the use of military force."

Related

Essay, Spring 1981
Japanese Security Policies and the United States
Gerald L. Curtis

Americans who follow trends in Japanese security policies tend to divide into those who see little significant change, particularly in terms of the central importance of the U.S. alliance, and those who believe that Japan is poised to embark on a more assertive and independent course involving independent military capabilities and an important role in regional security. Which view is more nearly correct, and how the balance is struck between autonomy and alliance, are crucially important questions, both in themselves and in terms of U.S.-Japan relations.

Read
Essay, May/Jun 2006
The Special Relationship, Then and Now
Lawrence D. Freedman

As Tony Blair gets lambasted for backing the Iraq war, it is worth noting that the current strain in U.S.-British relations is hardly the first induced by war. Twenty-four years ago, London was dismayed by Washington's lack of support during the Falklands War -- an episode that shows both how complex the allies' relationship has been during times of crisis and how resilient it can be afterward.

Read
Response, Jan/Feb 2006
Out, Damned Spot!
Wilson D. St.Pierre

Andrew Krepinevich ("How to Win in Iraq," September/October 2005) proposes Baghdad and Mosul as the two primary targets for "oil-spot offensives." He asserts that the focus should be on "protecting the population, not pursuing insurgent forces." This proposal ignores two basic realities. first, Baghdad and Mosul are sprawling cities. Their populations would be very difficult to protect without pulling troops, American or Iraqi, from more contentious parts of Iraq.

Read