December 7
10-11:55
Met with President, Shultz, Don Regan, John McMahon, Mc F Farlane, John Poindexter – in a upstairs residence of WH (end of corridor sitting room) – re NSC Iran proposal — President wants to free hostages — thinks a Hawks and TOWs would only go to “Moderate Elements in Army” + would help overthrow Iranian gov’t. I argued strongly that we have an Embargo that Makes Arms Sales to Iran illegal + President couldn’t violate it + that “washing” transaction thru Israel wouldn’t’ make it legal — Shultz, Don Regan agreed. President sd. he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn’t answer charge that “big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages”. Preside President left to do his noon radio
Students will be able to describe the events of the Iran-Contra Affair.
Students will analyze the motivations of Reagan Administration officials during the Iran-Contra Affair.
Students will appraise U.S. foreign policy in the late Cold War period.
Throughout his presidency, Reagan pursued an aggressively anti-Communist foreign policy. Early in his first term, Reagan had authorized a covert CIA operation to overthrow leftist governments in Nicaragua. Radicals known as Sandinistas had overthrown Nicaragua's military dictatorship and were threatening to do the same in El Salvador. The Contras were a coalition of paramilitary groups that opposed the Sandinistas. Fearing the spread of communism in the Western hemisphere, Reagan dubbed the Contras “freedom fighters” and channeled weapons and C.I.A. support to them. Congress remained skeptical, though; in 1984, it passed the Boland Amendment banning U.S. military aid to the Contras. Administration officials did not give up their support of the Contras, however; they merely looked for new sources of funds, other than federal appropriations from Congress, to send to Nicaragua.
National security advisors hatched a plan to fund the Contras with money brought in by the sale of weapons to Iran. Officials also hoped the weapons sales would make Iran more favorable to helping the U.S. negotiate with Islamic radicals who had taken several Americans hostage in Lebanon. The proposed sale of weapons, however, was illegal; the U.S. had passed an embargo and publicly denounced Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. In order to hide U.S. actions, Reagan officials sold millions of dollars worth of weapons secretly through an intermediary.
The profits from this illegal arms trade, along with other money that was raised secretly from foreign governments, were then used to fund the Contras in their war against Nicaragua’s radical Sandinista government. Several NSC officials went to jail, and much evidence suggested that Reagan had condoned the illegal acts. At the very least, it is clear that he supported the sale of weapons to Iran for the release of hostages and he supported the covert aid to the Contras. No one ever testified that he approved the weapons sales in order to fund the Contras. Although Democratic lawmakers shied away from any effort to impeach the still-popular president, the Iran-Contra Affair nonetheless deprived Reagan of his ability to set the national political agenda for the remainder of his term.
Step 1: First review with students the basic tenet of the Monroe Doctrine: that the U.S. has the right to intervene in Latin America in order to protect its interests in the Western hemisphere. Ask students to think of other events in U.S. history where the Monroe Doctrine was invoked. Then review with students what the Iran-Contra Affair was. The teacher may wish to share the background information provided in the historical context section of this activity plan or to review a textbook's account of the events. Enforce the basic definition of the Iran-Contra Affair: The Reagan Administration secretly sold weapons to Iran in order to fund anti-Communist fighters in Nicaragua known as Contras.
Step 2: Hand out the timeline of the Iran-Contra Affair. Go over the events with students. Ask students to identify which aspects of the timeline reflect Cold War policies and which events indicate the new threat the U.S. faced from Islamic fundamentalists. Reinforce with students that the Iran-Contra Affair happened at a time when the threats to the United States were shifting from the Cold War to terrorism. Ask students to tell which threat in the 1980s seems more pressing, based on what they have learned about the Cold War to that point and what they know about U.S. foreign policy today. Tell students to keep the timeline as reference for the rest of the activity.
Step 3: Pass out the "Decoding U.S. Foreign Policy" worksheet and the document "Reagan Administration Officials Debate How to Support the Contras." Before reading the document, ask students to note when this document was created and what type of document it is. Ask students to "place" this document on their timeline of the Iran-Contra Affair.
Step 4: Ask for seven volunteers to read the "script" of the meeting. Before beginning, read the description. The different roles are:
Secretary/Narrator (Reads the time/place/persons present)
Robert McFarlane, National Security Advisor
George P. Shultz, Secretary of State
Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense
Edwin Meese, Attorney General
George H.W. Bush, Vice President
Ronald Reagan, President
Now model "decoding" the document with the worksheet. Together, fill out the worksheet, making sure that students know how to answer each part of the worksheet. Before moving on, make sure that students know how this event fits on the timeline and what it tells us about the motivations and thinking of Reagan Administration officials at the beginning of the Iran-Contra Affair.
Step 5: Divide students into groups of four. The teacher can divide students into groups according to skill level or create mixed-skill level groups. Below are suggested "reading levels" for each document. In their groups, students should read one of the four documents and decode it using a second copy of the worksheet.
Beginning: The CIA Advises Nicaraguans How to Sabotage the Sandinista Government
Mid-Level 1: "Big Strong President Reagan" Encourages Sale of Weapons to Iran
Mid-Level 2: The Deputy Director of the CIA Advises on the Situation in Nicaragua
Advanced: Nicaragua's President Challenges U.S. Intervention in His Country
If working in mixed-skill level groups, students should share out their documents with each other before the next step.
Step 6: Ask students to share their findings from their documents with the whole class, focusing on their responses in Section III of the worksheet. Project the documents as the students discuss them and place them on the timeline. Possible discussion questions include:
Were the actions of Reagan's administration in the Iran-Contra Affair justifiable? Why or why not?
Had Reagan or his administration officials committed illegal acts and should they have been held accountable? Why or why not?
What do these documents tell us about U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War?
Do these events challenge the assumptions of the Monroe Doctrine? Is the Monroe Doctrine a sound foreign policy?
I had long been drawn to socialism and communism, and Russia had appealed to me. Much in Soviet Russia I dislike—the ruthless suppression of all contrary opinion, the wholesale regimentation, the unnecessary violence (as I thought) in carrying out various policies. But there was no lack of violence and suppression in the capitalist world, and I realized more and more how the very basis and foundation of our acquisitive society and property was violence. Without violence it would not continue for many days. A measure of political liberty meant little indeed when the fear of starvation was always compelling the vast majority of people everywhere to submit to the will of the few, to the greater glory and advantage of the latter.
. . . With all her blunders, Soviet Russia had triumphed over enormous difficulties and taken great strides toward this new order. While the rest of the world was in the grip of the depression and going backward in some ways, in the Soviet country a great new world was being built up before our eyes. Russia, following the great Lenin, looked into the future and thought only of what was to be, while other countries lay numbed under the dead hand of the past and spent their energy in preserving the useless relics of a bygone age. . . . [T]he presence and example of the Soviets was a bright and heartening phenomenon in a dark and dismal world. . . .
It seemed clear to me that nationalism would remain the outstanding urge, till some measure of political freedom was attained. Because of this the Congress had been, and was still (apart from certain labor circles), the most advanced organization in India, as it was far the most powerful. During the past thirteen years, under Gandhi’s leadership, it has produced a wonderful awakening of the masses, and, in spite of its vague bourgeois ideology, it had served a revolutionary purpose. It had not exhausted its utility yet and was not likely to do so till the nationalist urge gave place to a social one. . . .
[I]t is absurd to say that the leaders [of the Indian movement] betray the masses because they do not try to upset the land system or the capitalist system. They never claimed to do so. Some people in the Congress, and they are a growing number, want to change the land system and the capitalist system, but they cannot speak in the name of the Congress. . . .
I write this sitting in a British prison. . . . I dislike British imperialism, and I resent its imposition on India; I dislike the capitalist system; I dislike exceedingly and resent the way India is exploited by the ruling classes of Britain. But I do not hold England or the English people as a whole responsible for this. . . .
To achieve lasting peace, we must study in detail just how the Russian character was formed—by invasions of Tartars, Mongols, Germans, Poles, Swedes, and French; by the czarist rule based on ignorance, fear and force; by the intervention of the British, French and Americans in Russian affairs from 1919-1921; by the geography of the huge Russian land mass situated strategically between Europe and Asia; and by the vitality derived from the rich Russian soil and the strenuous Russian climate. Add to all this the tremendous emotional power which Marxism and Leninism gives to the Russian leaders—and then we can realize that we are reckoning with a force which cannot be handled successfully by a 'Get tough with Russia' policy. 'Getting tough' never brought anything real and lasting—whether for schoolyard bullies or businessmen or world powers. The tougher we get, the tougher the Russians will get. . . .
We most earnestly want peace with Russia—but we want to be met half way. We want cooperation. And I believe that we can get cooperation once Russia understands that our primary objective is neither saving the British Empire nor purchasing oil in the Near East with the lives of American soldiers. . . .
On our part we should recognize that we have no more business in the political affairs of Eastern Europe than Russia has in the political affairs of Latin America, Western Europe and the United States. . . The Russians have no more business in stirring up native communists to political activity in Western Europe, Latin America and the United States than we have in interfering in the politics of Eastern Europe and Russia. We know what Russia is up to in Eastern Europe, for example, and Russia knows what we are up to. We cannot permit the door to be closed against our trade in Eastern Europe any more than we can in China. But at the same time we have to recognize that the Balkans are closer to Russia than to us—and that Russia cannot permit either England or the United States to dominate the politics of that area . . . .
Russian ideas of social-economic justice are going to govern nearly a third of the world. Our ideas of free enterprise democracy will govern much of the rest. The two ideas will endeavor to prove which can deliver the most satisfaction to the common man in their respective areas of political dominance. . . . Under friendly peaceful competition the Russian world and the American world will gradually become more alike. The Russians will be forced to grant more and more of the personal freedoms; and we shall become more and more absorbed with the problems of social-economic justice.
One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms.
I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.
I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes. . . .
Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East.
We must take immediate and resolute action.
The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grown in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died.
We must keep that hope alive.
The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.
If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world—and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.