Kasem AminThe first decade of the twentieth century was a very dark period for the Egyptian people. However such periods, as the history of Egypt tells us, often do not last long. As a streak of lightning glimmering through the dark, Qassem Ameen rose up from the Egyptian soil to challenge the prevailing darkness. His call for the emancipation of women, which has guided on progress throughout the century was an integral part of a comprehensive movement for a new homeland.
Ameen's Life and Education
Born in Alexandria, he received his primary education at Ras Etteen school, then moved to Khedivi secondary school in Cairo, where he completed his secondary education.
After graduating in the School of Law, he was sent to France in 1882 to complete his post-graduate study of Law. Back home in 1885, he worked at the Mixed Prosecution Department handling charges against both Egyptian citizens and foreigners in Egypt, the Government Legal Bureau. He then became Chief Prosecutor of Beni Suef and later of Tanta. During this time, he engaged in a campaign to solicit amnesty for Nationalist leader Abdullah Al Nadeem and his fellow revolutionists. Later, he was promoted to a councilor at Cairo Court of Appeal.
Challenges of the Early Twentieth Century
With the beginning of the twentieth century, Egypt was facing major challenges in politics, economy, education, social activity and religious reform. Qassem Ameen had a major part to play in meeting these challenges. Back from France in 1885, Ameen drew nearer to the reform leaders Gamal Eddin Al Afghani and Sheikh Muhammad Abdo.
In 1894, he issued his book in French "Les Egyptians" (The Egyptians). In this book, Ameen rejected negative claims against the traditions of oriental society, as made by Duke Drocom in his book "L'Egypte et les Egyptians". Ameen defended Islam and compared the rights of women according to Islam with those of the civilized European women. In 1899, he issued his book "The Emancipation of Women", which was severely criticised.
In 1900, Ameen refuted the arguments of his opponents, in his book "The New Woman", which gave fresh fuel to his ardent battle for the emancipation of women.
During this period, Ameen took part in several social organizations such as the Higher Schools Club, the Islamic Charitable Society and the Private University.
The key figures of this period were actively engaged in meeting the challenges of the time by instituting parties, newspapers and societies as well as advocating economic liberalization.
Figures influenced Ameen
As a student of Law, Ameen was in Paris concurrently with Gamal Eddin Al Afghani and Sheikh Muhammad Abdo, leaders of the national and religious reform movement. They published the first issue of "Alorwa Al Wothga" newspaper on March 13, 1889. During this period, he approached Gamal Eddin Al Afghani and worked as an interpreter for Sheikh Muhammad Abdo. When the Sheikh returned to Egypt in 1885, Ameen was a close follower who derived great benefits from his concepts of religious and educational reform.
Qassem Ameen was closely associated with Saad Zaghloul and Ahmed Lotfi Al Sayyed, eminent nationalist leaders of the time. When Khedive Abbas Helmi II traveled to Constantinople in July 1893, he was accompanied by a delegation, consisting, besides Ameen, of Saad Zaghloul, Ahmed Lotfi Al Sayyed, Hifni Nassef and Sheikh Ali Yousof.
Qassem Ameen and the Emancipation of Women
Ameen's call for the emancipation of women in the late 19th and 20th centuries was a significant landmark towards the overall awakening of the community and the freedom of women. With his smooth and easily flowing style and prudential reasoning. Qassem Ameen was indeed a precursor to his time. When he first published his book on the emancipation of women is 1899. He was severely criticized. He was attacked by Moustafa Kamel and Khedive Abbas II and defended by Saad Zaghluol and Ahmed Lotfi Al Sayyed.
Qassem Ameen's writings extensively elaborate on the concepts of the nation, homeland and reform. In these writings, he associates the condition of women to the political condition. It can be said that the question of woman, as seen by Ameen is basically political. The real problem Ameen meant to hand was that of re-organizing the Egyptian society and restructuring its mentality. He ingeniously singled out the disadvantages of the absence of democracy and its impact on the autocratic handling of man by governments and authoritarian treatment of women by men. He believed that, for a woman to be emancipated, she should be so educated as to acquire a certain level of learning and study facts of science and nature so as to discard superstitions, all within the tenets of the Islamic Law (Sharia).
Friday, March 20, 2009
William (Bill) H. Gates
William H. Gates
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corporation
William (Bill) H. Gates III is co-founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Microsoft Corporation, the world's leading provider of software for personal computers.
Bill Gates was born on October 28, 1955. He and his two sisters grew up in Seattle. Their father, William H. Gates II, is a Seattle attorney. Mary Gates, their late mother, was a schoolteacher, University of Washington regent and chairwoman of United Way International.
Gates attended public elementary school before moving on to the private Lakeside School in North Seattle. It was at Lakeside that Gates began his career in personal computer software, programming computers at age 13.
In 1973, Gates entered Harvard University as a freshman, where he lived down the hall from Steve Ballmer, who is now Microsoft's president. While at Harvard, Gates developed a version of the programming language BASIC for the first microcomputer - the MITS Altair. BASIC was first developed by John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz at Dartmouth College in the mid-1960s. In his junior year, Gates dropped out of Harvard to devote his energies full-time to Microsoft, a company he had started in 1975 with his boyhood friend Paul Allen. Guided by a belief that the personal computer would be a valuable tool on every office desktop and in every home, they began developing software for personal computers.
Gates' foresight and vision regarding personal computing have been central to the success of Microsoft and the software industry. Gates is actively involved in key management and strategic decisions at Microsoft, and plays an important role in the technical development of new products. Much of his time is devoted to meeting with customers and staying in contact with Microsoft employees around the world through e-mail.
Under Gates' leadership, Microsoft's mission is continuously to advance and improve software technology, and to make it easier, more cost-effective and more enjoyable for people to use computers. The company is committed to a long-term view, which is reflected in its investment of some $2.6 billion for research and development during the current fiscal year.
In 1995 Gates wrote The Road Ahead, his vision of where information technology will take society. Co-authored by Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's chief technology officer, and Peter Rinearson, The Road Ahead held the No. 1 spot on the New York Times' bestseller list for seven weeks, and remained on the list for a total of 18 weeks. Published in more than 20 countries, the book sold more than 400,000 copies in China alone.
In 1996, while strategically redeploying Microsoft to take advantage of the emerging opportunities created by the Internet, Gates thoroughly revised The Road Ahead to reflect his view that interactive networks are a major milestone in human communication. The paperback second edition also has become a bestseller. Gates is donating his proceeds from the book to a non-profit fund that supports teachers worldwide who are incorporating computers into their classrooms.
In addition to his passion for computers, Gates is interested in biotechnology. He sits on the board of the ICOS Corporation and is a shareholder in Chiroscience Group of the United Kingdom and its wholly owned subsidiary, Chiroscience R&D Inc. (formerly Darwin Molecular) of Bothell, Wash. He also founded Corbis Corporation, which is developing one of the largest resources of visual information in the world - a comprehensive digital archive of art and photography from public and private collections around the globe. Gates also has invested with cellular telephone pioneer Craig McCaw in Teledesic, a company that is working on an ambitious plan to launch hundreds of low-orbit satellites around the Earth to provide a worldwide two-way broadband telecommunications service.
In the dozen years since Microsoft went public, Gates has donated more than $800 million to charities, including $200 million to the Gates library Foundation to help libaries in North America take advantage of new technologies and the Information Age. In 1994 Gates established the William H. Gates Foundation, which supports a variety of initiatives of particular interest to Gates and his family. The focus of Gates' philanthropy is in four areas: education; world public health and population; non-profit, civic and arts organizations; and Puget Sound-area capital campaigns.
Bill and Melinda French Gates were married on January 1, 1994. They have now three children, one is Jennifer Katharine Gates, who was born in 1996; and a son Rory John Gates, born in 1999 and a daughter, Phoebe Adelle Gates, born in 2002.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corporation
William (Bill) H. Gates III is co-founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Microsoft Corporation, the world's leading provider of software for personal computers.
Bill Gates was born on October 28, 1955. He and his two sisters grew up in Seattle. Their father, William H. Gates II, is a Seattle attorney. Mary Gates, their late mother, was a schoolteacher, University of Washington regent and chairwoman of United Way International.
Gates attended public elementary school before moving on to the private Lakeside School in North Seattle. It was at Lakeside that Gates began his career in personal computer software, programming computers at age 13.
In 1973, Gates entered Harvard University as a freshman, where he lived down the hall from Steve Ballmer, who is now Microsoft's president. While at Harvard, Gates developed a version of the programming language BASIC for the first microcomputer - the MITS Altair. BASIC was first developed by John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz at Dartmouth College in the mid-1960s. In his junior year, Gates dropped out of Harvard to devote his energies full-time to Microsoft, a company he had started in 1975 with his boyhood friend Paul Allen. Guided by a belief that the personal computer would be a valuable tool on every office desktop and in every home, they began developing software for personal computers.
Gates' foresight and vision regarding personal computing have been central to the success of Microsoft and the software industry. Gates is actively involved in key management and strategic decisions at Microsoft, and plays an important role in the technical development of new products. Much of his time is devoted to meeting with customers and staying in contact with Microsoft employees around the world through e-mail.
Under Gates' leadership, Microsoft's mission is continuously to advance and improve software technology, and to make it easier, more cost-effective and more enjoyable for people to use computers. The company is committed to a long-term view, which is reflected in its investment of some $2.6 billion for research and development during the current fiscal year.
In 1995 Gates wrote The Road Ahead, his vision of where information technology will take society. Co-authored by Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's chief technology officer, and Peter Rinearson, The Road Ahead held the No. 1 spot on the New York Times' bestseller list for seven weeks, and remained on the list for a total of 18 weeks. Published in more than 20 countries, the book sold more than 400,000 copies in China alone.
In 1996, while strategically redeploying Microsoft to take advantage of the emerging opportunities created by the Internet, Gates thoroughly revised The Road Ahead to reflect his view that interactive networks are a major milestone in human communication. The paperback second edition also has become a bestseller. Gates is donating his proceeds from the book to a non-profit fund that supports teachers worldwide who are incorporating computers into their classrooms.
In addition to his passion for computers, Gates is interested in biotechnology. He sits on the board of the ICOS Corporation and is a shareholder in Chiroscience Group of the United Kingdom and its wholly owned subsidiary, Chiroscience R&D Inc. (formerly Darwin Molecular) of Bothell, Wash. He also founded Corbis Corporation, which is developing one of the largest resources of visual information in the world - a comprehensive digital archive of art and photography from public and private collections around the globe. Gates also has invested with cellular telephone pioneer Craig McCaw in Teledesic, a company that is working on an ambitious plan to launch hundreds of low-orbit satellites around the Earth to provide a worldwide two-way broadband telecommunications service.
In the dozen years since Microsoft went public, Gates has donated more than $800 million to charities, including $200 million to the Gates library Foundation to help libaries in North America take advantage of new technologies and the Information Age. In 1994 Gates established the William H. Gates Foundation, which supports a variety of initiatives of particular interest to Gates and his family. The focus of Gates' philanthropy is in four areas: education; world public health and population; non-profit, civic and arts organizations; and Puget Sound-area capital campaigns.
Bill and Melinda French Gates were married on January 1, 1994. They have now three children, one is Jennifer Katharine Gates, who was born in 1996; and a son Rory John Gates, born in 1999 and a daughter, Phoebe Adelle Gates, born in 2002.
Alexander Fleming
Sir Alexander Fleming was born at Lochfield near Darvel in Ayrshire, Scotland on August 6th, 1881. He attended Louden Moor School, Darvel School, and Kilmarnock Academy before moving to London where he attended the Polytechnic. He spent four years in a shipping office before entering St. Mary's Medical School, London University. He qualified with distinction in 1906 and began research at St. Mary's under Sir Almroth Wright, a pioneer in vaccine therapy. He gained M.B., B.S., (London), with Gold Medal in 1908, and became a lecturer at St. Mary's until 1914. He served throughout World War I as a captain in the Army Medical Corps, being mentioned in dispatches, and in 1918 he returned to St.Mary's. He was elected Professor of the School in 1928 and Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology, University of London in 1948. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1943 and knighted in 1944.
Early in his medical life, Fleming became interested in the natural bacterial action of the blood and in antiseptics. He was able to continue his studies throughout his military career and on demobilization he settled to work on antibacterial substances which would not be toxic to animal tissues. In 1921, he discovered in «tissues and secretions» an important bacteriolytic substance which he named Lysozyme. About this time, he devised sensitivity titration methods and assays in human blood and other body fluids, which he subsequently used for the titration of penicillin. In 1928, while working on influenza virus, he observed that mould had developed accidently on a staphylococcus culture plate and that the mould had created a bacteria-free circle around itself. He was inspired to further experiment and he found that a mould culture prevented growth of staphylococci, even when diluted 800 times. He named the active substance penicillin.
Sir Alexander wrote numerous papers on bacteriology, immunology and chemotherapy, including original descriptions of lysozyme and penicillin. They have been published in medical and scientific journals.
Fleming, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (England), 1909, and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (London), 1944, has gained many awards. They include Hunterian Professor (1919), Arris and Gale Lecturer (1929) and Honorary Gold Medal (1946) of the Royal College of Surgeons; Williams Julius Mickle Fellowship, University of London (1942); Charles Mickle Fellowship, University of Toronto (1944); John Scott Medal, City Guild of Philadelphia (1944); Cameron Prize, University of Edinburgh (1945); Moxon Medal, Royal College of Physicians (1945); Cutter Lecturer, Harvard University (1945); Albert Gold Medal, Royal Society of Arts (1946); Gold Medal, Royal Society of Medicine (1947); Medal for Merit, U.S.A. (1947); and the Grand Cross of Alphonse X the Wise, Spain (1948).
He served as President of the Society for General Microbiology, he was a Member of the Pontifical Academy of Science and Honorary Member of almost all the medical and scientific societies of the world. He was Rector of Edinburgh University during 1951-1954, Freeman of many boroughs and cities and Honorary Chief Doy-gei-tau of the Kiowa tribe. He was also awarded doctorate, honoris causa, degrees of almost thirty European and American Universities.
In 1915, Fleming married Sarah Marion McElroy of Killala, Ireland, who died in 1949. Their son is a general medical practitioner.
Fleming married again in 1953, his bride was Dr. Amalia Koutsouri-Voureka, a Greek colleague at St. Mary's.
In his younger days he was a keen member of the Territorial Army and he served from 1900 to 1914 as a private in the London Scottish Regiment.
Dr Fleming died on March 11th in 1955 and is buried in St. Paul's Cathedral.
Early in his medical life, Fleming became interested in the natural bacterial action of the blood and in antiseptics. He was able to continue his studies throughout his military career and on demobilization he settled to work on antibacterial substances which would not be toxic to animal tissues. In 1921, he discovered in «tissues and secretions» an important bacteriolytic substance which he named Lysozyme. About this time, he devised sensitivity titration methods and assays in human blood and other body fluids, which he subsequently used for the titration of penicillin. In 1928, while working on influenza virus, he observed that mould had developed accidently on a staphylococcus culture plate and that the mould had created a bacteria-free circle around itself. He was inspired to further experiment and he found that a mould culture prevented growth of staphylococci, even when diluted 800 times. He named the active substance penicillin.
Sir Alexander wrote numerous papers on bacteriology, immunology and chemotherapy, including original descriptions of lysozyme and penicillin. They have been published in medical and scientific journals.
Fleming, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (England), 1909, and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (London), 1944, has gained many awards. They include Hunterian Professor (1919), Arris and Gale Lecturer (1929) and Honorary Gold Medal (1946) of the Royal College of Surgeons; Williams Julius Mickle Fellowship, University of London (1942); Charles Mickle Fellowship, University of Toronto (1944); John Scott Medal, City Guild of Philadelphia (1944); Cameron Prize, University of Edinburgh (1945); Moxon Medal, Royal College of Physicians (1945); Cutter Lecturer, Harvard University (1945); Albert Gold Medal, Royal Society of Arts (1946); Gold Medal, Royal Society of Medicine (1947); Medal for Merit, U.S.A. (1947); and the Grand Cross of Alphonse X the Wise, Spain (1948).
He served as President of the Society for General Microbiology, he was a Member of the Pontifical Academy of Science and Honorary Member of almost all the medical and scientific societies of the world. He was Rector of Edinburgh University during 1951-1954, Freeman of many boroughs and cities and Honorary Chief Doy-gei-tau of the Kiowa tribe. He was also awarded doctorate, honoris causa, degrees of almost thirty European and American Universities.
In 1915, Fleming married Sarah Marion McElroy of Killala, Ireland, who died in 1949. Their son is a general medical practitioner.
Fleming married again in 1953, his bride was Dr. Amalia Koutsouri-Voureka, a Greek colleague at St. Mary's.
In his younger days he was a keen member of the Territorial Army and he served from 1900 to 1914 as a private in the London Scottish Regiment.
Dr Fleming died on March 11th in 1955 and is buried in St. Paul's Cathedral.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in Hyde Park, New York on January 30, 1882, the son of James Roosevelt and Sara Delano Roosevelt. His parents and private tutors provided him with almost all his formative education. He attended Groton (1896-1900), a prestigious preparatory school in Massachusetts, and received a BA degree in history from Harvard in only three years (1900-03). Roosevelt next studied law at New York's Columbia University. When he passed the bar examination in 1907, he left school without taking a degree. For the next three years he practiced law with a prominent New York City law firm. He entered politics in 1910 and was elected to the New York State Senate as a Democrat from his traditionally Republican home district.
In the meantime, in 1905, he had married a distant cousin, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the niece of President Theodore Roosevelt. The couple had six children, five of whom survived infancy: Anna (1906), James (1907), Elliott (1910), Franklin, Jr. (1914) and John (1916).
Roosevelt was reelected to the State Senate in 1912, and supported Woodrow Wilson's candidacy at the Democratic National Convention. As a reward for his support, Wilson appointed him Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1913, a position he held until 1920. He was an energetic and efficient administrator, specializing in the business side of naval administration. This experience prepared him for his future role as Commander-in-Chief during World War II. Roosevelt's popularity and success in naval affairs resulted in his being nominated for vice-president by the Democratic Party in 1920 on a ticket headed by James M. Cox of Ohio. However, popular sentiment against Wilson's plan for US participation in the League of Nations propelled Republican Warren Harding into the presidency, and Roosevelt returned to private life.
While vacationing at Campobello Island, New Brunswick in the summer of 1921, Roosevelt contracted poliomyelitis (infantile paralysis). Despite courageous efforts to overcome his crippling illness, he never regained the use of his legs. In time, he established a foundation at Warm Springs, Georgia to help other polio victims, and inspired, as well as directed, the March of Dimes program that eventually funded an effective vaccine.
With the encouragement and help of his wife, Eleanor, and political confidant, Louis Howe, Roosevelt resumed his political career. In 1924 he nominated Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York for president at the Democratic National Convention, but Smith lost the nomination to John W. Davis. In 1928 Smith became the Democratic candidate for president and arranged for Roosevelt's nomination to succeed him as governor of New York. Smith lost the election to Herbert Hoover; but Roosevelt was elected governor.
Following his reelection as governor in 1930, Roosevelt began to campaign for the presidency. While the economic depression damaged Hoover and the Republicans, Roosevelt's bold efforts to combat it in New York enhanced his reputation. In Chicago in 1932, Roosevelt won the nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for president. He broke with tradition and flew to Chicago to accept the nomination in person. He then campaigned energetically calling for government intervention in the economy to provide relief, recovery, and reform. His activist approach and personal charm helped to defeat Hoover in November 1932 by seven million votes.
The Depression worsened in the months preceding Roosevelt's inauguration, March 4, 1933. Factory closings, farm foreclosures, and bank failures increased, while unemployment soared. Roosevelt faced the greatest crisis in American history since the Civil War. He undertook immediate actions to initiate his New Deal. To halt depositor panics, he closed the banks temporarily. Then he worked with a special session of Congress during the first "100 days" to pass recovery legislation which set up alphabet agencies such as the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration) to support farm prices and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) to employ young men. Other agencies assisted business and labor, insured bank deposits, regulated the stock market, subsidized home and farm mortgage payments, and aided the unemployed. These measures revived confidence in the economy. Banks reopened and direct relief saved millions from starvation. But the New Deal measures also involved government directly in areas of social and economic life as never before and resulted in greatly increased spending and unbalanced budgets which led to criticisms of Roosevelt's programs. However, the nation-at-large supported Roosevelt, elected additional Democrats to state legislatures and governorships in the mid-term elections.
Another flurry of New Deal legislation followed in 1935 including the establishment of the Works Projects Administration (WPA) which provided jobs not only for laborers but also artists, writers, musicians, and authors, and the Social Security act which provided unemployment compensation and a program of old-age and survivors' benefits.
Roosevelt easily defeated Alfred M. Landon in 1936 and went on to defeat by lesser margins, Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Thomas E. Dewey in 1944. He thus became the only American president to serve more than two terms.
After his overwhelming victory in 1936, Roosevelt took on the critics of the New deal, namely, the Supreme Court which had declared various legislation unconstitutional, and members of his own party. In 1937 he proposed to add new justices to the Supreme Court, but critics said he was "packing" the Court and undermining the separation of powers. His proposal was defeated, but the Court began to decide in favor of New Deal legislation. During the 1938 election he campaigned against many Democratic opponents, but this backfired when most were reelected to Congress. These setbacks, coupled with the recession that occurred midway through his second term, represented the low-point in Roosevelt's presidential career.
By 1939 Roosevelt was concentrating increasingly on foreign affairs with the outbreak of war in Europe. New Deal reform legislation diminished, and the ills of the Depression would not fully abate until the nation mobilized for war.
When Hitler attacked Poland in September 1939, Roosevelt stated that, although the nation was neutral, he did not expect America to remain inactive in the face of Nazi aggression. Accordingly, he tried to make American aid available to Britain, France, and China and to obtain an amendment of the Neutrality Acts which rendered such assistance difficult. He also took measures to build up the armed forces in the face of isolationist opposition.
With the fall of France in 1940, the American mood and Roosevelt's policy changed dramatically. Congress enacted a draft for military service and Roosevelt signed a "lend-lease" bill in March 1941 to enable the nation to furnish aid to nations at war with Germany and Italy. America, though a neutral in the war and still at peace, was becoming the "arsenal of democracy", as its factories began producing as they had in the years before the Depression.
The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, followed four days later by Germany's and Italy's declarations of war against the United States, brought the nation irrevocably into the war. Roosevelt exercised his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, a role he actively carried out. He worked with and through his military advisers, overriding them when necessary, and took an active role in choosing the principal field commanders and in making decisions regarding wartime strategy.
He moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942, in which all nations fighting the Axis agreed not to make a separate peace and pledged themselves to a peacekeeping organization (now the United Nations) on victory.
He gave priority to the western European front and had General George Marshall, Chief of Staff, plan a holding operation in the Pacific and organize an expeditionary force for an invasion of Europe. The United States and its allies invaded North Africa in November 1942 and Sicily and Italy in 1943. The D-Day landings on the Normandy beaches in France, June 6, 1944, were followed by the allied invasion of Germany six months later. By April 1945 victory in Europe was certain.
The unending stress and strain of the war literally wore Roosevelt out. By early 1944 a full medical examination disclosed serious heart and circulatory problems; and although his physicians placed him on a strict regime of diet and medication, the pressures of war and domestic politics weighed heavily on him. During a vacation at Warm Springs, Georgia, on April 12, 1945, he suffered a massive stroke and died two and one-half hours later without regaining consciousness. He was 63 years old. His death came on the eve of complete military victory in Europe and within months of victory over Japan in the Pacific. President Roosevelt was buried in the Rose Garden of his estate at Hyde Park, New Yor
In the meantime, in 1905, he had married a distant cousin, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the niece of President Theodore Roosevelt. The couple had six children, five of whom survived infancy: Anna (1906), James (1907), Elliott (1910), Franklin, Jr. (1914) and John (1916).
Roosevelt was reelected to the State Senate in 1912, and supported Woodrow Wilson's candidacy at the Democratic National Convention. As a reward for his support, Wilson appointed him Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1913, a position he held until 1920. He was an energetic and efficient administrator, specializing in the business side of naval administration. This experience prepared him for his future role as Commander-in-Chief during World War II. Roosevelt's popularity and success in naval affairs resulted in his being nominated for vice-president by the Democratic Party in 1920 on a ticket headed by James M. Cox of Ohio. However, popular sentiment against Wilson's plan for US participation in the League of Nations propelled Republican Warren Harding into the presidency, and Roosevelt returned to private life.
While vacationing at Campobello Island, New Brunswick in the summer of 1921, Roosevelt contracted poliomyelitis (infantile paralysis). Despite courageous efforts to overcome his crippling illness, he never regained the use of his legs. In time, he established a foundation at Warm Springs, Georgia to help other polio victims, and inspired, as well as directed, the March of Dimes program that eventually funded an effective vaccine.
With the encouragement and help of his wife, Eleanor, and political confidant, Louis Howe, Roosevelt resumed his political career. In 1924 he nominated Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York for president at the Democratic National Convention, but Smith lost the nomination to John W. Davis. In 1928 Smith became the Democratic candidate for president and arranged for Roosevelt's nomination to succeed him as governor of New York. Smith lost the election to Herbert Hoover; but Roosevelt was elected governor.
Following his reelection as governor in 1930, Roosevelt began to campaign for the presidency. While the economic depression damaged Hoover and the Republicans, Roosevelt's bold efforts to combat it in New York enhanced his reputation. In Chicago in 1932, Roosevelt won the nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for president. He broke with tradition and flew to Chicago to accept the nomination in person. He then campaigned energetically calling for government intervention in the economy to provide relief, recovery, and reform. His activist approach and personal charm helped to defeat Hoover in November 1932 by seven million votes.
The Depression worsened in the months preceding Roosevelt's inauguration, March 4, 1933. Factory closings, farm foreclosures, and bank failures increased, while unemployment soared. Roosevelt faced the greatest crisis in American history since the Civil War. He undertook immediate actions to initiate his New Deal. To halt depositor panics, he closed the banks temporarily. Then he worked with a special session of Congress during the first "100 days" to pass recovery legislation which set up alphabet agencies such as the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration) to support farm prices and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) to employ young men. Other agencies assisted business and labor, insured bank deposits, regulated the stock market, subsidized home and farm mortgage payments, and aided the unemployed. These measures revived confidence in the economy. Banks reopened and direct relief saved millions from starvation. But the New Deal measures also involved government directly in areas of social and economic life as never before and resulted in greatly increased spending and unbalanced budgets which led to criticisms of Roosevelt's programs. However, the nation-at-large supported Roosevelt, elected additional Democrats to state legislatures and governorships in the mid-term elections.
Another flurry of New Deal legislation followed in 1935 including the establishment of the Works Projects Administration (WPA) which provided jobs not only for laborers but also artists, writers, musicians, and authors, and the Social Security act which provided unemployment compensation and a program of old-age and survivors' benefits.
Roosevelt easily defeated Alfred M. Landon in 1936 and went on to defeat by lesser margins, Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Thomas E. Dewey in 1944. He thus became the only American president to serve more than two terms.
After his overwhelming victory in 1936, Roosevelt took on the critics of the New deal, namely, the Supreme Court which had declared various legislation unconstitutional, and members of his own party. In 1937 he proposed to add new justices to the Supreme Court, but critics said he was "packing" the Court and undermining the separation of powers. His proposal was defeated, but the Court began to decide in favor of New Deal legislation. During the 1938 election he campaigned against many Democratic opponents, but this backfired when most were reelected to Congress. These setbacks, coupled with the recession that occurred midway through his second term, represented the low-point in Roosevelt's presidential career.
By 1939 Roosevelt was concentrating increasingly on foreign affairs with the outbreak of war in Europe. New Deal reform legislation diminished, and the ills of the Depression would not fully abate until the nation mobilized for war.
When Hitler attacked Poland in September 1939, Roosevelt stated that, although the nation was neutral, he did not expect America to remain inactive in the face of Nazi aggression. Accordingly, he tried to make American aid available to Britain, France, and China and to obtain an amendment of the Neutrality Acts which rendered such assistance difficult. He also took measures to build up the armed forces in the face of isolationist opposition.
With the fall of France in 1940, the American mood and Roosevelt's policy changed dramatically. Congress enacted a draft for military service and Roosevelt signed a "lend-lease" bill in March 1941 to enable the nation to furnish aid to nations at war with Germany and Italy. America, though a neutral in the war and still at peace, was becoming the "arsenal of democracy", as its factories began producing as they had in the years before the Depression.
The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, followed four days later by Germany's and Italy's declarations of war against the United States, brought the nation irrevocably into the war. Roosevelt exercised his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, a role he actively carried out. He worked with and through his military advisers, overriding them when necessary, and took an active role in choosing the principal field commanders and in making decisions regarding wartime strategy.
He moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942, in which all nations fighting the Axis agreed not to make a separate peace and pledged themselves to a peacekeeping organization (now the United Nations) on victory.
He gave priority to the western European front and had General George Marshall, Chief of Staff, plan a holding operation in the Pacific and organize an expeditionary force for an invasion of Europe. The United States and its allies invaded North Africa in November 1942 and Sicily and Italy in 1943. The D-Day landings on the Normandy beaches in France, June 6, 1944, were followed by the allied invasion of Germany six months later. By April 1945 victory in Europe was certain.
The unending stress and strain of the war literally wore Roosevelt out. By early 1944 a full medical examination disclosed serious heart and circulatory problems; and although his physicians placed him on a strict regime of diet and medication, the pressures of war and domestic politics weighed heavily on him. During a vacation at Warm Springs, Georgia, on April 12, 1945, he suffered a massive stroke and died two and one-half hours later without regaining consciousness. He was 63 years old. His death came on the eve of complete military victory in Europe and within months of victory over Japan in the Pacific. President Roosevelt was buried in the Rose Garden of his estate at Hyde Park, New Yor
Friday, March 13, 2009
King Fahd’s Saudi Arabia
by Harvey Sicherman
August 12, 2005
Harvey Sicherman, Ph.D., is President of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a former aide to three U.S. secretaries of state. His latest essay “Cheap Hawks, Cheap Doves, and American Strategy” is forthcoming in the Fall 2005 issue of Orbis.
On August 2, 2005, Saudi King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz was laid to rest in an unmarked grave. Wrapped simply in a brown robe, his bier borne by family after the briefest of funeral services, Fahd’s end gave no clue to his life. He had been one of the world’s most opulent rulers, his largesse the stuff of legend. Fahd also possessed powers as monarch that would have impressed Louis XIV. His reign and his wrestle with the challenges that threatened his kingdom tell us much about Saudi Arabia’s past, and, perhaps, even more about its future.
Fahd was born into circumstances unimaginable in his later life. He was one of over forty sons sired by a desert chief who married a hundred times. Fahd and his six other siblings (the Sudari seven) would benefit from their mother’s status as the favorite wife. The future king grew up in what old-time writers used to call “oriental splendor,” luxurious compared to commoners but primitive compared to European standards: Plenty of servants but no indoor plumbing; mobility by donkey, camel, or horse; no electricity or refrigeration (fresh meat or no meat); physical prowess prized, especially in combat; sexual prowess essential.
The state Fahd would inherit did not yet exist. His father, the legendary Abdul Aziz was then assembling the pieces through conquest and guile. Warrior and statesman, he had learned the lesson of the earlier 18th and 19th century failed Saudi realms. One could rally the warring tribes of the Arabian peninsula (the Nejd) against the corrupt Ottomans under the green banner of a purified Salafi (or Wahabi) Islam but the declining empire still had enough military might-or could hire it-to ensure defeat. This time around, the Saudis would work carefully with the strongest outside power and, instead of confronting it, make it an ally.
In Fahd’s youth, his father’s strategy succeeded beyond expectation. Abdul Aziz managed to switch from the Ottomans to the British; then in the 1920’s, he displaced his rival, the Hashemite Sharif Hussein of Mecca (whose descendants still rule Jordan), as London’s peninsular ally. This allowed the Saudis to seize the Red Sea coastline known as the Hijaz; and on the Persian Gulf, a Shiite-populated area unknowingly sitting atop a treasure of oil. Chief among his conquests Abdul Aziz counted Islam’s most prized cities, Mecca and Medina, and the revenue brought by the pilgrims to their mosques. The holy places were now controlled by the Wahabi sect, regarded by most other Muslims as extreme.
Gaining a kingdom and holding it were two different things. When Fahd reached his twenties, his father was preparing another switch. Although still mindful of the British, Abdul Aziz already saw the United States as his future ally. The Americans were developing the oil that was providing increased revenues. Better still, unlike London, Washington had no empire and no territorial ambitions. Americans could help and then they would go home.
On February 14, 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt met the King aboard an American warship initiating the formal political association. Roosevelt sought the King’s support for Zionism; the King refused; both agreed to be friends and that they should consult with each other before taking new steps. Roosevelt left with some rich presents and, at the King’s request, gave him his reserve wheel chair which became one of Abdul Aziz’s favorite trophies. The visit overall, complete with live sheep, as FDR wrote his cousin, had been “a scream.”
As a favorite son, Fahd was inducted into the American connection at an early age. He accompanied his older brother Faisal to the international conference that founded America’s grand project for post-war peace, the United Nations. He also got a brief and sweet taste of American life.
When Abdul Aziz died in 1953, the kingdom went to his eldest son, Saud. Under his unsteady and inept hand, Saudi Arabia was nearly lost to the storms of Nasserism and Arab nationalism. Whereupon, in 1963, he was deposed, the al-Saud having learned a new lesson: one had to know how to survive. The ascetic Crown Prince Faisal took matters in hand.
Faisal guided the realm into a closer association with the United States, close enough to survive both the 1967 and 1973 wars despite American support for Israel and the oil embargoes. Common antagonism to Nasser and the Soviet Union plus economic ties provided the sinews that bound together two very different countries. And, after 1974, when the American-sponsored peace process flourished and the petrodollars gushed, the Saudi situation was transformed. Both diplomatic pivot and economic mecca, the Kingdom became a necessary prop to American security. Saudi influence came to be seen as essential if not always in the political maneuvering but certainly with respect to the price and supply of oil.
The Reformer
When Fahd came into his first post, Minister of Education in 1953, the general rules of Saudi government were congealing. First came the importance of holding the family together, a consensus that began with “l’Etat c’est nous;” no Royal Family, no state; no unified family, no government. Second came the blessing from the Ulema, the Salafi clerisy, with their emphasis on early Islamic practice, public austerity, male prerogative, female seclusion, and the dangers of foreign seduction. Third, the blessing of the people to be secured through an improvement in their conditions of life. Fourth, the alliance with the strongest external power, America in this case. And fifth, not taking sides in Arab disputes-if possible. Instead, the Saudis could conciliate or consolidate among disputants. These five principles were the essential duties of Saudi rulers from that day until this. And it would be Fahd’s task to balance them and alter them when necessary for the sake of the House of Saud’s survival.
Fahd associated himself early with the Kingdom’s modernizers. He is credited with the creation of the country’s public school system including the university level. Given the haphazard tribal arrangements and general lack of literacy, this was an expensive and revolutionary undertaking. The curriculum, however, left largely to the Ulema, would result in a literacy badly short of both technical skill and knowledge of the outside world. This was not so obvious in 1953 but when it did become obvious, Fahd seemed oblivious to the consequences.
Fahd was also a prime mover in developing the 3–5 year plans initiated under King Faisal. These plans were intended to do for Saudi Arabia’s economy what education had done for literacy: equip the Saudi state with the tools to become a modern technological society without departing from the religious mores that underpinned its legitimacy. Following Faisal’s murder at the hands of a deranged nephew in 1975, Fahd became Crown Prince under King Khalid, an older brother more interested in falconry than government. In reality, it was a test of the ebullient Fahd’s capacity to govern. The Crown Prince would have to live down his personal reputation as a reckless womanizer, drinker, and gambler.
In those years, the Arab-Israeli conflict monopolized Saudi diplomacy. Fahd ranged the Saudis alongside the Carter Administration’s so-called comprehensive approach which emphasized a consensus of the whole rather than the 1973–1977 Kissinger era state-by-state negotiation. Domestically, Fahd began to spend the huge revenues produced by the rapid rise in oil prices. He launched the breakneck development of Saudi infrastructure that turned the urban areas into one vast construction site. Then a series of unexpected events showed the limits of Saudi power.
In only two years (1978–1980), the consensus approach was shattered by Sadat and the Camp David Accords; the Shah of Iran was overthrown by an aggressive Shiite theocrat, Ayatollah Khomeini; the Soviets seized Afghanistan; and Moscow’s ally, Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, invaded Iran. Above all, and worst of all, Saudi opponents seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca on November 20, 1979. After a bloody, futile effort to secure the Holy place, Fahd had to call upon the French Special Forces to recover the building.
The Dangerous Decade
Fahd’s reactions to these challenges was multifold. He would brook no delay in the development program, increasing spending on the military and raising Saudi Arabia’s “minimum” annual budget to about $55 billion. Simultaneously, he reinforced the Saudi role as “swing oil producer,” prepared to use its reserve capacity to prevent prices from damaging the economies of the major oil consumers, especially the United States. Oil prices and military procurement brought him powerful allies in Washington and elsewhere. Saudi Arabia’s purchase of AWACS aircraft in 1981, against strong pro-Israeli opposition in Congress, was a case study in such influence.
The King also faced a severe religious challenge. There were internal complaints about lax royal behavior. Khomeini’s Iranian pilgrims disturbed the pilgrimage with political demonstrations and violence to embarrass the Wahabi guardians.
Fahd took several fateful decisions. The Saudis would counter Shii propaganda abroad with Wahabi missionary activity on a large scale, especially through subsidized education (the madrasas) in South and Southeast Asia. As the Saudi economy now relied on large numbers of Pakistani and other workers, this had the double effect of protecting against internal subversion. Fahd also began severe controls over the Haj pilgrims. It would take several dramatic incidents before the Saudis and the Ayatollah finally agreed to put the two Mosques outside their quarrel. Fahd himself marked his new zeal for Islam in 1986 by taking on the title, “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.”
As King, Fahd also waged two wars. He swung behind Saddam in the decade-long battles with Iran, thereby creating a dependent in Baghdad, or so a reasonable man would have thought. He encouraged the United States to see in the war an opportunity to hurt the Iranians and wean Iraq from its Soviet allies. Another initiative, again through Pakistan, was the jihad against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. The Saudis supplied both money and volunteers, the most notable—and notorious—being Osama bin Laden, scion of the Royal Family’s favorite contractors, the bin Ladens from Yemen.
Fahd regarded Camp David as a huge mistake and grievously disappointed the Carter Administration’s expectation that Saudi Arabia would support Sadat’s separate peace. While not formally joining the Rejectionist Front organized by Saddam, Assad of Syria and Arafat’s PLO, the King sought to undermine the process by reviving the comprehensive, unified Arab approach. Thus, in August 1981, he launched the Fahd plan, a set of principles that would grant peace to Israel contingent on withdrawal to the pre-1967 War lines and the settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem. After Sadat’s murder on October 6, 1981, the plan seemed to engage the Europeans but the Reagan Administration sidestepped it.
Fahd saw another chance to promote it when the Israelis invaded Lebanon in June 1982. In the tangled diplomacy aimed at extricating Arafat from Beirut, the Saudis played a delicate role. Khalid died unexpectedly in the middle of the war and Fahd was crowned King on June 13. During the condolence visit of American officials, including Vice President Bush and Secretary of Defense Weinberger, the Saudi side gained the impression that American policy on the crisis (dominated heretofore by Secretary of State Haig) was about to change. Arafat was signaled to wait, collapsing the negotiations for his departure. He was now in Saudi debt.
When Haig resigned on June 26, the new King exerted a strong effort, aided by his half-brother Crown Prince Abdullah, to turn U.S. policy against the Israelis and back to the comprehensive approach. But Reagan would not abandon the Egyptian-Israeli treaty and his own initiative, launched on September 1, 1982, proved stillborn partly because Fahd’s plan became the basis for the Arab League’s subsequent Fez Declaration, which contradicted it. Worse yet, the new American Secretary of State George Shultz discovered that the Saudis could not, or would not, deliver Syria to U.S.-sponsored negotiations over withdrawal from Lebanon. For the rest of the decade, the United States was loath to touch either issue, especially after the Marine disaster in 1983 at Beirut Airport.
Fahd eventually returned to the Lebanon problem, brokering a deal called the Taif Accords in 1989. These confirmed Syria’s domination of the country and changed Lebanon’s constitution to allow a larger Muslim role vis-à-vis the previously dominant Christians. Put in place as Prime Minister to guarantee the Saudi interest while rebuilding the country was Rafik Hariri, a Lebanese subcontractor grown rich in the Saudi construction boom and therefore by definition a business associate of the Royal Family.
Success and Crisis
After a decade of these exertions, Fahd’s Saudi Arabia appeared to enter the nineties a good deal more secure than the eighties. The Kingdom could take some satisfaction from the failure of Khomeini’s Iran to expand more than its Hizbollah outpost in southern Lebanon; the Iranians had also been outflanked in South and Southeast Asia; and the Soviets driven from Afghanistan, on their way to oblivion. Meanwhile, the Palestinian intifada (1987) revived American interest in diplomacy while shaking Israeli confidence. Lebanon was rebuilding, and oil prices were steady.
But Fahd’s reign was not destined for repose. The “dependent” in Baghdad, Saddam, opened a gratuitous quarrel with Kuwait over war debts and oil revenues. The King offered mediation. Joining President Mubarak of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, Fahd urged President George Bush to stay low. An “Arab solution” would be found. On July 31, under Saudi auspices, the Iraqis and Kuwaitis met to find one.
Two days later, Saddam seized Kuwait.
Would Saudi Arabia be next? Saddam offered assurances but his troops were on the offensive and there was nothing to stop them except the Saudi’s own forces. Moreover, the King had offered refuge to the Emir of Kuwait and his family who had barely escaped Saddam’s men.
Saudi Arabia’s ultimate defense had always been what was called the “over the horizon” deterrent. The Americans (and others) presumably would not allow Saudi Arabia to be overrun by hostile powers. After the Shah’s fall, President Carter proclaimed the defense of the Gulf to be in America’s vital interest. But the forces to do so had never been stationed on Saudi ground. There were only training missions and temporary technicians.
We have American accounts of the critical meeting on August 6, 1990, when a U.S. delegation offered American troops to defend Saudi Arabia and ultimately to reclaim Kuwait. The King and the Crown Prince seemed at odds, with Abdullah exclaiming that Kuwait, although occupied, was still there, the implication being that some combination of threat and bribe might force Saddam out. But Fahd had been double- crossed. And if Saddam wanted money, he could have gotten it through negotiation. As for Kuwait, the King archly observed that “Kuwait”—meaning the Royal Family—was then living in Saudi hotels. For a Saudi ruler, the affairs of state were always personal.
Fahd welcomed the Americans to defend the Kingdom, and urged them to evict Saddam. In Washington this produced the interesting spectacle of Prince Bandar joining with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the main opposition to the AWACS sale ten years earlier—to lobby congressional support for the war.
Fahd’s policy toward Iraq was complex. He opposed the breakup of the country or the breakdown of the Sunni-dominated regime. But he did want Saddam eliminated. To do otherwise would be to leave a man thirsting for revenge.
The Americans, however, failed to do so. And this time they could not go home lest Saddam be tempted to strike again. The U.S. presence carried a steep price. Saudi critics could charge that there were now armed infidels in the land of the two mosques. Many Saudis could not understand why it was necessary, or why the hyper-expensive Saudi military could not defend the Kingdom.
In the war’s aftermath, pressure mounted for political change. Some of it Fahd could deflect. He had been a modernizer in his day. He would reform once more, introducing a new Basic Law in 1992 to govern the succession, reviving the moribund Consultative Council and changing rules for provincial governors and ministers.
Some, however, could not be persuaded of change. Osama bin Laden concluded that the Royal Family were infidels in disguise. His preachments earned him expulsion and then the loss of citizenship. There are still unexplained parts of the Osama-Saudi connection, especially about his move to Afghanistan, but that would carry us beyond the Fahd story.
Reign, Not Rule
On November 29, 1995, the King was felled by a massive stroke. A year later, it became clear that he would never recover his former vitality. Crown Prince Abdullah, a figure reminiscent of Faisal, became the de factor ruler.
Fahd’s reign would last another decade. The Royal Bulletins pretended that his routine continued. Occasionally, he would be turned out to greet important visitors, a few words exchanged, photographs snapped, his bulky figure shrinking over the years.
The King always had his detractors. A true royalist, he never let government interfere with his schedule. He made up for tardiness through sudden marathon bouts of work, to the consternation of the otherwise inert Saudi bureaucracy. Fahd’s palace mania, including a never occupied replica of the White House, was extravagant even by Gulf standards. The King had never been careful with money and his development program did not prepare his people for a future without oil, or for that matter, a present with a low oil price. Construction and war ate up the surplus and even current revenues will not resolve the problems of a rapidly growing but idle population, its work and bills paid by someone else.
Fahd proved a fallible judge of character. Saddam betrayed him; so did Arafat who refused urgent Saudi advice in 2000 to settle his conflict with Israel. He made an even more serious miscalculation through indulgence of Wahabi extremism, which hit America with a vengeance on 9/11 and then two years later, came home through violent rebellion in Saudi Arabia itself. The U.S.-Saudi alliance, his most cherished international relationship, nurtured so well for so long by his flamboyant nephew, Prince Bandar, was fraying just when both sides most needed each other.
Still, Fahd’s record needs perspective. Born when the Kingdom was but a gleam in his father’s eyes, bred to rapidly expanding wealth and power, he took his country successfully through an extraordinary series of life-threatening events, of the kind never seen by his predecessors. Profligate though he may have been, Fahd never forgot that Saudi Arabia was a rich place with a small army in a region full of ghastly predators. He proved forceful even with a weak hand. Fahd was a king.
Fahd’s methods and his legacy can only go so far. His notions of reform clearly belong to an earlier era. The religious, political, economic, and military pressures bearing down on his successor demand change at a more rapid pace than the infamous inchmanship beloved of the al-Saud. Fahd’s half-brother, now King Abdullah, prayed on his coronation for “strength to continue the march begun by the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the great Abdul Aziz al-Saud.” Abdullah’s march, however, must be to a markedly different beat than Fahd’s if the Kingdom is to survive
August 12, 2005
Harvey Sicherman, Ph.D., is President of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a former aide to three U.S. secretaries of state. His latest essay “Cheap Hawks, Cheap Doves, and American Strategy” is forthcoming in the Fall 2005 issue of Orbis.
On August 2, 2005, Saudi King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz was laid to rest in an unmarked grave. Wrapped simply in a brown robe, his bier borne by family after the briefest of funeral services, Fahd’s end gave no clue to his life. He had been one of the world’s most opulent rulers, his largesse the stuff of legend. Fahd also possessed powers as monarch that would have impressed Louis XIV. His reign and his wrestle with the challenges that threatened his kingdom tell us much about Saudi Arabia’s past, and, perhaps, even more about its future.
Fahd was born into circumstances unimaginable in his later life. He was one of over forty sons sired by a desert chief who married a hundred times. Fahd and his six other siblings (the Sudari seven) would benefit from their mother’s status as the favorite wife. The future king grew up in what old-time writers used to call “oriental splendor,” luxurious compared to commoners but primitive compared to European standards: Plenty of servants but no indoor plumbing; mobility by donkey, camel, or horse; no electricity or refrigeration (fresh meat or no meat); physical prowess prized, especially in combat; sexual prowess essential.
The state Fahd would inherit did not yet exist. His father, the legendary Abdul Aziz was then assembling the pieces through conquest and guile. Warrior and statesman, he had learned the lesson of the earlier 18th and 19th century failed Saudi realms. One could rally the warring tribes of the Arabian peninsula (the Nejd) against the corrupt Ottomans under the green banner of a purified Salafi (or Wahabi) Islam but the declining empire still had enough military might-or could hire it-to ensure defeat. This time around, the Saudis would work carefully with the strongest outside power and, instead of confronting it, make it an ally.
In Fahd’s youth, his father’s strategy succeeded beyond expectation. Abdul Aziz managed to switch from the Ottomans to the British; then in the 1920’s, he displaced his rival, the Hashemite Sharif Hussein of Mecca (whose descendants still rule Jordan), as London’s peninsular ally. This allowed the Saudis to seize the Red Sea coastline known as the Hijaz; and on the Persian Gulf, a Shiite-populated area unknowingly sitting atop a treasure of oil. Chief among his conquests Abdul Aziz counted Islam’s most prized cities, Mecca and Medina, and the revenue brought by the pilgrims to their mosques. The holy places were now controlled by the Wahabi sect, regarded by most other Muslims as extreme.
Gaining a kingdom and holding it were two different things. When Fahd reached his twenties, his father was preparing another switch. Although still mindful of the British, Abdul Aziz already saw the United States as his future ally. The Americans were developing the oil that was providing increased revenues. Better still, unlike London, Washington had no empire and no territorial ambitions. Americans could help and then they would go home.
On February 14, 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt met the King aboard an American warship initiating the formal political association. Roosevelt sought the King’s support for Zionism; the King refused; both agreed to be friends and that they should consult with each other before taking new steps. Roosevelt left with some rich presents and, at the King’s request, gave him his reserve wheel chair which became one of Abdul Aziz’s favorite trophies. The visit overall, complete with live sheep, as FDR wrote his cousin, had been “a scream.”
As a favorite son, Fahd was inducted into the American connection at an early age. He accompanied his older brother Faisal to the international conference that founded America’s grand project for post-war peace, the United Nations. He also got a brief and sweet taste of American life.
When Abdul Aziz died in 1953, the kingdom went to his eldest son, Saud. Under his unsteady and inept hand, Saudi Arabia was nearly lost to the storms of Nasserism and Arab nationalism. Whereupon, in 1963, he was deposed, the al-Saud having learned a new lesson: one had to know how to survive. The ascetic Crown Prince Faisal took matters in hand.
Faisal guided the realm into a closer association with the United States, close enough to survive both the 1967 and 1973 wars despite American support for Israel and the oil embargoes. Common antagonism to Nasser and the Soviet Union plus economic ties provided the sinews that bound together two very different countries. And, after 1974, when the American-sponsored peace process flourished and the petrodollars gushed, the Saudi situation was transformed. Both diplomatic pivot and economic mecca, the Kingdom became a necessary prop to American security. Saudi influence came to be seen as essential if not always in the political maneuvering but certainly with respect to the price and supply of oil.
The Reformer
When Fahd came into his first post, Minister of Education in 1953, the general rules of Saudi government were congealing. First came the importance of holding the family together, a consensus that began with “l’Etat c’est nous;” no Royal Family, no state; no unified family, no government. Second came the blessing from the Ulema, the Salafi clerisy, with their emphasis on early Islamic practice, public austerity, male prerogative, female seclusion, and the dangers of foreign seduction. Third, the blessing of the people to be secured through an improvement in their conditions of life. Fourth, the alliance with the strongest external power, America in this case. And fifth, not taking sides in Arab disputes-if possible. Instead, the Saudis could conciliate or consolidate among disputants. These five principles were the essential duties of Saudi rulers from that day until this. And it would be Fahd’s task to balance them and alter them when necessary for the sake of the House of Saud’s survival.
Fahd associated himself early with the Kingdom’s modernizers. He is credited with the creation of the country’s public school system including the university level. Given the haphazard tribal arrangements and general lack of literacy, this was an expensive and revolutionary undertaking. The curriculum, however, left largely to the Ulema, would result in a literacy badly short of both technical skill and knowledge of the outside world. This was not so obvious in 1953 but when it did become obvious, Fahd seemed oblivious to the consequences.
Fahd was also a prime mover in developing the 3–5 year plans initiated under King Faisal. These plans were intended to do for Saudi Arabia’s economy what education had done for literacy: equip the Saudi state with the tools to become a modern technological society without departing from the religious mores that underpinned its legitimacy. Following Faisal’s murder at the hands of a deranged nephew in 1975, Fahd became Crown Prince under King Khalid, an older brother more interested in falconry than government. In reality, it was a test of the ebullient Fahd’s capacity to govern. The Crown Prince would have to live down his personal reputation as a reckless womanizer, drinker, and gambler.
In those years, the Arab-Israeli conflict monopolized Saudi diplomacy. Fahd ranged the Saudis alongside the Carter Administration’s so-called comprehensive approach which emphasized a consensus of the whole rather than the 1973–1977 Kissinger era state-by-state negotiation. Domestically, Fahd began to spend the huge revenues produced by the rapid rise in oil prices. He launched the breakneck development of Saudi infrastructure that turned the urban areas into one vast construction site. Then a series of unexpected events showed the limits of Saudi power.
In only two years (1978–1980), the consensus approach was shattered by Sadat and the Camp David Accords; the Shah of Iran was overthrown by an aggressive Shiite theocrat, Ayatollah Khomeini; the Soviets seized Afghanistan; and Moscow’s ally, Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, invaded Iran. Above all, and worst of all, Saudi opponents seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca on November 20, 1979. After a bloody, futile effort to secure the Holy place, Fahd had to call upon the French Special Forces to recover the building.
The Dangerous Decade
Fahd’s reactions to these challenges was multifold. He would brook no delay in the development program, increasing spending on the military and raising Saudi Arabia’s “minimum” annual budget to about $55 billion. Simultaneously, he reinforced the Saudi role as “swing oil producer,” prepared to use its reserve capacity to prevent prices from damaging the economies of the major oil consumers, especially the United States. Oil prices and military procurement brought him powerful allies in Washington and elsewhere. Saudi Arabia’s purchase of AWACS aircraft in 1981, against strong pro-Israeli opposition in Congress, was a case study in such influence.
The King also faced a severe religious challenge. There were internal complaints about lax royal behavior. Khomeini’s Iranian pilgrims disturbed the pilgrimage with political demonstrations and violence to embarrass the Wahabi guardians.
Fahd took several fateful decisions. The Saudis would counter Shii propaganda abroad with Wahabi missionary activity on a large scale, especially through subsidized education (the madrasas) in South and Southeast Asia. As the Saudi economy now relied on large numbers of Pakistani and other workers, this had the double effect of protecting against internal subversion. Fahd also began severe controls over the Haj pilgrims. It would take several dramatic incidents before the Saudis and the Ayatollah finally agreed to put the two Mosques outside their quarrel. Fahd himself marked his new zeal for Islam in 1986 by taking on the title, “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.”
As King, Fahd also waged two wars. He swung behind Saddam in the decade-long battles with Iran, thereby creating a dependent in Baghdad, or so a reasonable man would have thought. He encouraged the United States to see in the war an opportunity to hurt the Iranians and wean Iraq from its Soviet allies. Another initiative, again through Pakistan, was the jihad against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. The Saudis supplied both money and volunteers, the most notable—and notorious—being Osama bin Laden, scion of the Royal Family’s favorite contractors, the bin Ladens from Yemen.
Fahd regarded Camp David as a huge mistake and grievously disappointed the Carter Administration’s expectation that Saudi Arabia would support Sadat’s separate peace. While not formally joining the Rejectionist Front organized by Saddam, Assad of Syria and Arafat’s PLO, the King sought to undermine the process by reviving the comprehensive, unified Arab approach. Thus, in August 1981, he launched the Fahd plan, a set of principles that would grant peace to Israel contingent on withdrawal to the pre-1967 War lines and the settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem. After Sadat’s murder on October 6, 1981, the plan seemed to engage the Europeans but the Reagan Administration sidestepped it.
Fahd saw another chance to promote it when the Israelis invaded Lebanon in June 1982. In the tangled diplomacy aimed at extricating Arafat from Beirut, the Saudis played a delicate role. Khalid died unexpectedly in the middle of the war and Fahd was crowned King on June 13. During the condolence visit of American officials, including Vice President Bush and Secretary of Defense Weinberger, the Saudi side gained the impression that American policy on the crisis (dominated heretofore by Secretary of State Haig) was about to change. Arafat was signaled to wait, collapsing the negotiations for his departure. He was now in Saudi debt.
When Haig resigned on June 26, the new King exerted a strong effort, aided by his half-brother Crown Prince Abdullah, to turn U.S. policy against the Israelis and back to the comprehensive approach. But Reagan would not abandon the Egyptian-Israeli treaty and his own initiative, launched on September 1, 1982, proved stillborn partly because Fahd’s plan became the basis for the Arab League’s subsequent Fez Declaration, which contradicted it. Worse yet, the new American Secretary of State George Shultz discovered that the Saudis could not, or would not, deliver Syria to U.S.-sponsored negotiations over withdrawal from Lebanon. For the rest of the decade, the United States was loath to touch either issue, especially after the Marine disaster in 1983 at Beirut Airport.
Fahd eventually returned to the Lebanon problem, brokering a deal called the Taif Accords in 1989. These confirmed Syria’s domination of the country and changed Lebanon’s constitution to allow a larger Muslim role vis-à-vis the previously dominant Christians. Put in place as Prime Minister to guarantee the Saudi interest while rebuilding the country was Rafik Hariri, a Lebanese subcontractor grown rich in the Saudi construction boom and therefore by definition a business associate of the Royal Family.
Success and Crisis
After a decade of these exertions, Fahd’s Saudi Arabia appeared to enter the nineties a good deal more secure than the eighties. The Kingdom could take some satisfaction from the failure of Khomeini’s Iran to expand more than its Hizbollah outpost in southern Lebanon; the Iranians had also been outflanked in South and Southeast Asia; and the Soviets driven from Afghanistan, on their way to oblivion. Meanwhile, the Palestinian intifada (1987) revived American interest in diplomacy while shaking Israeli confidence. Lebanon was rebuilding, and oil prices were steady.
But Fahd’s reign was not destined for repose. The “dependent” in Baghdad, Saddam, opened a gratuitous quarrel with Kuwait over war debts and oil revenues. The King offered mediation. Joining President Mubarak of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, Fahd urged President George Bush to stay low. An “Arab solution” would be found. On July 31, under Saudi auspices, the Iraqis and Kuwaitis met to find one.
Two days later, Saddam seized Kuwait.
Would Saudi Arabia be next? Saddam offered assurances but his troops were on the offensive and there was nothing to stop them except the Saudi’s own forces. Moreover, the King had offered refuge to the Emir of Kuwait and his family who had barely escaped Saddam’s men.
Saudi Arabia’s ultimate defense had always been what was called the “over the horizon” deterrent. The Americans (and others) presumably would not allow Saudi Arabia to be overrun by hostile powers. After the Shah’s fall, President Carter proclaimed the defense of the Gulf to be in America’s vital interest. But the forces to do so had never been stationed on Saudi ground. There were only training missions and temporary technicians.
We have American accounts of the critical meeting on August 6, 1990, when a U.S. delegation offered American troops to defend Saudi Arabia and ultimately to reclaim Kuwait. The King and the Crown Prince seemed at odds, with Abdullah exclaiming that Kuwait, although occupied, was still there, the implication being that some combination of threat and bribe might force Saddam out. But Fahd had been double- crossed. And if Saddam wanted money, he could have gotten it through negotiation. As for Kuwait, the King archly observed that “Kuwait”—meaning the Royal Family—was then living in Saudi hotels. For a Saudi ruler, the affairs of state were always personal.
Fahd welcomed the Americans to defend the Kingdom, and urged them to evict Saddam. In Washington this produced the interesting spectacle of Prince Bandar joining with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the main opposition to the AWACS sale ten years earlier—to lobby congressional support for the war.
Fahd’s policy toward Iraq was complex. He opposed the breakup of the country or the breakdown of the Sunni-dominated regime. But he did want Saddam eliminated. To do otherwise would be to leave a man thirsting for revenge.
The Americans, however, failed to do so. And this time they could not go home lest Saddam be tempted to strike again. The U.S. presence carried a steep price. Saudi critics could charge that there were now armed infidels in the land of the two mosques. Many Saudis could not understand why it was necessary, or why the hyper-expensive Saudi military could not defend the Kingdom.
In the war’s aftermath, pressure mounted for political change. Some of it Fahd could deflect. He had been a modernizer in his day. He would reform once more, introducing a new Basic Law in 1992 to govern the succession, reviving the moribund Consultative Council and changing rules for provincial governors and ministers.
Some, however, could not be persuaded of change. Osama bin Laden concluded that the Royal Family were infidels in disguise. His preachments earned him expulsion and then the loss of citizenship. There are still unexplained parts of the Osama-Saudi connection, especially about his move to Afghanistan, but that would carry us beyond the Fahd story.
Reign, Not Rule
On November 29, 1995, the King was felled by a massive stroke. A year later, it became clear that he would never recover his former vitality. Crown Prince Abdullah, a figure reminiscent of Faisal, became the de factor ruler.
Fahd’s reign would last another decade. The Royal Bulletins pretended that his routine continued. Occasionally, he would be turned out to greet important visitors, a few words exchanged, photographs snapped, his bulky figure shrinking over the years.
The King always had his detractors. A true royalist, he never let government interfere with his schedule. He made up for tardiness through sudden marathon bouts of work, to the consternation of the otherwise inert Saudi bureaucracy. Fahd’s palace mania, including a never occupied replica of the White House, was extravagant even by Gulf standards. The King had never been careful with money and his development program did not prepare his people for a future without oil, or for that matter, a present with a low oil price. Construction and war ate up the surplus and even current revenues will not resolve the problems of a rapidly growing but idle population, its work and bills paid by someone else.
Fahd proved a fallible judge of character. Saddam betrayed him; so did Arafat who refused urgent Saudi advice in 2000 to settle his conflict with Israel. He made an even more serious miscalculation through indulgence of Wahabi extremism, which hit America with a vengeance on 9/11 and then two years later, came home through violent rebellion in Saudi Arabia itself. The U.S.-Saudi alliance, his most cherished international relationship, nurtured so well for so long by his flamboyant nephew, Prince Bandar, was fraying just when both sides most needed each other.
Still, Fahd’s record needs perspective. Born when the Kingdom was but a gleam in his father’s eyes, bred to rapidly expanding wealth and power, he took his country successfully through an extraordinary series of life-threatening events, of the kind never seen by his predecessors. Profligate though he may have been, Fahd never forgot that Saudi Arabia was a rich place with a small army in a region full of ghastly predators. He proved forceful even with a weak hand. Fahd was a king.
Fahd’s methods and his legacy can only go so far. His notions of reform clearly belong to an earlier era. The religious, political, economic, and military pressures bearing down on his successor demand change at a more rapid pace than the infamous inchmanship beloved of the al-Saud. Fahd’s half-brother, now King Abdullah, prayed on his coronation for “strength to continue the march begun by the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the great Abdul Aziz al-Saud.” Abdullah’s march, however, must be to a markedly different beat than Fahd’s if the Kingdom is to survive
Hussein Of Jordan
Hussein bin Talal (Arabic: حسين بن طلال) (November 14, 1935 – February 7, 1999) was the King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan from 1952 to 1999. On July 20, 1951, King Abdullah I traveled to Jerusalem to perform his Friday prayers with his young grandson, Prince Hussein. He was assassinated by a gunman at the instigation of Colonel Abdullah Tell, ex-Military Governor of Jerusalem, and Dr Musa Abdullah Husseini, on the steps of one of the holiest shrines of Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Hussein grappled with the assailant, until he was wounded himself; he is said to have been saved from a bullet by a medal his grandfather had recently awarded him and insisted he wear. Abdullah's eldest son, King Talal was crowned as King, but within a year was forced to resign because of mental illness. His son Prince Hussein was proclaimed King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on August 11, 1952 at age 16 and was enthroned on May 2, 1953. His reign was controversial, while it saw Jordan remain one of the most free states in the Middle East, it was also marked by the events of Black September when the king ordered the violent expulsion of the PLO from Jordan. The country also defied the west and the other allied leaders by siding with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. In 1994 King Hussein led negotiations to end the official state of war with the State of Israel resulting in the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. The king wrote three books: Uneasy Lies the Head (1962), about his childhood and early years as king, My War With Israel (1969), and Mon Mtier de Roi. He died of cancer on February 7, 1999. The King had been suffering from the disease for many years and had visited the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, United States on a fairly regular basis for treatment. Just before his death, he changed his will and disinherited his brother, Hassan, who had been crown prince for several decades, and designated his eldest son, Abdullah as heir. The King was at the time of his death one of the longest serving leaders in international politics. He was married four times. His four wives were:
* Sharifa Dina bint 'Abdu'l-Hamid, an Egyptian-born third cousin of King Hussein's father, King Talal, on April 19, 1955. A graduate of Cambridge University and a former lecturer in English literature at Cairo University, the bride was 26 to the groom's 19. They separated in 1956 and were divorced in 1957, at which time Queen Dina became known as Princess Dina. She became an Egyptian citizen in 1963, and in October 1970, Princess Dina of Jordan married Asad Sulayman Abd al-Qadir, alias Salah Taamari, a Palestinian guerilla commando who became a high-ranking official in the Palestine Liberation Organization.
o Daughter: Alia (born 1956).
* Antoinette Avril Gardiner (born Chelmondiston, England, 1941, renamed Muna al-Hussein on conversion to Islam), on May 25, 1961. An award-winning field hockey player, former typist, and daughter of a British army officer turned innkeeper, Lt. Col. Walter Percy Gardiner, she was given the title Princess Muna al Hussein on January 30, 1962, divorced 1972.
o Children: Abdullah (born 1962), Faisal (born 1963), Aisha (born 1968), Zein (born 1968)
* Queen Alia, after whom Jordan's international airport (Queen Alia International Airport) is named.
o Children: Haya (born 1972), Ali (born 1975)
o Adopted daughter: Abir, (born 1972, adopted 1976)
* Elisabeth (Lisa) Najeeb Halaby (renamed Queen Nur al Hussein. on her conversion to Islam),
o Children: Hamzah (born 1980), Hashim (born 1981), Iman (born 1983), Raiyah (born 1986)
King Hussein was succeeded as king by his eldest son Abdullah II of Jordan.
* Sharifa Dina bint 'Abdu'l-Hamid, an Egyptian-born third cousin of King Hussein's father, King Talal, on April 19, 1955. A graduate of Cambridge University and a former lecturer in English literature at Cairo University, the bride was 26 to the groom's 19. They separated in 1956 and were divorced in 1957, at which time Queen Dina became known as Princess Dina. She became an Egyptian citizen in 1963, and in October 1970, Princess Dina of Jordan married Asad Sulayman Abd al-Qadir, alias Salah Taamari, a Palestinian guerilla commando who became a high-ranking official in the Palestine Liberation Organization.
o Daughter: Alia (born 1956).
* Antoinette Avril Gardiner (born Chelmondiston, England, 1941, renamed Muna al-Hussein on conversion to Islam), on May 25, 1961. An award-winning field hockey player, former typist, and daughter of a British army officer turned innkeeper, Lt. Col. Walter Percy Gardiner, she was given the title Princess Muna al Hussein on January 30, 1962, divorced 1972.
o Children: Abdullah (born 1962), Faisal (born 1963), Aisha (born 1968), Zein (born 1968)
* Queen Alia, after whom Jordan's international airport (Queen Alia International Airport) is named.
o Children: Haya (born 1972), Ali (born 1975)
o Adopted daughter: Abir, (born 1972, adopted 1976)
* Elisabeth (Lisa) Najeeb Halaby (renamed Queen Nur al Hussein. on her conversion to Islam),
o Children: Hamzah (born 1980), Hashim (born 1981), Iman (born 1983), Raiyah (born 1986)
King Hussein was succeeded as king by his eldest son Abdullah II of Jordan.
Ibn Khaldun
CHILDHOOD AND EARLY YEARS
He is `Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Jabir bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdurahman bin Ibn Khaldun. According to Ibn Khaldun, his ancestors originated in Hadramut, Yemen. He also traced his ancestry (through another genealogy, as supplied by Ibn Hazem who looked to his grandfather who was the first to enter Andalusia) back to Wail ibn Hajar, one of the oldest Yemeni tribes. In either case, the genealogy points to his Arab origin, although scholars do question the authenticity of both reports due to the political climate at the time of the reports. [1]
Ibn Khaldun was born in Tunis on May 27, 1332 A.C.E. (Ramadan 1, 732 A.H.). [2] He received a traditional education that was typical for one of his family’s rank and status. He learned first at the hands of his father, who was a scholarly person, not involved in politics like his ancestors. He memorized the Qur’an by heart, learned grammar, jurisprudence, hadith, rhetoric, philology, and poetry. He reached a certain proficiency in these subjects and received certification in them. In his autobiography, he mentions the names of the scholars with whom he studied. [3]
Ibn Khaldun continued his studies until the age of nineteen, when the great plague swept over the lands from Samarkand to Mauritania. It was after this plague that Ibn Khaldun received his first public assignment, marking the start of his political career, and forever changing his life. [4]
TUNISIA AND MOROCCO
Ibn Tafrakin, the ruler of Tunis, called Ibn Khaldun to be the seal-bearer of his captive Sultan Abu Ishaq. It is here that Ibn Khaldun got a first-hand look at the inner workings of court politics and the weakness of the government. Before long he had the opportunity to leave Tunis.
In 1352 A.C.E. (713 A.H.) Abu Ziad, the Emir of Constantine, marched his forces on Tunis. Ibn Khaldun accompanied Ibn Tafrakin with the forces that warded off Abu Ziad’s attack. Tunis was defeated and Ibn Khaldun escaped to Aba, where he lived with al-Mowahideen. He moved back and forth through Algeria and settled in Biskra. [5]
At the same time, in Morocco, Sultan Abu Enan, who had recently settled on the throne of his father, was on his way to conquer Algeria. Ibn Khaldun traveled to Tlemcen to meet the sultan, and mentions that the sultan honored him and sent him with his chamberlain Ibn Abi Amr to Bougie to witness its submission to Sultan Abu Enan.
Ibn Khaldun stayed in the company of the chamberlain while the sultan moved back to the capital, Fez. In 1354 A.C.E. (755 A.H.) Ibn Khaldun accepted the invitation to join the council of ‘ulama and moved to Fez. He was eventually promoted to the post of seal-bearer and accepted it reluctantly, as it was inferior to the posts once occupied by his ancestors.
Ibn Khaldun used his stay in Fez to further his studies. Fez at this time was a capital of Morocco and enjoyed the company of many scholars from all over North Africa and Andalusia. Ibn Khaldun was an ambitious young man and at this point of his life he began to engage in court politics. He was promoted from one position to another. [6] He also conspired with Abu Abdullah Muhammad, the dethroned ruler of Bougie who was captive in Fez at that time. Abu Abdullah was from the Banu Hafs that were patrons of Ibn Khaldun’s family. Sultan Abu Enan found out about the conspiracy and imprisoned Ibn Khaldun. Abu Abdullah was released from prison and Ibn Khaldun lingered on for two years. Sultan Abu Enan fell ill and died before fulfilling his promise to release Ibn Khaldun. The Wazir al-Hassan ibn Omar ordered the release of Ibn Khaldun, who was then restored to his former position. [7]
ESCAPE FROM MOROCCO TO SPAIN
The political climate was tense and Ibn Khaldun again tested his fate and conspired against the wazir with al-Mansur. This loyalty was short-lived as well. He conspired with Sultan Abu Salem who overthrew al-Mansur. Ibn Khaldun took the position of secretary (literally, “repository of secrets” Amin as-Sir). [8]
Here Ibn Khaldun excelled in his position and composed many poems. He occupied the position for two more years and was then appointed Chief Justice. He showed great ability in this position, however, due to constant rivalry with high officials, he lost favor with the sultan. [9]
However, this proved unimportant, when a revolt took place and Sultan Abu Salem was overthrown by Wazir Omar. Ibn Khaldun sided with the victors and was reinstated to his post, with higher pay. Ibn Khaldun was as ambitious as ever, and wanted a higher position, namely that of chamberlain. For reasons unknown, perhaps he was not trusted, he was refused the position. This upset him enough that he resigned his position, and he in turn upset the wazir. Ibn Khaldun asked to leave Fez and go back to Tunisia and was refused. It was then that he asked the wazir’s son-in-law to intercede on his behalf, that he be allowed to go to Andalusia. [10]
FROM SPAIN TO TUNISIA
Sultan Muhammad al-Ahmar, the King of Granada, was deposed by his brother Ismail who was supported by his brother-in-law. Sultan Muhammad was a friend of Sultan Abu Salem, who had helped Ibn Khaldun when he was deported to Andalusia by Sultan Abu Enan. When Sultan Abu Enan died and Sultan Abu Salem became ruler, that friendship was rekindled. Furthermore, when Ismail al-Ahmar was declared King of Granada in a palace revolt, Sultan Muhammad took refuge in Morocco with Sultan Abu Salem. They were welcomed with great fanfare, and Ibn Khaldun was present at the festivities. Among Sultan Muhammad’s party was his wise Wazir Ibn al-Khatib, who developed a close friendship with Ibn Khaldun. [11]
Sultan Muhammad attempted to restore his throne in Granada through an agreement with Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile. Pedro delayed the execution of the agreement upon hearing of Sultan Abu Salem’s death. Sultan Muhammad appealed to Ibn Khaldun for assistance from Wazir Omar. Ibn Khaldun used his influence to help him, and Ibn Khaldun was even entrusted to care for Sultan Muhammad’s family in Fez. The wazir granted Sultan Muhammad Ronda and the surrounding country. Sultan Muhammad continued his efforts and recaptured his throne in 1361 A.C.E. (763 A.H.). He then recalled his Wazir Ibn al-Khatib. [12]
When the relationship between Sultan Muhammad and Ibn Khaldun turned sour and uncertain, he turned toward Andalusia. He was welcomed and honored by Sultan Muhammad, who admitted him to his private council. In the following year, Sultan Muhammad sent Ibn Khaldun on an ambassadorial mission to Pedro, the King of Castile. Ibn Khaldun concluded the mission and peaceful terms were established between them. Pedro offered Ibn Khaldun a position in his service and the return of his family’s former estate at Castile. Ibn Khaldun declined the offer. [13]
Upon his return from Castile, Ibn Khaldun offered Pedro’s gift to him to the sultan and in return, the sultan gave him the village of Elvira. Soon Ibn Khaldun was restless once more and in the following year, 1364 A.C.E. (766 A.H.), when he received an invitation from his friend Abu Abdullah, who had recaptured his throne at Bougie, Ibn Khaldun left Granada after asking permission to leave from Sultan Muhammad. [14]
ADVENTURES IN NORTH AFRICA
Ibn Khaldun arrived in Bougie at the age of thirty-two. His plans had finally been realized. The period of imprisonment in Fez did not go to waste. He entered the city as a favorite guest. He accepted the position of hajib for Emir Muhammad. However, his life of power did not last long, as in the following year Abul Abbas killed the Emir Muhammad, his cousin. Ibn Khaldun handed the city to him and retired to the city of Biskra. He continued his political work in relaying the tribes to the service of this or that emir or sultan. He continued his practice of shifting loyalties as times and opportunities afforded him. He finally retired to a far outpost south of Constantine, Fort Salama. [15]
In Fort Salama, at the age of forty-five, he enjoyed a peaceful existence, and began to write his famous Muqqddimah, and the first version of his Universal History.
He dedicated his work to the current Emir of Constantine, Sultan Abul Abbas. But tranquility did not last long with Ibn Khaldun, as he needed reference works that were not available at his far outpost. He used the occasion of Abul Abbas’s conquest of Tunisia to go to Tunis. This was the first time he had returned to the town of his birth since leaving it more than twenty-seven years previously.
There were political forces at work against him once more and this time, before he fell out of favor, he used a convenient occasion (in 1382 A.C.E / A.H.) to leave North Africa behind, never to return. [16]
TO EGYPT
Ibn Khaldun was granted permission from Sultan Abul Abbas to go on hajj. He arrived in Alexandria in October 1382 A.C.E. (Shabaan 784 A.H.), at the ripe age of fifty. He spent a month preparing to leave for hajj, but was unable to join the caravan bound for the Holy Lands. He turned toward Cairo instead. Here he was warmly welcomed by scholars and students, and it was in Cairo that he lived out his final days. His fame for his writings had already preceded him. He lectured at al-Azhar and other fine schools. He had the chance to meet with Sultan al-Zahir Barquq who appointed him to a teaching post at the Kamhiah school. [17]
He again enjoyed the favors of the sultan. He was appointed a Maliki Judge at the sultan’s whim, and anger. He fared well and tried to fight corruption and favoritism, but again, conspiracies worked against him and he was relieved of duty, just in time to coincide with his family’s disaster. The ship carrying his family and belongings sank in a storm. [18]
Ibn Khaldun again took permission to go on hajj to the Holy Lands. He returned and was well received, and appointed to a teaching position in the newly built school, Bein al-Qasrein. He lectured in hadith, particularly Imam Malik’s Muwatta. He was then appointed to the Sufi Institute of Beibers with a generous salary. But soon, the state of affairs of Egypt was disturbed, as a rival of Sultan Barquq, Yulbugha, organized a successful revolt. Sultan Barquq staged a counter-revolt and was restored to his former throne. During this period, Ibn Khaldun suffered and then had his position restored with the return to power of the victorious Sultan Barquq.
During this period, Ibn Khaldun devoted his time to lecturing and studying, as well as to completing his Universal History. After Yulbugha’s revolt, he wrote about asabiyah and its role in the rise and fall of states. He applied his theory to the Egyptian theater since the time of Salah ad-Din. [19]
Fourteen years after leaving the position of Chief Maliki Judge, Ibn Khaldun was reassigned to the post upon the death of the presiding judge. The state again fell into disarray upon Sultan Barquq’s death and his son’s ascension. Ibn Khaldun was not a party to these revolts and asked permission to visit Jerusalem. He joined the Sultan Faraj’s caravan on its way back from Damascus, and was relieved of his duties as judge for the second time, again due to political intrigue. However, this did not matter because he was called upon to accompany the sultan on a perilous journey with fate to Damascus. [20]
MEETING TAMERLANE
During Ibn Khaldun’s stay in Egypt he was asked by Sultan Faraj of Egypt to accompany him on his expedition to Damascus. News reports had confirmed the movement of Tamerlane’s war party toward Damascus. Sultan Faraj and his army were on their way to Damascus, and it seems that Ibn Khaldun was asked, firmly, to accompany the sultan to Damascus. [21]
The sultan stayed in Damascus just two weeks, as he had to leave because of rumors that a revolt was in the works back in Cairo. Ibn Khaldun and several notables were left behind in Damascus. It was up to the leaders of Damascus to deal with Tamerlane. Ibn Khaldun had suggested that they consider Tamerlane’s terms. It was the task of another judge, Ibn Muflih, to discuss the terms with Tamerlane. When Ibn Muflih returned from Tamerlane’s camp, the terms were not agreeable to the residents of Damascus.
Since it was Ibn Khaldun’s suggestion to come to terms with Tamerlane, Ibn Khaldun felt obliged to meet with Tamerlane personally, and so he left Damascus and went to Tamerlane’s camp. It is not clear whether he went on his own or in an official capacity. Ibn Khaldun took gifts with him for Tamerlane and they were well received; he stayed in Tamerlane’s camp for thirty-five days.
Over this period, Ibn Khaldun had many meetings with Tamerlane, conversing through an interpreter, Abd al-Jabbar al-Khwarizmi (d. 1403 A.C.E. / A.H.). Ibn Khaldun’s account is the only detailed account available; the subjects they discussed were varied and some were unrecorded. Walter Fischel lists six specific topics about which they talked:
1. The Maghrib and Ibn Khaldun’s land of origin;
2. Heroes in history;
3. Predictions of things to come;
4. The Abbasid Caliphate;
5. Amnesty and security “for Ibn Khaldun and his companion;”
6. Ibn Khaldun’s intention to stay with Tamerlane. [22]
Ibn Khaldun impressed the conqueror enough that he was asked to join Tamerlane’s court. Some biographers have suggested that he did plan to join Tamerlane’s court and that he wrote his eloquent appeal to return to Egypt to settle his affairs, get his books and family and join Tamerlane. However, it is more likely that Ibn Khaldun left on good terms with Tamerlane, and accomplished his mission of extracting favorable terms for the people of Damascus. [23]
Ibn Khaldun’s departing words lend credence to the fact that he would not be returning to his service:
Is there any generosity left beyond that which you have already shown me? You have heaped favors upon me, accorded me a place in your council among your intimate followers, and shown me kindness and generosity which I hope Allah will repay to you in like measures. [24]
FINAL DAYS IN EGYPT
Upon Ibn Khaldun’s return to Egypt, he was restored to his position as Maliki judge. Due to the political situation within the community of Maliki judges, Ibn Khaldun was dismissed and reinstated three times during the five-year period. He died while in office on Wednesday, March 17 1406 A.C.E. (25 of Ramadan 808 A.H.). He was buried in the sufi cemetery outside Bab an-Nasr, Cairo at the age of seventy-four. [25]
WORKS
Ibn Khaldun’s works can be classified in the categories of historical, and religious. Of his works on history, only his Universal History has survived to our day. Another work that is lost is the history that was written specifically for Tamerlane, as Ibn Khaldun mentioned in his autobiography. His religious books are: Lubab al-Mahsul (Summary of the Result); a commentary on an usul al-fiqh poem, and a few works which are of questionable attribute to him, namely a sufi tract “Shifa’ as-Sail” (Healing of the Inquirer). [26]
THE MAGNUM OPUS “AL-MUQADDIMAH”
Ibn Khaldun’s magnum opus, “al-Muqaddimah” can be divided into three parts. The first part is the introduction, the second part is the Universal History, and the third part is the history of the Maghrib. In this section, I concentrate on the first part. The second part is similar to the standard histories of Muslim historians, and there does not seem to be much divergence. The third part, which is concerned with the history of the Maghrib, is considered a primary source work. [27] Much of the information in this section is from Ibn Khaldun’s personal travels and contacts in the area, and is replete with first hand accounts. An additional work that is not usually considered a part of this book is an appendix, which is an autobiography of the author.
The first part, the “Introduction,” is popularly known as “al-Muqaddimah;” Ibn Khaldun wrote this in a span of five months. [28] It can be divided into six parts as follows:
1. Human society – ethnology and anthropology
2. Rural civilizations
3. Forms of government and forms of institutions
4. Society of urban civilization
5. Economic facts
6. Science and humanity
This impressive document is the essence of Ibn Khaldun's wisdom and hard earned experience. Ibn Khaldun used his political and first-hand knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate many of his ideas. This document summarizes Ibn Khaldun’s ideas about every field of knowledge during his day. He discusses a variety of topics, including history and historiography. He rebukes some historical claims with a calculated logic, and discusses the sciences of his time. He wrote about astronomy, astrology, and numerology, and dealt with chemistry, alchemy, and magic in a scientific way. He freely offered his opinions and well documented the “facts” of other points of view. His discussion of tribal societies and social forces is the most interesting part of his thesis. He illuminated the world with deep insight into the makings and workings of kingdoms and civilizations.
The following quotation describes his philosophy of the historical process of civilizations, including, for example, the role of economics.
…in the field of economics, Ibn Khaldun understands very clearly the supply and demand factors which affect price, the interdependence of prices and the ripple effects on successive stages of production of a fall in prices, and the nature and function of money and its tendency to circulate from country to country according to demand and the level of activity. [29]
Ibn Khaldun is well known for his explanation of the nature of state and society and for being ‘the founder of the new discipline of sociology.’
Ibn Khaldun fully realised that he had created a new discipline, ‘ilm al-’umran, the science of culture, and regarded it as surprising that no one had done so before and demarcated it from other disciplines. This science can be of great help to the historian by creating a standard by which to judge accounts of past events. Through the study of human society, one can distinguish between the possible and the impossible, and so distinguish between those of its phenomena which are essential and those which are merely accidental, and also those which cannot occur at all. [30]
Ibn Khaldun's contributions to the field of history must also be noted.
He analysed in detail the sources of error in historical writings, in particular partisanship, overconfidence in sources, failure to understand what is intended, a mistaken belief in the truth, the inability to place an event in its real context, the desire to gain the favour of those in high rank, exaggeration, and what he regarded as the most important of all, ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of human society. [31]
On the development of the state, and the relationship between the state and society, Ibn Khaldun believed that
…human society is necessary since the individual acting alone could acquire neither the necessary food nor security. Only the division of labour, in and through society, makes this possible. The state arises through the need of a restraining force to curb the natural aggression of humanity. A state is inconceivable without a society, while a society is well-nigh impossible without a state. Social phenomena seem to obey laws which, while not as absolute as those governing natural phenomena, are sufficiently constant to cause social events to follow regular and well-defined patterns and sequences. Hence a grasp of these laws enables the sociologist to understand the trend of events. These laws operate on masses and cannot be significantly influenced by isolated individuals. [32]
Ibn Khaldun proposed that
…society is an organism that obeys its own inner laws. These laws can be discovered by applying human reason to data either culled from historical records or obtained by direct observation. These data are fitted into an implicit framework derived from his views on human and social nature, his religious beliefs and the legal precepts and philosophical principles to which he adheres. He argues that more or less the same set of laws operates across societies with the same kind of structure, so that his remarks about nomads apply equally well to Arab Bedouins, both contemporary and pre-Islamic, and to Berbers, Turkomen and Kurds. These laws are explicable sociologically, and are not a mere reflection of biological impulses or physical factors. To be sure, facts such as climate and food are important, but he attributes greater influence to such purely social factors as cohesion, occupation and wealth. [33]
For Ibn Khaldun, history is a constantly changing cycle, with essentially two groups of people, nomads and townspeople, with peasants in between. He characterizes each group:
Nomads are rough, savage and uncultured, and their presence is always inimical to civilization; however, they are hardy, frugal, uncorrupt in morals, freedom-loving and self-reliant, and so make excellent fighters. In addition, they have a strong sense of ‘asabiya, which can be translated as ‘group cohesion’ or ‘social solidarity’. This greatly enhances their military potential. Towns, by contrast, are the seats of the crafts, the sciences, the arts and culture. Yet luxury corrupts them, and as a result they become a liability to the state, like women and children who need to be protected. Solidarity is completely relaxed and the arts of defending oneself and of attacking the enemy are forgotten, so they are no match for conquering nomads. [34]
With regard to the political and social cycle, Ibn Khaldun suggests the following sequence of events:
Nomads conquer territories and their leaders establish a new dynasty. At first the new rulers retain their tribal virtues and solidarity, but soon they seek to concentrate all authority in their own hands. Increasingly they rule through a bureaucracy of clients - often foreigners. As their former supporters lose their military virtues there is an increasing use of mercenaries, and soldiers come to be more important than civilians. Luxury corrupts ethical life, and the population decreases. Rising expenditure demands higher taxes, which discourage production and eventually result in lower revenues. The ruler and his clients become isolated from the groups that originally brought them to power. Such a process of decline is taken to last three generations, or about one hundred and twenty years. Religion can influence the nature of such a model; when ‘asabiya is reinforced by religion its strength is multiplied, and great empires can be founded. Religion can also reinforce the cohesion of an established state. Yet the endless cycle of flowering and decay shows no evolution or progress except for that from the primitive to civilized society. [35]
Ibn Khaldun acknowledges that there are turning points in history. He wrote that in his time, he believed the Black Death and Mongol invasions were turning points, as was the development of Europe.
Ibn Khaldun's observations and research focused on the etiology of civilizational decline, “the symptoms and the nature of the ills from which civilizations die.” [36]
Ibn Khaldun's thesis, that the conquered race will always emulate the conqueror in every way, [37] and his theory about asbyiah (group feeling / party spirit) and the role it plays in Bedouin societies is insightful. The genius of this work is his study of the science of human culture, the rise and fall of empires, Ibn Khaldun termed this the science of umran (civilization), and it contains many pearls of wisdom. His “Introduction” is his greatest legacy, left for all of humanity and generations to come.
IBN KHALDUN AND THUCYDIDES
L. E. Goodman prepared a comparative study of Thucydides, who is considered the ‘father of history’, and the Muqaddimah. Goodman reveals the similarities in methods, assumptions, and conclusions, and notes that
Both men are naturalists, both empiricists, both exponents of a critical approach to historiography. Yet neither is a reductionist. Both seek a lesson in history, and both believe that the message of history is to be discovered in the careful study of historical laws revealed in the play of forces which are the expression of man's political and social nature. But beyond similarities of approach, there is a deep congruity of thought between the two authors, for both believe themselves to have glimpsed the pattern, learned the lesson of history. Both Ibn Khaldun and Thucydides have been led by their study of history to a cyclical, rather than linear view of historical process; both have been led, in developing their concepts of human and political reality, to a qualified relativism, which affords them … a cautious but by no means pessimistic historical theodicy. [38]
Although Goodman finds similarities between some of the historical theories of the two historians, there is little proof that the ideas of Thucydides ever appeared in Arabic. Further, as is the case with Ibn Khaldun, not many of their ideas have borne fruit, except perhaps in the modern period. Ibn Khaldun remains a highly vibrant and original thinker not only in the field of history but in sociology as well.
IBN KHALDUN'S VIEW ON SCIENCE
Ibn Khaldun’s view on science followed the traditional division of sciences, which involves a division into religious sciences and non-religious sciences. The non-religious sciences are further divided into useful and non-useful sciences (mainly the occult sciences such as magic, alchemy and astrology). In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun reports on all the sciences up to his time, with examples and quotations. He makes it a point to refute magic, alchemy, astrology, and philosophy in his book. His work became a record of the development of sciences in his day.
IBN KHALDUN'S VIEW ON PHILOSOPHY
Ibn Khaldun's view on philosophy is similar to that of al-Ghazali, in the sense that he attempted to reconcile mysticism and theology. In fact, Ibn Khaldun, according to Issawi,
…goes further than the latter [al-Ghazali] in bringing mysticism completely within the purview of the jurisprudent (faqih) and in developing a model of the Sufi shaykh, or master, as rather similar to the theologian. Philosophy was regarded as going beyond its appropriate level of discourse, in that 'the intellect should not be used to weigh such matters as the oneness of God, the other world, the truth of prophecy, the real character of the divine attributes, or anything else that lies beyond the level of the intellect' (Muqaddima 3, 38).
Ibn Khaldun criticized Neoplatonic philosophy, and asserted that the hierarchy of being and its progression toward the Necessary Being, or God, is not possible without revelation. [39]
He is `Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Jabir bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdurahman bin Ibn Khaldun. According to Ibn Khaldun, his ancestors originated in Hadramut, Yemen. He also traced his ancestry (through another genealogy, as supplied by Ibn Hazem who looked to his grandfather who was the first to enter Andalusia) back to Wail ibn Hajar, one of the oldest Yemeni tribes. In either case, the genealogy points to his Arab origin, although scholars do question the authenticity of both reports due to the political climate at the time of the reports. [1]
Ibn Khaldun was born in Tunis on May 27, 1332 A.C.E. (Ramadan 1, 732 A.H.). [2] He received a traditional education that was typical for one of his family’s rank and status. He learned first at the hands of his father, who was a scholarly person, not involved in politics like his ancestors. He memorized the Qur’an by heart, learned grammar, jurisprudence, hadith, rhetoric, philology, and poetry. He reached a certain proficiency in these subjects and received certification in them. In his autobiography, he mentions the names of the scholars with whom he studied. [3]
Ibn Khaldun continued his studies until the age of nineteen, when the great plague swept over the lands from Samarkand to Mauritania. It was after this plague that Ibn Khaldun received his first public assignment, marking the start of his political career, and forever changing his life. [4]
TUNISIA AND MOROCCO
Ibn Tafrakin, the ruler of Tunis, called Ibn Khaldun to be the seal-bearer of his captive Sultan Abu Ishaq. It is here that Ibn Khaldun got a first-hand look at the inner workings of court politics and the weakness of the government. Before long he had the opportunity to leave Tunis.
In 1352 A.C.E. (713 A.H.) Abu Ziad, the Emir of Constantine, marched his forces on Tunis. Ibn Khaldun accompanied Ibn Tafrakin with the forces that warded off Abu Ziad’s attack. Tunis was defeated and Ibn Khaldun escaped to Aba, where he lived with al-Mowahideen. He moved back and forth through Algeria and settled in Biskra. [5]
At the same time, in Morocco, Sultan Abu Enan, who had recently settled on the throne of his father, was on his way to conquer Algeria. Ibn Khaldun traveled to Tlemcen to meet the sultan, and mentions that the sultan honored him and sent him with his chamberlain Ibn Abi Amr to Bougie to witness its submission to Sultan Abu Enan.
Ibn Khaldun stayed in the company of the chamberlain while the sultan moved back to the capital, Fez. In 1354 A.C.E. (755 A.H.) Ibn Khaldun accepted the invitation to join the council of ‘ulama and moved to Fez. He was eventually promoted to the post of seal-bearer and accepted it reluctantly, as it was inferior to the posts once occupied by his ancestors.
Ibn Khaldun used his stay in Fez to further his studies. Fez at this time was a capital of Morocco and enjoyed the company of many scholars from all over North Africa and Andalusia. Ibn Khaldun was an ambitious young man and at this point of his life he began to engage in court politics. He was promoted from one position to another. [6] He also conspired with Abu Abdullah Muhammad, the dethroned ruler of Bougie who was captive in Fez at that time. Abu Abdullah was from the Banu Hafs that were patrons of Ibn Khaldun’s family. Sultan Abu Enan found out about the conspiracy and imprisoned Ibn Khaldun. Abu Abdullah was released from prison and Ibn Khaldun lingered on for two years. Sultan Abu Enan fell ill and died before fulfilling his promise to release Ibn Khaldun. The Wazir al-Hassan ibn Omar ordered the release of Ibn Khaldun, who was then restored to his former position. [7]
ESCAPE FROM MOROCCO TO SPAIN
The political climate was tense and Ibn Khaldun again tested his fate and conspired against the wazir with al-Mansur. This loyalty was short-lived as well. He conspired with Sultan Abu Salem who overthrew al-Mansur. Ibn Khaldun took the position of secretary (literally, “repository of secrets” Amin as-Sir). [8]
Here Ibn Khaldun excelled in his position and composed many poems. He occupied the position for two more years and was then appointed Chief Justice. He showed great ability in this position, however, due to constant rivalry with high officials, he lost favor with the sultan. [9]
However, this proved unimportant, when a revolt took place and Sultan Abu Salem was overthrown by Wazir Omar. Ibn Khaldun sided with the victors and was reinstated to his post, with higher pay. Ibn Khaldun was as ambitious as ever, and wanted a higher position, namely that of chamberlain. For reasons unknown, perhaps he was not trusted, he was refused the position. This upset him enough that he resigned his position, and he in turn upset the wazir. Ibn Khaldun asked to leave Fez and go back to Tunisia and was refused. It was then that he asked the wazir’s son-in-law to intercede on his behalf, that he be allowed to go to Andalusia. [10]
FROM SPAIN TO TUNISIA
Sultan Muhammad al-Ahmar, the King of Granada, was deposed by his brother Ismail who was supported by his brother-in-law. Sultan Muhammad was a friend of Sultan Abu Salem, who had helped Ibn Khaldun when he was deported to Andalusia by Sultan Abu Enan. When Sultan Abu Enan died and Sultan Abu Salem became ruler, that friendship was rekindled. Furthermore, when Ismail al-Ahmar was declared King of Granada in a palace revolt, Sultan Muhammad took refuge in Morocco with Sultan Abu Salem. They were welcomed with great fanfare, and Ibn Khaldun was present at the festivities. Among Sultan Muhammad’s party was his wise Wazir Ibn al-Khatib, who developed a close friendship with Ibn Khaldun. [11]
Sultan Muhammad attempted to restore his throne in Granada through an agreement with Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile. Pedro delayed the execution of the agreement upon hearing of Sultan Abu Salem’s death. Sultan Muhammad appealed to Ibn Khaldun for assistance from Wazir Omar. Ibn Khaldun used his influence to help him, and Ibn Khaldun was even entrusted to care for Sultan Muhammad’s family in Fez. The wazir granted Sultan Muhammad Ronda and the surrounding country. Sultan Muhammad continued his efforts and recaptured his throne in 1361 A.C.E. (763 A.H.). He then recalled his Wazir Ibn al-Khatib. [12]
When the relationship between Sultan Muhammad and Ibn Khaldun turned sour and uncertain, he turned toward Andalusia. He was welcomed and honored by Sultan Muhammad, who admitted him to his private council. In the following year, Sultan Muhammad sent Ibn Khaldun on an ambassadorial mission to Pedro, the King of Castile. Ibn Khaldun concluded the mission and peaceful terms were established between them. Pedro offered Ibn Khaldun a position in his service and the return of his family’s former estate at Castile. Ibn Khaldun declined the offer. [13]
Upon his return from Castile, Ibn Khaldun offered Pedro’s gift to him to the sultan and in return, the sultan gave him the village of Elvira. Soon Ibn Khaldun was restless once more and in the following year, 1364 A.C.E. (766 A.H.), when he received an invitation from his friend Abu Abdullah, who had recaptured his throne at Bougie, Ibn Khaldun left Granada after asking permission to leave from Sultan Muhammad. [14]
ADVENTURES IN NORTH AFRICA
Ibn Khaldun arrived in Bougie at the age of thirty-two. His plans had finally been realized. The period of imprisonment in Fez did not go to waste. He entered the city as a favorite guest. He accepted the position of hajib for Emir Muhammad. However, his life of power did not last long, as in the following year Abul Abbas killed the Emir Muhammad, his cousin. Ibn Khaldun handed the city to him and retired to the city of Biskra. He continued his political work in relaying the tribes to the service of this or that emir or sultan. He continued his practice of shifting loyalties as times and opportunities afforded him. He finally retired to a far outpost south of Constantine, Fort Salama. [15]
In Fort Salama, at the age of forty-five, he enjoyed a peaceful existence, and began to write his famous Muqqddimah, and the first version of his Universal History.
He dedicated his work to the current Emir of Constantine, Sultan Abul Abbas. But tranquility did not last long with Ibn Khaldun, as he needed reference works that were not available at his far outpost. He used the occasion of Abul Abbas’s conquest of Tunisia to go to Tunis. This was the first time he had returned to the town of his birth since leaving it more than twenty-seven years previously.
There were political forces at work against him once more and this time, before he fell out of favor, he used a convenient occasion (in 1382 A.C.E / A.H.) to leave North Africa behind, never to return. [16]
TO EGYPT
Ibn Khaldun was granted permission from Sultan Abul Abbas to go on hajj. He arrived in Alexandria in October 1382 A.C.E. (Shabaan 784 A.H.), at the ripe age of fifty. He spent a month preparing to leave for hajj, but was unable to join the caravan bound for the Holy Lands. He turned toward Cairo instead. Here he was warmly welcomed by scholars and students, and it was in Cairo that he lived out his final days. His fame for his writings had already preceded him. He lectured at al-Azhar and other fine schools. He had the chance to meet with Sultan al-Zahir Barquq who appointed him to a teaching post at the Kamhiah school. [17]
He again enjoyed the favors of the sultan. He was appointed a Maliki Judge at the sultan’s whim, and anger. He fared well and tried to fight corruption and favoritism, but again, conspiracies worked against him and he was relieved of duty, just in time to coincide with his family’s disaster. The ship carrying his family and belongings sank in a storm. [18]
Ibn Khaldun again took permission to go on hajj to the Holy Lands. He returned and was well received, and appointed to a teaching position in the newly built school, Bein al-Qasrein. He lectured in hadith, particularly Imam Malik’s Muwatta. He was then appointed to the Sufi Institute of Beibers with a generous salary. But soon, the state of affairs of Egypt was disturbed, as a rival of Sultan Barquq, Yulbugha, organized a successful revolt. Sultan Barquq staged a counter-revolt and was restored to his former throne. During this period, Ibn Khaldun suffered and then had his position restored with the return to power of the victorious Sultan Barquq.
During this period, Ibn Khaldun devoted his time to lecturing and studying, as well as to completing his Universal History. After Yulbugha’s revolt, he wrote about asabiyah and its role in the rise and fall of states. He applied his theory to the Egyptian theater since the time of Salah ad-Din. [19]
Fourteen years after leaving the position of Chief Maliki Judge, Ibn Khaldun was reassigned to the post upon the death of the presiding judge. The state again fell into disarray upon Sultan Barquq’s death and his son’s ascension. Ibn Khaldun was not a party to these revolts and asked permission to visit Jerusalem. He joined the Sultan Faraj’s caravan on its way back from Damascus, and was relieved of his duties as judge for the second time, again due to political intrigue. However, this did not matter because he was called upon to accompany the sultan on a perilous journey with fate to Damascus. [20]
MEETING TAMERLANE
During Ibn Khaldun’s stay in Egypt he was asked by Sultan Faraj of Egypt to accompany him on his expedition to Damascus. News reports had confirmed the movement of Tamerlane’s war party toward Damascus. Sultan Faraj and his army were on their way to Damascus, and it seems that Ibn Khaldun was asked, firmly, to accompany the sultan to Damascus. [21]
The sultan stayed in Damascus just two weeks, as he had to leave because of rumors that a revolt was in the works back in Cairo. Ibn Khaldun and several notables were left behind in Damascus. It was up to the leaders of Damascus to deal with Tamerlane. Ibn Khaldun had suggested that they consider Tamerlane’s terms. It was the task of another judge, Ibn Muflih, to discuss the terms with Tamerlane. When Ibn Muflih returned from Tamerlane’s camp, the terms were not agreeable to the residents of Damascus.
Since it was Ibn Khaldun’s suggestion to come to terms with Tamerlane, Ibn Khaldun felt obliged to meet with Tamerlane personally, and so he left Damascus and went to Tamerlane’s camp. It is not clear whether he went on his own or in an official capacity. Ibn Khaldun took gifts with him for Tamerlane and they were well received; he stayed in Tamerlane’s camp for thirty-five days.
Over this period, Ibn Khaldun had many meetings with Tamerlane, conversing through an interpreter, Abd al-Jabbar al-Khwarizmi (d. 1403 A.C.E. / A.H.). Ibn Khaldun’s account is the only detailed account available; the subjects they discussed were varied and some were unrecorded. Walter Fischel lists six specific topics about which they talked:
1. The Maghrib and Ibn Khaldun’s land of origin;
2. Heroes in history;
3. Predictions of things to come;
4. The Abbasid Caliphate;
5. Amnesty and security “for Ibn Khaldun and his companion;”
6. Ibn Khaldun’s intention to stay with Tamerlane. [22]
Ibn Khaldun impressed the conqueror enough that he was asked to join Tamerlane’s court. Some biographers have suggested that he did plan to join Tamerlane’s court and that he wrote his eloquent appeal to return to Egypt to settle his affairs, get his books and family and join Tamerlane. However, it is more likely that Ibn Khaldun left on good terms with Tamerlane, and accomplished his mission of extracting favorable terms for the people of Damascus. [23]
Ibn Khaldun’s departing words lend credence to the fact that he would not be returning to his service:
Is there any generosity left beyond that which you have already shown me? You have heaped favors upon me, accorded me a place in your council among your intimate followers, and shown me kindness and generosity which I hope Allah will repay to you in like measures. [24]
FINAL DAYS IN EGYPT
Upon Ibn Khaldun’s return to Egypt, he was restored to his position as Maliki judge. Due to the political situation within the community of Maliki judges, Ibn Khaldun was dismissed and reinstated three times during the five-year period. He died while in office on Wednesday, March 17 1406 A.C.E. (25 of Ramadan 808 A.H.). He was buried in the sufi cemetery outside Bab an-Nasr, Cairo at the age of seventy-four. [25]
WORKS
Ibn Khaldun’s works can be classified in the categories of historical, and religious. Of his works on history, only his Universal History has survived to our day. Another work that is lost is the history that was written specifically for Tamerlane, as Ibn Khaldun mentioned in his autobiography. His religious books are: Lubab al-Mahsul (Summary of the Result); a commentary on an usul al-fiqh poem, and a few works which are of questionable attribute to him, namely a sufi tract “Shifa’ as-Sail” (Healing of the Inquirer). [26]
THE MAGNUM OPUS “AL-MUQADDIMAH”
Ibn Khaldun’s magnum opus, “al-Muqaddimah” can be divided into three parts. The first part is the introduction, the second part is the Universal History, and the third part is the history of the Maghrib. In this section, I concentrate on the first part. The second part is similar to the standard histories of Muslim historians, and there does not seem to be much divergence. The third part, which is concerned with the history of the Maghrib, is considered a primary source work. [27] Much of the information in this section is from Ibn Khaldun’s personal travels and contacts in the area, and is replete with first hand accounts. An additional work that is not usually considered a part of this book is an appendix, which is an autobiography of the author.
The first part, the “Introduction,” is popularly known as “al-Muqaddimah;” Ibn Khaldun wrote this in a span of five months. [28] It can be divided into six parts as follows:
1. Human society – ethnology and anthropology
2. Rural civilizations
3. Forms of government and forms of institutions
4. Society of urban civilization
5. Economic facts
6. Science and humanity
This impressive document is the essence of Ibn Khaldun's wisdom and hard earned experience. Ibn Khaldun used his political and first-hand knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate many of his ideas. This document summarizes Ibn Khaldun’s ideas about every field of knowledge during his day. He discusses a variety of topics, including history and historiography. He rebukes some historical claims with a calculated logic, and discusses the sciences of his time. He wrote about astronomy, astrology, and numerology, and dealt with chemistry, alchemy, and magic in a scientific way. He freely offered his opinions and well documented the “facts” of other points of view. His discussion of tribal societies and social forces is the most interesting part of his thesis. He illuminated the world with deep insight into the makings and workings of kingdoms and civilizations.
The following quotation describes his philosophy of the historical process of civilizations, including, for example, the role of economics.
…in the field of economics, Ibn Khaldun understands very clearly the supply and demand factors which affect price, the interdependence of prices and the ripple effects on successive stages of production of a fall in prices, and the nature and function of money and its tendency to circulate from country to country according to demand and the level of activity. [29]
Ibn Khaldun is well known for his explanation of the nature of state and society and for being ‘the founder of the new discipline of sociology.’
Ibn Khaldun fully realised that he had created a new discipline, ‘ilm al-’umran, the science of culture, and regarded it as surprising that no one had done so before and demarcated it from other disciplines. This science can be of great help to the historian by creating a standard by which to judge accounts of past events. Through the study of human society, one can distinguish between the possible and the impossible, and so distinguish between those of its phenomena which are essential and those which are merely accidental, and also those which cannot occur at all. [30]
Ibn Khaldun's contributions to the field of history must also be noted.
He analysed in detail the sources of error in historical writings, in particular partisanship, overconfidence in sources, failure to understand what is intended, a mistaken belief in the truth, the inability to place an event in its real context, the desire to gain the favour of those in high rank, exaggeration, and what he regarded as the most important of all, ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of human society. [31]
On the development of the state, and the relationship between the state and society, Ibn Khaldun believed that
…human society is necessary since the individual acting alone could acquire neither the necessary food nor security. Only the division of labour, in and through society, makes this possible. The state arises through the need of a restraining force to curb the natural aggression of humanity. A state is inconceivable without a society, while a society is well-nigh impossible without a state. Social phenomena seem to obey laws which, while not as absolute as those governing natural phenomena, are sufficiently constant to cause social events to follow regular and well-defined patterns and sequences. Hence a grasp of these laws enables the sociologist to understand the trend of events. These laws operate on masses and cannot be significantly influenced by isolated individuals. [32]
Ibn Khaldun proposed that
…society is an organism that obeys its own inner laws. These laws can be discovered by applying human reason to data either culled from historical records or obtained by direct observation. These data are fitted into an implicit framework derived from his views on human and social nature, his religious beliefs and the legal precepts and philosophical principles to which he adheres. He argues that more or less the same set of laws operates across societies with the same kind of structure, so that his remarks about nomads apply equally well to Arab Bedouins, both contemporary and pre-Islamic, and to Berbers, Turkomen and Kurds. These laws are explicable sociologically, and are not a mere reflection of biological impulses or physical factors. To be sure, facts such as climate and food are important, but he attributes greater influence to such purely social factors as cohesion, occupation and wealth. [33]
For Ibn Khaldun, history is a constantly changing cycle, with essentially two groups of people, nomads and townspeople, with peasants in between. He characterizes each group:
Nomads are rough, savage and uncultured, and their presence is always inimical to civilization; however, they are hardy, frugal, uncorrupt in morals, freedom-loving and self-reliant, and so make excellent fighters. In addition, they have a strong sense of ‘asabiya, which can be translated as ‘group cohesion’ or ‘social solidarity’. This greatly enhances their military potential. Towns, by contrast, are the seats of the crafts, the sciences, the arts and culture. Yet luxury corrupts them, and as a result they become a liability to the state, like women and children who need to be protected. Solidarity is completely relaxed and the arts of defending oneself and of attacking the enemy are forgotten, so they are no match for conquering nomads. [34]
With regard to the political and social cycle, Ibn Khaldun suggests the following sequence of events:
Nomads conquer territories and their leaders establish a new dynasty. At first the new rulers retain their tribal virtues and solidarity, but soon they seek to concentrate all authority in their own hands. Increasingly they rule through a bureaucracy of clients - often foreigners. As their former supporters lose their military virtues there is an increasing use of mercenaries, and soldiers come to be more important than civilians. Luxury corrupts ethical life, and the population decreases. Rising expenditure demands higher taxes, which discourage production and eventually result in lower revenues. The ruler and his clients become isolated from the groups that originally brought them to power. Such a process of decline is taken to last three generations, or about one hundred and twenty years. Religion can influence the nature of such a model; when ‘asabiya is reinforced by religion its strength is multiplied, and great empires can be founded. Religion can also reinforce the cohesion of an established state. Yet the endless cycle of flowering and decay shows no evolution or progress except for that from the primitive to civilized society. [35]
Ibn Khaldun acknowledges that there are turning points in history. He wrote that in his time, he believed the Black Death and Mongol invasions were turning points, as was the development of Europe.
Ibn Khaldun's observations and research focused on the etiology of civilizational decline, “the symptoms and the nature of the ills from which civilizations die.” [36]
Ibn Khaldun's thesis, that the conquered race will always emulate the conqueror in every way, [37] and his theory about asbyiah (group feeling / party spirit) and the role it plays in Bedouin societies is insightful. The genius of this work is his study of the science of human culture, the rise and fall of empires, Ibn Khaldun termed this the science of umran (civilization), and it contains many pearls of wisdom. His “Introduction” is his greatest legacy, left for all of humanity and generations to come.
IBN KHALDUN AND THUCYDIDES
L. E. Goodman prepared a comparative study of Thucydides, who is considered the ‘father of history’, and the Muqaddimah. Goodman reveals the similarities in methods, assumptions, and conclusions, and notes that
Both men are naturalists, both empiricists, both exponents of a critical approach to historiography. Yet neither is a reductionist. Both seek a lesson in history, and both believe that the message of history is to be discovered in the careful study of historical laws revealed in the play of forces which are the expression of man's political and social nature. But beyond similarities of approach, there is a deep congruity of thought between the two authors, for both believe themselves to have glimpsed the pattern, learned the lesson of history. Both Ibn Khaldun and Thucydides have been led by their study of history to a cyclical, rather than linear view of historical process; both have been led, in developing their concepts of human and political reality, to a qualified relativism, which affords them … a cautious but by no means pessimistic historical theodicy. [38]
Although Goodman finds similarities between some of the historical theories of the two historians, there is little proof that the ideas of Thucydides ever appeared in Arabic. Further, as is the case with Ibn Khaldun, not many of their ideas have borne fruit, except perhaps in the modern period. Ibn Khaldun remains a highly vibrant and original thinker not only in the field of history but in sociology as well.
IBN KHALDUN'S VIEW ON SCIENCE
Ibn Khaldun’s view on science followed the traditional division of sciences, which involves a division into religious sciences and non-religious sciences. The non-religious sciences are further divided into useful and non-useful sciences (mainly the occult sciences such as magic, alchemy and astrology). In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun reports on all the sciences up to his time, with examples and quotations. He makes it a point to refute magic, alchemy, astrology, and philosophy in his book. His work became a record of the development of sciences in his day.
IBN KHALDUN'S VIEW ON PHILOSOPHY
Ibn Khaldun's view on philosophy is similar to that of al-Ghazali, in the sense that he attempted to reconcile mysticism and theology. In fact, Ibn Khaldun, according to Issawi,
…goes further than the latter [al-Ghazali] in bringing mysticism completely within the purview of the jurisprudent (faqih) and in developing a model of the Sufi shaykh, or master, as rather similar to the theologian. Philosophy was regarded as going beyond its appropriate level of discourse, in that 'the intellect should not be used to weigh such matters as the oneness of God, the other world, the truth of prophecy, the real character of the divine attributes, or anything else that lies beyond the level of the intellect' (Muqaddima 3, 38).
Ibn Khaldun criticized Neoplatonic philosophy, and asserted that the hierarchy of being and its progression toward the Necessary Being, or God, is not possible without revelation. [39]
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam
Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam (Arabic: عبد الرحمن حسن عزام) (1893 - 1976) was an Egyptian diplomat, with family origins in Egypt[1] He served as the first secretary-general of the Arab League between 1945 and 1952.
Azzam also had a long career as an ambassador and parliamentarian. He was an Egyptian nationalist and one of the foremost proponents of pan-Arab idealism – viewpoints he did not see as contradictory - and was passionately opposed to the partition of Palestine.[2]
One of Azzam's first acts as secretary-general was to condemn anti-Jewish rioting in Egypt of November 2-3, 1945 during which Jewish and other non-Muslim owned shops were destroyed and the Ashkenazi synagogue in Cairo's Muski quarter was set aflame.[3]
On March 2, 1946, in an address to The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry into the Problems of European Jewry and Palestine, Azzam explained the Arab League’s attitude towards the Palestinian question and argued against the Zionist claim to Palestine:
“ Our brother has gone to Europe and to the West [and] come back a Russified Jew, a Polish Jew, a German Jew, an English Jew. He has come back with a totally different conception of things. Western and not Eastern… but Jew old cousin, coming back with imperialistic ideas, with reactionary or revolutionary ideas… he is not the old cousin and we do not extend to him a very good welcome.[4] ”
On May 11, 1948 Azzam warned the Egyptian government that owing to public pressure and strategic issues it would be difficult for Arab leaders to avoid intervention in the Palestine War, and that Egypt could find itself isolated if it did not act in concert with its neighbors. Azzam believed that King Abdullah of Jordan had decided to move his forces into Palestine on 15 May regardless of what the other Arabs did and would occupy the Arab part of Palestine whilst blaming other Arab states for failure. King Farouk of Egypt resolved to contain Abdullah and prevent him from gaining further influence and power in the Arab arena.[5]
One day after the State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation (May 14, 1948), Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Egyptian, and Transjordanian troops, supported by Saudi and Yemenite troops, attacked the nascent Jewish state, triggering the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. On that day, Azzam Pasha announced:
“ This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".[6] ”
Vincent Sheean points out in his introduction to the book The Eternal Message of Muhammad, (published by Azzam in Arabic in 1938 under the title The Hero of Heroes or the most Prominent Attribute of the Prophet Muhammad), "In Damascus as well as in Djakarta, Istanbul and Baghdad, this man is known for valour of spirit and elevation of mind... he combines in the best Islamic mode, the aspects of thought and action, like the Muslim warriors of another time who are typified for us Westerners by the figure of Saladin." In the book Azzam extols the Prophet’s virtues of bravery, love, the ability to forgive, and eloquence in pursuit of the diplomatic resolution of conflict and argues that Islam is incompatible with racism or fanatical attachment to "tribe, nation, color, language, or culture".[7]
Azzam Pasha The Secretary-General of the Arab League, , assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as "a military promenade,"said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951).[1][2]
"We are already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development will be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean.... Brothers, Arabs of Palestine leave your land, homes and property and stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Malcolm X’s reading of The Eternal Message of Muhammad and his meeting with Azzam Pasha are vividly recounted in his autobiography. These events marked the point in his life at which Malcolm X turned towards orthodox traditional Islam.
Azzam also had a long career as an ambassador and parliamentarian. He was an Egyptian nationalist and one of the foremost proponents of pan-Arab idealism – viewpoints he did not see as contradictory - and was passionately opposed to the partition of Palestine.[2]
One of Azzam's first acts as secretary-general was to condemn anti-Jewish rioting in Egypt of November 2-3, 1945 during which Jewish and other non-Muslim owned shops were destroyed and the Ashkenazi synagogue in Cairo's Muski quarter was set aflame.[3]
On March 2, 1946, in an address to The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry into the Problems of European Jewry and Palestine, Azzam explained the Arab League’s attitude towards the Palestinian question and argued against the Zionist claim to Palestine:
“ Our brother has gone to Europe and to the West [and] come back a Russified Jew, a Polish Jew, a German Jew, an English Jew. He has come back with a totally different conception of things. Western and not Eastern… but Jew old cousin, coming back with imperialistic ideas, with reactionary or revolutionary ideas… he is not the old cousin and we do not extend to him a very good welcome.[4] ”
On May 11, 1948 Azzam warned the Egyptian government that owing to public pressure and strategic issues it would be difficult for Arab leaders to avoid intervention in the Palestine War, and that Egypt could find itself isolated if it did not act in concert with its neighbors. Azzam believed that King Abdullah of Jordan had decided to move his forces into Palestine on 15 May regardless of what the other Arabs did and would occupy the Arab part of Palestine whilst blaming other Arab states for failure. King Farouk of Egypt resolved to contain Abdullah and prevent him from gaining further influence and power in the Arab arena.[5]
One day after the State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation (May 14, 1948), Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Egyptian, and Transjordanian troops, supported by Saudi and Yemenite troops, attacked the nascent Jewish state, triggering the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. On that day, Azzam Pasha announced:
“ This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".[6] ”
Vincent Sheean points out in his introduction to the book The Eternal Message of Muhammad, (published by Azzam in Arabic in 1938 under the title The Hero of Heroes or the most Prominent Attribute of the Prophet Muhammad), "In Damascus as well as in Djakarta, Istanbul and Baghdad, this man is known for valour of spirit and elevation of mind... he combines in the best Islamic mode, the aspects of thought and action, like the Muslim warriors of another time who are typified for us Westerners by the figure of Saladin." In the book Azzam extols the Prophet’s virtues of bravery, love, the ability to forgive, and eloquence in pursuit of the diplomatic resolution of conflict and argues that Islam is incompatible with racism or fanatical attachment to "tribe, nation, color, language, or culture".[7]
Azzam Pasha The Secretary-General of the Arab League, , assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as "a military promenade,"said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951).[1][2]
"We are already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development will be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean.... Brothers, Arabs of Palestine leave your land, homes and property and stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Malcolm X’s reading of The Eternal Message of Muhammad and his meeting with Azzam Pasha are vividly recounted in his autobiography. These events marked the point in his life at which Malcolm X turned towards orthodox traditional Islam.
Hosni (Muhammad) Mubarak
Military leader and president of Egypt (1981- ). He was born on May 4, 1928, in Kafr-al Meselha, the son of an inspector of the Ministry of Justice. Mubarak was educated at Egypt's national Military Academy and Air Force Academy and at the Frunze General Staff Academy in Moscow.
Under Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat, Mubarak served in a number of military posts, including deputy minister of war from 1972 to 1975; in 1975, he became vice president. After Sadat was assassinated, on October 6, 1981, Mubarak became president. He instituted a vigorous economic recovery program; remained committed to the peace treaty with Israel (signed in 1979); mended relations with other Arab states, which were damaged after Egypt's peace with Israel; and initiated a policy he called “positive neutrality” toward the great powers.
He was reelected when his National Democratic Party won the October 1987 elections and was thus able to nominate him as the sole candidate for president. With serious economic problems and rising Islamic fundamental opposition at home, Mubarak continued to seek an end to the stalemate that had developed between Israel and Arab nations; in 1988 he visited the United States for talks on that subject.
Mubarak, supported the 1990 United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq when that country invaded Kuwait, orchestrated Arab League opposition to the invasion, committed about 38,500 troops to the anti-Iraq coalition in the Persian Gulf War (1991), and supported postwar efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Reelected in 1993, Mubarak cracked down on Muslim fundamentalist opposition groups after an upsurge in guerrilla violence by Islamic extremists. Mubarak survived an assassination attempt unharmed in June 1995 in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. Five of the assailants were killed during or after the ambush and three escaped to Sudan, which is widely believed to have sponsored the attack. In November 1995, just before parliamentary elections, Mubarak's government accused the Muslim Brotherhood of helping violent Islamic groups. Many of the Muslim Brotherhood's members were arrested, and several who planned to run in the elections or monitor them were tried and sentenced to prison. Critics accused the government of trying to eliminate even peaceful opponents. In the elections that followed, Mubarak's National Democratic Party won an overwhelming victory. Mubarak was elected to a fourth six-year term in 1999.
Under Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat, Mubarak served in a number of military posts, including deputy minister of war from 1972 to 1975; in 1975, he became vice president. After Sadat was assassinated, on October 6, 1981, Mubarak became president. He instituted a vigorous economic recovery program; remained committed to the peace treaty with Israel (signed in 1979); mended relations with other Arab states, which were damaged after Egypt's peace with Israel; and initiated a policy he called “positive neutrality” toward the great powers.
He was reelected when his National Democratic Party won the October 1987 elections and was thus able to nominate him as the sole candidate for president. With serious economic problems and rising Islamic fundamental opposition at home, Mubarak continued to seek an end to the stalemate that had developed between Israel and Arab nations; in 1988 he visited the United States for talks on that subject.
Mubarak, supported the 1990 United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq when that country invaded Kuwait, orchestrated Arab League opposition to the invasion, committed about 38,500 troops to the anti-Iraq coalition in the Persian Gulf War (1991), and supported postwar efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Reelected in 1993, Mubarak cracked down on Muslim fundamentalist opposition groups after an upsurge in guerrilla violence by Islamic extremists. Mubarak survived an assassination attempt unharmed in June 1995 in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. Five of the assailants were killed during or after the ambush and three escaped to Sudan, which is widely believed to have sponsored the attack. In November 1995, just before parliamentary elections, Mubarak's government accused the Muslim Brotherhood of helping violent Islamic groups. Many of the Muslim Brotherhood's members were arrested, and several who planned to run in the elections or monitor them were tried and sentenced to prison. Critics accused the government of trying to eliminate even peaceful opponents. In the elections that followed, Mubarak's National Democratic Party won an overwhelming victory. Mubarak was elected to a fourth six-year term in 1999.
Golda Meir
Golda Meir
(1898-1978)
Golda Meir was born in Kiev in 1898. Economic hardship forced her family to emigrate to the United States in 1906, where they settled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
In high school she joined the Zionist group, "Poalei Zion" (Workers of Zion). She immigrated to British Mandate Palestine in 1921 with her husband, Morris Myerson, and settled in Kibbutz Merhavya.
Moving to Tel Aviv in 1924, she became an official of the Histadrut Trade Union and served in a managerial post with the union's construction corporation, Solel Boneh. Between 1932 and 1934 she worked as an emissary in the United States, serving as secretary of the Hechalutz women's organization; she also became secretary of the Histadrut's Action Committee, and later of its policy section.
When the prestate British Mandatory Authorities imprisoned most of the Jewish community's senior leadership in 1946, she replaced Moshe Sharett as head of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, the chief Jewish liaison with the British. Elected to the Executive of the Jewish Agency, she was active in fundraising in the United States to help cover the costs of the Israeli War of Independence, and became one of the State's most effective spokesmen.
In 1948, David Ben-Gurion appointed Golda Meir to be a member of the Provisional Government. A few days before the Declaration of Independence, BenGurion sent her disguised as an Arab on a hazardous mission to persuade King Abdullah of Jordan not to attack Israel. But the King had already decided his army would invade the Jewish state following the British departure.
In June 1948, Meir was appointed Israel's Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Elected to the Knesset as a Mapai member in 1949, she served as Minister of Labor and National Insurance until 1956. In June 1956, she became Foreign Minister, a post she held until January 1966. As Foreign Minister, Meir was the architect of Israel's attempt to create bridges to the emerging independent countries of Africa via an assistance program based on practical Israeli experience in nation building. She also endeavored to cement relations with the United States and was successful in creating extensive bilateral relations with Latin American countries.
Between 1966 and 1968, she served as SecretaryGeneral of Mapai, and then as the first SecretaryGeneral of the newly formed Labor Party. When Prime Minister Levi Eshkol died suddenly in early 1969, the 71yearold Meir assumed the post of Premier, becoming the world's third female Prime Minister (after Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka and Indira Gandhi of India).
As Prime Minister she inherited Eshkol's second National Unity Government administration, but this broke up over the question of continuing the cease-fire with Egypt in the absence of a peace treaty. She then continued in office with the Alignment (Labor & Mapam), the National Religious Party and the Independent Liberals.
The major event of her administration was the Yom Kippur War, which broke out with massive coordinated Egyptian and Syrian assaults against Israel on October 6, 1973. As the postwar Agranant Inquiry Commission established, the IDF and the government had erred seriously in their assessment of Arab intentions.
Although she and the Labor Party won the elections (postponed due to the war until December 31, 1973), she resigned in 1974 in favor of Yitzhak Rabin. She passed away in December 1978 and was buried on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem.
(1898-1978)
Golda Meir was born in Kiev in 1898. Economic hardship forced her family to emigrate to the United States in 1906, where they settled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
In high school she joined the Zionist group, "Poalei Zion" (Workers of Zion). She immigrated to British Mandate Palestine in 1921 with her husband, Morris Myerson, and settled in Kibbutz Merhavya.
Moving to Tel Aviv in 1924, she became an official of the Histadrut Trade Union and served in a managerial post with the union's construction corporation, Solel Boneh. Between 1932 and 1934 she worked as an emissary in the United States, serving as secretary of the Hechalutz women's organization; she also became secretary of the Histadrut's Action Committee, and later of its policy section.
When the prestate British Mandatory Authorities imprisoned most of the Jewish community's senior leadership in 1946, she replaced Moshe Sharett as head of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, the chief Jewish liaison with the British. Elected to the Executive of the Jewish Agency, she was active in fundraising in the United States to help cover the costs of the Israeli War of Independence, and became one of the State's most effective spokesmen.
In 1948, David Ben-Gurion appointed Golda Meir to be a member of the Provisional Government. A few days before the Declaration of Independence, BenGurion sent her disguised as an Arab on a hazardous mission to persuade King Abdullah of Jordan not to attack Israel. But the King had already decided his army would invade the Jewish state following the British departure.
In June 1948, Meir was appointed Israel's Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Elected to the Knesset as a Mapai member in 1949, she served as Minister of Labor and National Insurance until 1956. In June 1956, she became Foreign Minister, a post she held until January 1966. As Foreign Minister, Meir was the architect of Israel's attempt to create bridges to the emerging independent countries of Africa via an assistance program based on practical Israeli experience in nation building. She also endeavored to cement relations with the United States and was successful in creating extensive bilateral relations with Latin American countries.
Between 1966 and 1968, she served as SecretaryGeneral of Mapai, and then as the first SecretaryGeneral of the newly formed Labor Party. When Prime Minister Levi Eshkol died suddenly in early 1969, the 71yearold Meir assumed the post of Premier, becoming the world's third female Prime Minister (after Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka and Indira Gandhi of India).
As Prime Minister she inherited Eshkol's second National Unity Government administration, but this broke up over the question of continuing the cease-fire with Egypt in the absence of a peace treaty. She then continued in office with the Alignment (Labor & Mapam), the National Religious Party and the Independent Liberals.
The major event of her administration was the Yom Kippur War, which broke out with massive coordinated Egyptian and Syrian assaults against Israel on October 6, 1973. As the postwar Agranant Inquiry Commission established, the IDF and the government had erred seriously in their assessment of Arab intentions.
Although she and the Labor Party won the elections (postponed due to the war until December 31, 1973), she resigned in 1974 in favor of Yitzhak Rabin. She passed away in December 1978 and was buried on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem.
Omar Makram
(Cairo) Omar Makram, a national leader and the revolutionist against the French conquest led by Napoleon, lived during the Ottoman period at the end of the 18th century. The memory of Omar Makram was recently celebrated at the Louvre in France. Unfortunately no celebrations were carried out in Egypt.
Omar Makram played a prominent role in the revolution against the French conquest yet he is now celebrated in France. The Administration of the Louvre invited Omar Makram’s granddaughter to visit these celebrations. In a recent interview she said, "I was happy to see my grandfather’s possessions and his historical achievements in the Louvre. At the same time I felt sad that no celebrations took place in Egypt." Mahmoud Makram, a grandson of Omar Makram, continues, "We are not only relatives of Omar Makram but also descendents of the El- Mahdy, Skeikh of Al-Azhar, during the rule of the Ottomans. We like to claim we are descendents of Omar Makram because of El-Mahdy’s dishonoring role during the French conquest."
The descendants of Omar Makram request for renovation of their grandfather’s historical house, as well as setting up a museum to display all his possessions and record his achievements.
A small protection confusion revolves around the grave of Omar Makram. The Ministry of Culture claims that the two graves of Omar Makram are not registered as antiquities, and thus cannot receive its full protection, although the small grave of the family lies in the vicinity of the Azramk Dome, which is an antiquity. The Makram family renovates this grave without permission from the Ministry. Omar Makram's granddaughter says that the Antiquities Authority however has allocated a monthly amount of 1000 LE for renovation and maintenance, but it up to the family to carry out its upkeep. She also states that the family is making efforts to revive the memory of Omar Makram through the publishing of Omar Makram's biography.
Before one thinks this historical figure has lost his prominence in modern Egyptian history, the mosque of Omar Makram (named after him) located at Tahrir Square still keeps his name alive. For this mosque is the famed location for the modern funeral services of any prominent politician, actor, or recognized Egyptian who passes away.
Certainly a hero and important historical figure in Egypt's modern history, but it may be another few years before Omar Makram gets the full attention in Egypt that his life and remaining historical possession deserve.
Omar Makram played a prominent role in the revolution against the French conquest yet he is now celebrated in France. The Administration of the Louvre invited Omar Makram’s granddaughter to visit these celebrations. In a recent interview she said, "I was happy to see my grandfather’s possessions and his historical achievements in the Louvre. At the same time I felt sad that no celebrations took place in Egypt." Mahmoud Makram, a grandson of Omar Makram, continues, "We are not only relatives of Omar Makram but also descendents of the El- Mahdy, Skeikh of Al-Azhar, during the rule of the Ottomans. We like to claim we are descendents of Omar Makram because of El-Mahdy’s dishonoring role during the French conquest."
The descendants of Omar Makram request for renovation of their grandfather’s historical house, as well as setting up a museum to display all his possessions and record his achievements.
A small protection confusion revolves around the grave of Omar Makram. The Ministry of Culture claims that the two graves of Omar Makram are not registered as antiquities, and thus cannot receive its full protection, although the small grave of the family lies in the vicinity of the Azramk Dome, which is an antiquity. The Makram family renovates this grave without permission from the Ministry. Omar Makram's granddaughter says that the Antiquities Authority however has allocated a monthly amount of 1000 LE for renovation and maintenance, but it up to the family to carry out its upkeep. She also states that the family is making efforts to revive the memory of Omar Makram through the publishing of Omar Makram's biography.
Before one thinks this historical figure has lost his prominence in modern Egyptian history, the mosque of Omar Makram (named after him) located at Tahrir Square still keeps his name alive. For this mosque is the famed location for the modern funeral services of any prominent politician, actor, or recognized Egyptian who passes away.
Certainly a hero and important historical figure in Egypt's modern history, but it may be another few years before Omar Makram gets the full attention in Egypt that his life and remaining historical possession deserve.
Charles de Gaulle
Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle (fr-Charles de Gaulle.ogg listen (help·info)), IPA: [də ˡgoːl] (in English generally pronounced /də ˡgɔːɫ/), (22 November 1890 – 9 November 1970) was a French general and statesman who led the Free French Forces during World War II. He later founded the French Fifth Republic in 1958 and served as its first President from 1959 to 1969.[1] In France, he is commonly referred to as Général de Gaulle or simply Le Général, or familiarly as "le Grand Charles".
A veteran of World War I, in the 1920s and 1930s de Gaulle came to the fore as a proponent of armored warfare and advocate of military aviation, which he considered a means to break the stalemate of trench warfare. During World War II, he reached the rank of Brigadier General, leading one of the few successful armored counter-attacks during the 1940 Fall of France, and then organized the Free French Forces with exiled French officers in England.[2] He gave a famous radio address in June 1940, exhorting the French people to resist Nazi Germany.[3] Following the liberation of France in 1944, de Gaulle became prime minister in the French Provisional Government.[4] Although he retired from politics in 1946 due to political conflicts, he was returned to power with military support following the May 1958 crisis. De Gaulle led the writing of a new constitution founding the Fifth Republic, and was elected President of France.[5][6][7]
As president, Charles de Gaulle ended the political chaos and violence that preceded his return to power. Although he initially supported French rule over Algeria, he controversially decided to grant independence to that country, ending an expensive and unpopular war. A new currency was issued to control inflation and industrial growth was promoted. De Gaulle oversaw the development of atomic weapons and promoted a pan-European foreign policy, seeking to diminish U.S. and British influence; withdrawing France from the NATO military command, he objected to Britain's entry into the European Community and he recognized Communist China. During his term, de Gaulle also faced controversy and political opposition from Communists and Socialists, and a spate of widespread protests in May 1968. De Gaulle retired in 1969, but remains the most influential leader in modern French history.
Contents
[hide]
[edit] Early life and military career
De Gaulle was born in Lille, the second of five children of Henri de Gaulle, a professor of philosophy and literature at a Jesuit college, who eventually founded his own school.[8] He was raised in a family of devout Roman Catholics who were nationalist and traditionalist, but also quite progressive.[9]
De Gaulle's father, Henri, came from a long line of aristocrats from Normandy and Burgundy, while his mother, Jeanne Maillot, descended from a family of rich entrepreneurs from the industrial region of Lille in French Flanders.[10]
According to Henri, the family's true origin was never determined, but could have been Celtic or Flemish. He thought that the name could be derived from the word gaule—a long pole which was used in the Middle Ages to beat olives from the trees.[11][12] Another source has the name deriving from Galle, meaning "oak" in the Gaulish language, and the sacred tree of the druids.[13]
De Gaulle was educated in Paris at the College Stanislas and also briefly in Belgium. Since childhood, he had displayed a keen interest in reading and studying history.[8] Choosing a military career, de Gaulle spent four years studying and training at the elite Saint-Cyr. While there, and because of his height, high forehead, and nose, he acquired the nicknames of "the great asparagus".[14][15] and "Cyrano".[16] Graduating in 1912, he joined the 33rd infantry regiment of the French Army, based at Arras. While serving during World War I, he was wounded and captured at Douaumont in the Battle of Verdun in March 1916.[8] While being held as a prisoner of war by the German Army, de Gaulle wrote his first book, co-written by Matthieu Butler, "L'Ennemi et le vrai ennemi" (The Enemy and the True Enemy), analyzing the issues and divisions within the German Empire and its forces; the book was published in 1924. After the armistice, de Gaulle continued to serve in the army and on the staff of General Maxime Weygand's military mission to Poland during its war with Communist Russia (1919-1921), working as an instructor to Polish infantry forces.[8] He distinguished himself in operations near the River Zbrucz and won the highest Polish military decoration, the Virtuti Militari.[17]
He was promoted to Commandant and offered a further career in Poland, but chose instead to return to France, where he served as a staff officer and also taught at the École Militaire, becoming a protégé of his old commander, Marshall Pétain.[8] De Gaulle was heavily influenced by the use of tanks, rapid maneuvers and limited trench warfare.
In the 1930s - early 1940s, de Gaulle wrote various books and articles on military subjects that revealed him to be a gifted writer and an imaginative thinker.[8] In 1931, he published Le fil de l’épée (Eng. tr., The Edge of the Sword, 1960), an analysis of military and political leadership. He also published Vers l’armée de métier (1934; Eng. tr., The Army of the Future, 1941) and La France et son armée (1938; Eng. tr., France and Her Army, 1945). He urged the creation of a mechanised army with special armoured divisions manned by a corps of professional specialist soldiers instead of the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line. While views similar to de Gaulle's were later advanced by Britain's J.F.C. Fuller, Germany's Heinz Guderian, United States' Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton, Russia's Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and Poland's General Władysław Sikorski, most of de Gaulle's theories were rejected by other French army officers, including his mentor Pétain with whom relations consequently became strained. According to Albert Speer, Adolf Hitler himself claimed to have planned the invasion of western Europe with De Gaulle's theories in mind.[18] French politicians also dismissed de Gaulle's ideas, questioning the political reliability of a professional army — with the notable exception of Paul Reynaud, who would play a major role in de Gaulle's career. De Gaulle would have some contacts with Ordre Nouveau, a Non-Conformist group at the end of 1934 and the beginning of 1935.[19]
[edit] Free French leader during World War II
Main article: Free French Forces
At the outbreak of World War II, de Gaulle was only a colonel, having antagonised the leaders of the military through the 1920s and 1930s with his bold views. Initially commanding a tank brigade in the French 5th Army, de Gaulle implemented many of his theories and tactics for armoured warfare. After the German breakthrough at Sedan on 15 May 1940 he was given command of the 4th Armored Division.[20] On 17 May, de Gaulle attacked German tank forces at Montcornet with 200 tanks but no air support; on 28 May, de Gaulle's tanks forced the German infantry to retreat to Caumont—some of the few tactical successes the French enjoyed while suffering defeats across the country. De Gaulle was promoted to the rank of brigadier general, which he would hold for the rest of his life.
On 6 June, Prime Minister Paul Reynaud appointed him Undersecretary of State for National Defense and War and put him in charge of coordination with the United Kingdom.[21] As a junior member of the French government, he unsuccessfully opposed surrender, advocating instead that the government remove itself to North Africa and carry on the war as best it could from France's African colonies. While serving as a liaison with the British government, de Gaulle telephoned Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, from London on 16 June informing him of the offer by Britain of a Declaration of Union.[22] This would have in effect merged France and the United Kingdom into a single country, with a single government and a single army for the duration of the war. This was a desperate last-minute effort to strengthen the resolve of those members of the French government who were in favor of fighting on.
The man behind the offer of a declaration of union was Jean Monnet, who was based in London as President of the Franco-British Committee of Co-operation. Monnet had first sought the advice of Desmond Morton, Churchill's Personal Assistant, who suggested that the proposal be put to Churchill through Neville Chamberlain. The latter interceded with Churchill and the idea was put before the Cabinet, where it was approved. The final document was drafted by Robert Vansittart, Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, in conjunction with Monnet himself, Desmond Morton, Churchill's Personal Assistant, Sir Arthur Salter, MP for Oxford University, and Monnet's deputy at the Franco-British Committee of Co-operation, René Pleven.[23]
When the proposal was put before Churchill, he was initially unenthusiastic. However, de Gaulle managed to convince him that "some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war".[24] Yet despite his endorsement of the extraordinary proposal at the time, de Gaulle later sought to distance himself from it. During an interview in 1964, which was reported in Paris Match shortly after the general's death, de Gaulle had remarked that he and Churchill had tried to improvise something but that neither of them had any illusions. It had been a myth, like other myths, dreamed up by Jean Monnet. This report brought an instant rebuttal from Monnet, who insisted that he had personally informed de Gaulle of the proposition and that the latter had simply acquiesced, albeit with great hesitation. De Gaulle's intervention in the matter had been later.[25]
General de Gaulle speaking on the BBC during the war.
Returning the same day to Bordeaux, the temporary wartime capital, de Gaulle learned that Field Marshall Pétain had become prime minister and was planning to seek an armistice with Nazi Germany. De Gaulle and allied officers rebelled against the new French government; on the morning of 17 June, de Gaulle and other senior French officers fled the country with 100,000 gold francs in secret funds provided to him by the ex-prime minister Paul Reynaud. Narrowly escaping the Luftwaffe, he landed safely in London that afternoon. De Gaulle strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek peace with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces out of the soldiers and officers who were deployed outside France and in its colonies or had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC radio service. Although the British cabinet initially attempted to block the speech, they were overruled by Churchill. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people to not be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the Vichy regime, which had allied itself with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. On 4 July 1940, a court-martial in Toulouse sentenced de Gaulle in absentia to four years in prison. At a second court-martial on 2 August 1940 de Gaulle was condemned to death for treason against the Vichy regime.[20]
The plaque commemorating the headquarters of General de Gaulle at 4 Carlton Gardens during the Second World War.
With British support, de Gaulle settled himself in Berkhamstead (36 miles northwest of London) and began organising the Free French forces. Gradually, the Allies gave increasing support and recognition to de Gaulle's efforts. In dealings with his British allies and the United States, de Gaulle insisted at all times on retaining full freedom of action on behalf of France, and he was constantly on the verge of being cut off by the Allies. He harbored a suspicion of the British in particular, believing that they were surreptitiously seeking to steal France's colonial possessions in the Levant. Clementine Churchill, who admired de Gaulle, once cautioned him, "General, you must not hate your friends more than you hate your enemies." De Gaulle himself stated famously, "France has no friends, only interests."[26] The situation was nonetheless complex, and de Gaulle's mistrust of both British and U.S. intentions with regards to France was mirrored in particular by a mistrust of the Free French among the U.S. political leadership, who for a long time refused to recognise de Gaulle as the representative of France, preferring to deal with representatives of the Vichy government. Roosevelt in particular hoped that it would be possible to wean Pétain away from Germany.[27]
Free French Generals Henri Giraud (left) and Charles de Gaulle sit down after shaking hands in presence of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill (Casablanca Conference, 14 January 1943).
Working with the French resistance and supporters in France's colonial African possessions after the Anglo-U.S. invasion of North Africa in November 1942, de Gaulle moved his headquarters to Algiers in May, 1943. He became first joint head (with the less resolutely independent General Henri Giraud, the candidate preferred by the U.S.) and then sole chairman of the French Committee of National Liberation.[20]
At the liberation of France following Operation Overlord, he quickly established the authority of the Free French Forces in France, avoiding an Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories. He flew into France from the French colony of Algeria a few days before the liberation of Paris, and drove near the front of the liberating forces into the city alongside Allied officials. De Gaulle made a famous speech emphasizing the role of France's people in her liberation.[28] After his return to Paris, he moved back into his office at the War Ministry, thus proclaiming continuity of the Third Republic and denying the legitimacy of the Vichy regime.[29]
He served as President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic starting in September, 1944. As such he sent the French Far East Expeditionary Corps to re-establish French sovereignty in French Indochina in 1945. He made Admiral d'Argenlieu High commissioner of French Indochina and General Leclerc commander-in-chief in French Indochina and commander of the expeditionary corps.[30] Under de Gaulle's leadership, a joint force of his Free French together with French colonial troops from North Africa enabled France to field an entire army on the western front after Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France. This force, the French First Army, helped to liberate almost one third of the country and meant that France actively rejoined the Allies in the struggle against Germany. The French First Army captured a large section of German territory after the allied invasion thus enabling France to be an active participant in the signing of the German surrender. Also, through the intervention of the British and Americans at Yalta and despite the resistance of the Russians, a French zone of occupation was created in Germany.[31] De Gaulle finally resigned on 20 January 1946, complaining of conflict between the political parties, and disapproving of the draft constitution for the Fourth Republic, which he believed placed too much power in the hands of a parliament with its shifting party alliances.[32] He was succeeded by Félix Gouin (SFIO), then Georges Bidault (MRP) and finally Léon Blum (SFIO).[33]
[edit] 1946–58: Out of power
De Gaulle's opposition to the proposed constitution failed as the parties of the left supported a parliamentary regime. The second draft constitution narrowly approved at the referendum of October 1946 was even less to de Gaulle's liking than the first. He then returned to his home at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises to write his war memoirs.[8]
In April 1947 de Gaulle made a renewed attempt to transform the political scene by creating a Rassemblement du Peuple Français (Rally of the French People, or RPF), but after initial success the movement lost momentum. In May 1953, he withdrew again from active politics, though the RPF lingered until September 1955.[8]
He once more retired to his country home to continue his war memoirs, Mémoires de guerre.[8] During this period of formal retirement, however, de Gaulle maintained regular contact with past political lieutenants from wartime and RPF days, including sympathizers involved in political developments in French Algeria.
[edit] 1958: Collapse of the Fourth Republic
Further information: May 1958 crisis
The Fourth Republic was tainted by political instability, failures in Indochina and inability to resolve the Algerian question. It did, however, pass the 1956 loi-cadre Deferre which granted independence to Tunisia and Morocco, while the Premier Pierre Mendès-France put an end to the Indochina War through the Geneva Conference of 1954.[34]
On 13 May 1958, settlers seized the government buildings in Algiers, attacking what they saw as French government weakness in the face of demands among the Arab majority for Algerian independence. A "Committee of Civil and Army Public Security" was created under the presidency of General Jacques Massu, a Gaullist sympathizer. General Raoul Salan, Commander-in-Chief in Algeria, announced on radio that he was assuming provisional power, and appealed for "confidence in the Army and its leaders".[35]
Under the pressure of Massu, Salan declared Vive de Gaulle! from the balcony of the Algiers Government-General building on 15 May.[36] De Gaulle answered two days later that he was ready to "assume the powers of the Republic".[37] Many worried as they saw this answer as support for the army.
At a 19 May press conference, de Gaulle asserted again that he was at the disposal of the country. As a journalist expressed the concerns of some who feared that he would violate civil liberties, de Gaulle retorted vehemently:
"Have I ever done that? Au contraire, I have reestablished them when they had disappeared. Who honestly believes that, at age 67, I would start a career as a dictator?"
[38]
A republican by conviction, de Gaulle maintained throughout the crisis that he would accept power only from the lawfully constituted authorities.
The crisis deepened as French paratroops from Algeria seized Corsica and a landing near Paris was discussed (Operation Resurrection).[39] Political leaders on many sides agreed to support the General's return to power, except François Mitterrand, Pierre Mendès-France, Alain Savary, the Communist Party, and certain other leftists. On 29 May the French President, René Coty, appealed to the "most illustrious of Frenchmen" to confer with him and to examine what was immediately necessary for the creation of a government of national safety, and what could be done to bring about a profound reform of the country's institutions.[40]
De Gaulle remained intent on replacing the constitution of the Fourth Republic, which he blamed for France's political weakness. (Indeed he had resigned 12 years previously because he believed the parties made the task of government too difficult.) He set as a condition for his return that he be given wide emergency powers for six months and that a new constitution be proposed to the French people.[41] On 1 June 1958, de Gaulle became Premier and was given emergency powers for six months by the National Assembly.[42]
On 28 September 1958, a referendum took place and 79.2 percent of those who voted supported the new constitution and the creation of the Fifth Republic. The colonies (Algeria was officially a part of France, not a colony) were given the choice between immediate independence and the new constitution. All African colonies voted for the new constitution and the replacement of the French Union by the French Community, except Guinea, which thus became the first French African colony to gain independence, at the cost of the immediate ending of all French assistance.[43]
According to de Gaulle, the head of state should represent "the spirit of the nation" to the nation itself and to the world: "une certaine idée de la France" (a certain idea of France).[44]
[edit] 1958–62: Founding of the Fifth Republic
De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer in 1961 at the Köln/Bonn airport
In the November 1958 elections, de Gaulle and his supporters (initially organised in the Union pour la Nouvelle République-Union Démocratique du Travail, then the Union des Démocrates pour la Vème République, and later still the Union des Démocrates pour la République, UDR) won a comfortable majority. In December, de Gaulle was elected President by the electoral college with 78% of the vote, and inaugurated in January 1959.[45]
He oversaw tough economic measures to revitalize the country, including the issuing of a new franc (worth 100 old francs).[46] Internationally, he rebuffed both the United States and the Soviet Union, pushing for an independent France with its own nuclear weapons, and strongly encouraged a "Free Europe", believing that a confederation of all European nations would restore the past glories of the great European empires.[47] He set about building Franco-German cooperation as the cornerstone of the European Economic Community (EEC), paying the first state visit to Germany by a French head of state since Napoleon.[48] In January 1963, Germany and France signed a treaty of friendship, the Élysée Treaty.[49] France also reduced its dollar reserves, trading them for gold from the U.S. government, thereby reducing the US' economic influence abroad.[50]
On 23 November 1959, in a speech in Strasbourg, de Gaulle announced his vision for Europe:
“ Oui, c’est l’Europe, depuis l’Atlantique jusqu’à l’Oural, c’est toute l’Europe, qui décidera du destin du monde.
("Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.")
”
Monument to de Gaulle in Moscow
His expression, "Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals", has often been cited throughout the history of European integration. It became, for the next ten years, a favourite political rallying cry of de Gaulle's. His vision stood in contrast to the Atlanticism of the United States and Britain, preferring instead a Europe that would act as a third pole between the United States and the Soviet Union. By including in his ideal of Europe all the territory up to the Urals, de Gaulle was implicitly offering détente to the Soviets, while his phrase was also interpreted as excluding the United Kingdom from a future Europe.
“ A European Europe means that it exists by itself for itself, in other words in the midst of the world - it has its own policy. ”
De Gaulle believed that the war in Algeria was not defensible internationally, and he became reconciled to its eventual independence.[51] This stance greatly angered the French settlers and their metropolitan supporters, and de Gaulle was forced to suppress two uprisings in Algeria by French settlers and troops, in the second of which (the Generals' Putsch in April 1961) France herself was threatened with invasion by rebel paratroops.[52] De Gaulle's government also covered up the Paris massacre of 1961, issued under the orders of the police prefect Maurice Papon. He was also targeted by the settler Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS) terrorist group and several assassination attempts were made on him; the most famous is that of 22 August 1962, when he and his wife narrowly escaped an assassination attempt when their Citroën DS was targeted by machine gun fire arranged by Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry at the Petit-Clamart.[53] After a referendum on Algerian self-determination carried out in 1961, de Gaulle arranged a cease-fire in Algeria with the March 1962 Evian Accords, legitimated by another referendum a month later.[54] Although the Algerian issue was settled, Prime Minister Michel Debré resigned over the final settlement and was replaced with Georges Pompidou on 14 April 1962.[55] Algeria became independent in July 1962, while an amnesty was later issued covering all crimes committed during the war, including the use of torture. In just a few months in 1962, 900,000 French settlers left the country. The exodus accelerated after the 5th of July 1962 massacre.[56]
In September 1962, De Gaulle sought a constitutional amendment to allow the president to be directly elected by the people and issued another referendum to this end. After a motion of censure voted by the Parliament on 4 October 1962, de Gaulle dissolved the National Assembly and held new elections. Although the left progressed, the Gaullists won an increased majority—this despite opposition from the Christian-Democrat MRP and the National Centre of Independents and Peasants (CNIP) who criticised de Gaulle's euroscepticism and presidentialism.[57][58] De Gaulle's proposal to change the election procedure for the French presidency was approved at the referendum on 28 October 1962 by more than three-fifths of voters despite a broad "coalition of no" formed by most of the parties, opposed to a presidential regime. Thereafter the President was to be elected by direct universal suffrage.[59]
[edit] 1962–68: Politics of grandeur
With the Algerian conflict behind him, de Gaulle was able to achieve his two main objectives: to reform and develop the French economy, and to promote an independent foreign policy and a strong stance on the international stage. This was named by foreign observers the "politics of grandeur" (politique de grandeur).[60]
[edit] "Thirty glorious years"
In the context of a population boom unseen in France since the 18th century, the government under prime minister Georges Pompidou oversaw a rapid transformation and expansion of the French economy. With dirigisme—a unique combination of capitalism and state-directed economy—the government intervened heavily in the economy, using indicative five-year plans as its main tool.
High-profile projects, mostly but not always financially successful, were launched: the extension of Marseille harbor (soon ranking third in Europe and first in the Mediterranean); the promotion of the Caravelle passenger jetliner (a predecessor of Airbus); the decision to start building the supersonic Franco-British Concorde airliner in Toulouse; the expansion of the French auto industry with state-owned Renault at its center; and the building of the first motorways between Paris and the provinces.
With these projects, the French economy recorded growth rates unrivalled since the 19th century. In 1964, for the first time in 200 years, France's GDP overtook that of the United Kingdom, a position it held until the 1990s. This period is still remembered in France with some nostalgia as the peak of the Trente Glorieuses ("Thirty Glorious Years" of economic growth between 1945 and 1974).[61]
He vetoed the British application to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1963 because, he said, he thought the United Kingdom lacked the necessary political will to be part of a strong Europe.[62] He further saw Britain as a "Trojan Horse" for the USA.[63] He maintained there were incompatibilities between continental European and British economic interests. In addition, he demanded that the United Kingdom accept all the conditions laid down by the six existing members of the EEC (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands) and revoke its commitments to countries within its own free trade area. He supported a deepening and an acceleration of common market integration rather than expansion.[64] However, in this latter respect, a detailed study of the formative years of the EEC argues that the defence of French economic interests, especially in agriculture, in fact played a more dominant role in determining de Gaulle's stance towards British entry than the various political and foreign policy considerations that have often been cited.[65] The General's attitude was also influenced by resentments which had come about during his exile in Britain during the Second World War. Added to these were fears of an Anglo-American agreement in regard to nuclear weapons – the USA had provided Britain with Polaris missiles the previous year.[66]
[edit] Fourth nuclear power
France became the world's fourth nuclear power on 13 February 1960 when a nuclear device was exploded in the Sahara some 700 miles south-south-west of Algiers.[67]
[edit] Recognition of the People's Republic of China
De Gaulle was convinced that a strong and independent France could act as a balancing force between the United States and the Soviet Union, a policy seen as little more than posturing and opportunism by his critics, particularly in Britain and the United States, to which France was formally allied. In January 1964, France established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC)—the first step towards formal recognition. This was done without first severing links with the Republic of China (Taiwan), led by Chiang Kai-shek. Hitherto the PRC had insisted that all nations abide by a "one China" condition, and at first it was unclear how the matter would be settled.[68] However, the agreement to exchange ambassadors was subject to a delay of three months and in February, Chiang Kai-shek resolved the problem by cutting off diplomatic relations with France.[69] Eight years later U.S. President Richard Nixon visited the PRC and began normalising relations - a policy which was confirmed in the Shanghai Communiqué of 28 February 1972.[70]
As part of a European tour, Nixon visited France in 1969.[71] He and de Gaulle both shared the same non-Wilsonian approach to world affairs, believing in nations and their relative strengths, rather than in ideologies, international organizations, or multilateral agreements. De Gaulle is famously known for calling the United Nations le Machin ("the thing").[72]
[edit] Second round
In December 1965, de Gaulle returned as president for a second seven-year term, but this time he had to go through a second round of voting in which he defeated François Mitterrand, who did far better than anyone dreamed possible, gaining 45 per cent of the vote.[73] In February 1966, France withdrew from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization. De Gaulle, haunted by the memories of 1940, wanted France to remain the master of the decisions affecting it, unlike in the 1930s, when France had to follow in step with her British ally. He also declared that all foreign military forces had to leave French territory and gave them one year to redeploy. [74]
In September 1966, in a famous speech in Phnom Penh (Cambodia), he expressed France's disapproval of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam as the only way to ensure peace.[75] As the Vietnam War had its roots in the previous Indochina War, in which the United States had provided France with aid, this speech did little to endear de Gaulle to the Americans[who?][citation needed], even if their leaders later came to the same conclusion.
[edit] Empty Chair Crisis
During the establishment of the European Community, de Gaulle helped precipitate one of the greatest crises in the history of the EC, the Empty Chair Crisis. It involved the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, but almost more importantly the use of qualified majority voting in the EC (as opposed to unanimity). In June 1965, after France and the other five members could not agree, de Gaulle withdrew France's representatives from the EC. Their absence left the organization essentially unable to run its affairs until the Luxembourg compromise was reached in January 1966.[76] De Gaulle succeeded in influencing the decision-making mechanism written into the Treaty of Rome by insisting on solidarity founded on mutual understanding.[77] He vetoed Britain's entry into the EEC a second time, in June 1967.[78]
[edit] Six-Day War
With tension rising in the Middle East in 1967, de Gaulle on 2 June declared an arms embargo against Israel, just three days before the outbreak of the Six-Day War. This, however, did not affect spare parts for the French military hardware with which the Israeli armed forces were equipped.[79]
This was an abrupt change in policy. In 1956 France, Britain, and Israel had cooperated in an elaborate effort to retake the Suez Canal from Egypt. Israel's air force operated French Mirage and Mystère jets in the Six-Day War, and its navy was building its new missile boats in Cherbourg. Though paid for, their transfer to Israel was now blocked by de Gaulle's government. But they were smuggled out in an operation that drew further denunciations from the French government. The last boats took to the sea in December 1969, directly after a major deal between France and now-independent Algeria exchanging French armaments for Algerian oil.[80]
Under de Gaulle, following the independence of Algeria, France embarked on foreign policy more favourable to the Arab side. General de Gaulle's even-handed position in 1967 at the time of the Six Day War played a part in France's newfound popularity in the Arab world.[81] Israel turned towards the United States for arms, and toward its own industry.
De Gaulle supported the principle of a just settlement for both the Arab and Jewish refugees of the Middle East within the framework of the United Nations. This was stated upon the adoption of UN Resolution 242, in his press conference of 27 November 1967 and contained in his letter to David Ben-Gurion dated 9 January 1968.
[edit] Nigerian Civil War
The Eastern Region of Nigeria declared itself independent under the name of The Independent Republic of Biafra on 30 May 1967. On 6 July the first shots in the Nigerian civil war were fired, marking the start of a conflict would last until January 1970.[82] Britain provided military aid to the Federal Republic of Nigeria—yet more was made available by the Soviet Union. Under de Gaulle's leadership, France embarked on a period of interference outside the traditional French zone of influence. A policy geared toward the break-up of Nigeria put Britain and France into opposing camps. Relations between France and Nigeria had been under strain since the third French nuclear explosion in the Sahara in December 1960. From August 1968, when its embargo was lifted, France provided limited and covert support to the breakaway province. Although French arms helped to keep Biafra in action for the final 15 months of the civil war, its involvement was seen as insufficient and counterproductive. The Biafran Chief of Staff stated that the French "did more harm than good by raising false hopes and by providing the British with an excuse to reinforce Nigeria."[83]
[edit] Vive le Québec libre!
Main article: Vive le Québec libre speech
A day after his Vive le Québec Libre! speech, Charles de Gaulle attracts a crowd at Montreal's Expo 67 on 25 July 1967.
In July 1967, de Gaulle visited Canada, which was celebrating its centennial with a world's fair, Expo 67. On 24 July, speaking to a large crowd from a balcony at Montreal's city hall, de Gaulle shouted Vive le Québec! (Long live Quebec!) then added, Vive le Québec libre! (Long live Free Québec!). The Canadian media harshly criticised the statement, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson stated that "Canadians do not need to be liberated."[84] De Gaulle left Canada two days later without proceeding to Ottawa as scheduled. He never returned to Canada. The speech caused outrage in most of Canada; it led to a serious diplomatic rift between the two countries.[85] However, the event was seen as a watershed moment by the Quebec sovereignty movement.
In the following year, De Gaulle visited Brittany, where he declaimed a poem written by his uncle (also called Charles de Gaulle) in the Breton language. The speech followed a series of crackdowns on Breton nationalism. De Gaulle was accused of double standards for on the one hand demanding a "free" Quebec because of its differences from English-speaking Canada, while on the other oppressing a regionalist movement in Brittany.[86]
In December 1967, claiming continental European solidarity, de Gaulle again rejected British entry into the European Economic Community. The United Kingdom nevertheless became a member of the EEC in January 1973. [87]
[edit] Visit to Paraguay
During the mid-1960s, de Gaulle paid a visit to Asunción, Paraguay, making him the first foreign head of state to ever pay a visit to the country.[88]
[edit] May 1968
de Gaulle at the inauguration of the German embassy in Paris, February 1968
Main article: May 1968
De Gaulle's government was criticised within France, particularly for its heavy-handed style. While the written press and elections were free, the state had a monopoly on television and radio broadcasts (though there were private stations broadcasting from abroad; see ORTF) and the executive occasionally told public broadcasters the bias that they desired on news. In many respects, society was traditionalistic and repressive—this included the position of women.[89][90] Many factors contributed to a general weariness of sections of the public, particularly the student youth, which led to the events of May 1968.
The huge demonstrations and strikes in France in May 1968 severely challenged de Gaulle's legitimacy. He made a flying visit to Germany and met with Jacques Massu, the then chief of the French forces occupying Germany, to discuss possible army intervention against the protesters.[91]
In a private meeting discussing the students' and workers' demands for direct participation in business and government he coined the phrase "La réforme oui, la chienlit non", which can be politely translated as 'reform yes, masquerade/chaos no.' It was a vernacular scatological pun meaning 'chie-en-lit, no'. The term is now common parlance in French political commentary, used both critically and ironically referring back to De Gaulle. [92][93]
But de Gaulle offered to accept some of the reforms the demonstrators sought. He again considered a referendum to support his moves, but Pompidou persuaded him to dissolve parliament (in which the government had all but lost its majority in the March 1967 elections) and hold new elections instead. The June 1968 elections were a major success for the Gaullists and their allies; when shown the spectre of revolution or even civil war, the majority of the country rallied to him. His party won 358 of 487 seats. Pompidou was suddenly replaced by Maurice Couve de Murville in July.[94]
[edit] Retirement and death
US president Richard Nixon visiting president Charles de Gaulle one month before de Gaulle's retirement.
Charles de Gaulle resigned the presidency on 28 April 1969,[95] following the defeat of his referendum to transform the Senate (upper house of the French parliament, wielding less power than the National Assembly) into an advisory body while giving extended powers to regional councils. As in 1946, de Gaulle refused to stay in power without widespread popular support.
De Gaulle retired once again to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, where he died suddenly in 1970, two weeks before his 80th birthday, in the middle of writing his memoirs. He was generally in very robust health until then despite an operation on his prostate some years before. He had been sitting in front of the television while waiting for the start of the news when he felt unwell and collapsed. His wife called the doctor and the local vicar, but by the time they arrived he had died: the cause of death was an aneurysm of the aorta.[96]
Grave of Charles de Gaulle at Colombey-les-Deux-Églises
De Gaulle had made arrangements that insisted that his funeral would be held at Colombey, and that no presidents or ministers attend his funeral, only his Compagnons de la Libération. [97]
Heads of state had to content themselves with a simultaneous service at Notre-Dame Cathedral. He was carried to his grave on an armoured reconnaissance vehicle, and as he was lowered into the ground the bells of all the churches in France tolled starting from Notre Dame and spreading out from there.
He specified that his tombstone bear the simple inscription of his name and his dates of birth and death. Therefore, it simply says: "Charles de Gaulle, 1890–1970".[98]
De Gaulle was nearly destitute when he died. When he retired, he did not accept pensions to which he was entitled as a retired president and as a retired general. Instead, he only accepted a pension to which colonels are entitled.
His family had to sell the Boisserie residence. It was purchased by a foundation and is currently the Charles de Gaulle Museum.
[edit] Private life
A veteran of World War I, in the 1920s and 1930s de Gaulle came to the fore as a proponent of armored warfare and advocate of military aviation, which he considered a means to break the stalemate of trench warfare. During World War II, he reached the rank of Brigadier General, leading one of the few successful armored counter-attacks during the 1940 Fall of France, and then organized the Free French Forces with exiled French officers in England.[2] He gave a famous radio address in June 1940, exhorting the French people to resist Nazi Germany.[3] Following the liberation of France in 1944, de Gaulle became prime minister in the French Provisional Government.[4] Although he retired from politics in 1946 due to political conflicts, he was returned to power with military support following the May 1958 crisis. De Gaulle led the writing of a new constitution founding the Fifth Republic, and was elected President of France.[5][6][7]
As president, Charles de Gaulle ended the political chaos and violence that preceded his return to power. Although he initially supported French rule over Algeria, he controversially decided to grant independence to that country, ending an expensive and unpopular war. A new currency was issued to control inflation and industrial growth was promoted. De Gaulle oversaw the development of atomic weapons and promoted a pan-European foreign policy, seeking to diminish U.S. and British influence; withdrawing France from the NATO military command, he objected to Britain's entry into the European Community and he recognized Communist China. During his term, de Gaulle also faced controversy and political opposition from Communists and Socialists, and a spate of widespread protests in May 1968. De Gaulle retired in 1969, but remains the most influential leader in modern French history.
Contents
[hide]
[edit] Early life and military career
De Gaulle was born in Lille, the second of five children of Henri de Gaulle, a professor of philosophy and literature at a Jesuit college, who eventually founded his own school.[8] He was raised in a family of devout Roman Catholics who were nationalist and traditionalist, but also quite progressive.[9]
De Gaulle's father, Henri, came from a long line of aristocrats from Normandy and Burgundy, while his mother, Jeanne Maillot, descended from a family of rich entrepreneurs from the industrial region of Lille in French Flanders.[10]
According to Henri, the family's true origin was never determined, but could have been Celtic or Flemish. He thought that the name could be derived from the word gaule—a long pole which was used in the Middle Ages to beat olives from the trees.[11][12] Another source has the name deriving from Galle, meaning "oak" in the Gaulish language, and the sacred tree of the druids.[13]
De Gaulle was educated in Paris at the College Stanislas and also briefly in Belgium. Since childhood, he had displayed a keen interest in reading and studying history.[8] Choosing a military career, de Gaulle spent four years studying and training at the elite Saint-Cyr. While there, and because of his height, high forehead, and nose, he acquired the nicknames of "the great asparagus".[14][15] and "Cyrano".[16] Graduating in 1912, he joined the 33rd infantry regiment of the French Army, based at Arras. While serving during World War I, he was wounded and captured at Douaumont in the Battle of Verdun in March 1916.[8] While being held as a prisoner of war by the German Army, de Gaulle wrote his first book, co-written by Matthieu Butler, "L'Ennemi et le vrai ennemi" (The Enemy and the True Enemy), analyzing the issues and divisions within the German Empire and its forces; the book was published in 1924. After the armistice, de Gaulle continued to serve in the army and on the staff of General Maxime Weygand's military mission to Poland during its war with Communist Russia (1919-1921), working as an instructor to Polish infantry forces.[8] He distinguished himself in operations near the River Zbrucz and won the highest Polish military decoration, the Virtuti Militari.[17]
He was promoted to Commandant and offered a further career in Poland, but chose instead to return to France, where he served as a staff officer and also taught at the École Militaire, becoming a protégé of his old commander, Marshall Pétain.[8] De Gaulle was heavily influenced by the use of tanks, rapid maneuvers and limited trench warfare.
In the 1930s - early 1940s, de Gaulle wrote various books and articles on military subjects that revealed him to be a gifted writer and an imaginative thinker.[8] In 1931, he published Le fil de l’épée (Eng. tr., The Edge of the Sword, 1960), an analysis of military and political leadership. He also published Vers l’armée de métier (1934; Eng. tr., The Army of the Future, 1941) and La France et son armée (1938; Eng. tr., France and Her Army, 1945). He urged the creation of a mechanised army with special armoured divisions manned by a corps of professional specialist soldiers instead of the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line. While views similar to de Gaulle's were later advanced by Britain's J.F.C. Fuller, Germany's Heinz Guderian, United States' Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton, Russia's Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and Poland's General Władysław Sikorski, most of de Gaulle's theories were rejected by other French army officers, including his mentor Pétain with whom relations consequently became strained. According to Albert Speer, Adolf Hitler himself claimed to have planned the invasion of western Europe with De Gaulle's theories in mind.[18] French politicians also dismissed de Gaulle's ideas, questioning the political reliability of a professional army — with the notable exception of Paul Reynaud, who would play a major role in de Gaulle's career. De Gaulle would have some contacts with Ordre Nouveau, a Non-Conformist group at the end of 1934 and the beginning of 1935.[19]
[edit] Free French leader during World War II
Main article: Free French Forces
At the outbreak of World War II, de Gaulle was only a colonel, having antagonised the leaders of the military through the 1920s and 1930s with his bold views. Initially commanding a tank brigade in the French 5th Army, de Gaulle implemented many of his theories and tactics for armoured warfare. After the German breakthrough at Sedan on 15 May 1940 he was given command of the 4th Armored Division.[20] On 17 May, de Gaulle attacked German tank forces at Montcornet with 200 tanks but no air support; on 28 May, de Gaulle's tanks forced the German infantry to retreat to Caumont—some of the few tactical successes the French enjoyed while suffering defeats across the country. De Gaulle was promoted to the rank of brigadier general, which he would hold for the rest of his life.
On 6 June, Prime Minister Paul Reynaud appointed him Undersecretary of State for National Defense and War and put him in charge of coordination with the United Kingdom.[21] As a junior member of the French government, he unsuccessfully opposed surrender, advocating instead that the government remove itself to North Africa and carry on the war as best it could from France's African colonies. While serving as a liaison with the British government, de Gaulle telephoned Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, from London on 16 June informing him of the offer by Britain of a Declaration of Union.[22] This would have in effect merged France and the United Kingdom into a single country, with a single government and a single army for the duration of the war. This was a desperate last-minute effort to strengthen the resolve of those members of the French government who were in favor of fighting on.
The man behind the offer of a declaration of union was Jean Monnet, who was based in London as President of the Franco-British Committee of Co-operation. Monnet had first sought the advice of Desmond Morton, Churchill's Personal Assistant, who suggested that the proposal be put to Churchill through Neville Chamberlain. The latter interceded with Churchill and the idea was put before the Cabinet, where it was approved. The final document was drafted by Robert Vansittart, Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, in conjunction with Monnet himself, Desmond Morton, Churchill's Personal Assistant, Sir Arthur Salter, MP for Oxford University, and Monnet's deputy at the Franco-British Committee of Co-operation, René Pleven.[23]
When the proposal was put before Churchill, he was initially unenthusiastic. However, de Gaulle managed to convince him that "some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war".[24] Yet despite his endorsement of the extraordinary proposal at the time, de Gaulle later sought to distance himself from it. During an interview in 1964, which was reported in Paris Match shortly after the general's death, de Gaulle had remarked that he and Churchill had tried to improvise something but that neither of them had any illusions. It had been a myth, like other myths, dreamed up by Jean Monnet. This report brought an instant rebuttal from Monnet, who insisted that he had personally informed de Gaulle of the proposition and that the latter had simply acquiesced, albeit with great hesitation. De Gaulle's intervention in the matter had been later.[25]
General de Gaulle speaking on the BBC during the war.
Returning the same day to Bordeaux, the temporary wartime capital, de Gaulle learned that Field Marshall Pétain had become prime minister and was planning to seek an armistice with Nazi Germany. De Gaulle and allied officers rebelled against the new French government; on the morning of 17 June, de Gaulle and other senior French officers fled the country with 100,000 gold francs in secret funds provided to him by the ex-prime minister Paul Reynaud. Narrowly escaping the Luftwaffe, he landed safely in London that afternoon. De Gaulle strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek peace with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces out of the soldiers and officers who were deployed outside France and in its colonies or had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC radio service. Although the British cabinet initially attempted to block the speech, they were overruled by Churchill. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people to not be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the Vichy regime, which had allied itself with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. On 4 July 1940, a court-martial in Toulouse sentenced de Gaulle in absentia to four years in prison. At a second court-martial on 2 August 1940 de Gaulle was condemned to death for treason against the Vichy regime.[20]
The plaque commemorating the headquarters of General de Gaulle at 4 Carlton Gardens during the Second World War.
With British support, de Gaulle settled himself in Berkhamstead (36 miles northwest of London) and began organising the Free French forces. Gradually, the Allies gave increasing support and recognition to de Gaulle's efforts. In dealings with his British allies and the United States, de Gaulle insisted at all times on retaining full freedom of action on behalf of France, and he was constantly on the verge of being cut off by the Allies. He harbored a suspicion of the British in particular, believing that they were surreptitiously seeking to steal France's colonial possessions in the Levant. Clementine Churchill, who admired de Gaulle, once cautioned him, "General, you must not hate your friends more than you hate your enemies." De Gaulle himself stated famously, "France has no friends, only interests."[26] The situation was nonetheless complex, and de Gaulle's mistrust of both British and U.S. intentions with regards to France was mirrored in particular by a mistrust of the Free French among the U.S. political leadership, who for a long time refused to recognise de Gaulle as the representative of France, preferring to deal with representatives of the Vichy government. Roosevelt in particular hoped that it would be possible to wean Pétain away from Germany.[27]
Free French Generals Henri Giraud (left) and Charles de Gaulle sit down after shaking hands in presence of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill (Casablanca Conference, 14 January 1943).
Working with the French resistance and supporters in France's colonial African possessions after the Anglo-U.S. invasion of North Africa in November 1942, de Gaulle moved his headquarters to Algiers in May, 1943. He became first joint head (with the less resolutely independent General Henri Giraud, the candidate preferred by the U.S.) and then sole chairman of the French Committee of National Liberation.[20]
At the liberation of France following Operation Overlord, he quickly established the authority of the Free French Forces in France, avoiding an Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories. He flew into France from the French colony of Algeria a few days before the liberation of Paris, and drove near the front of the liberating forces into the city alongside Allied officials. De Gaulle made a famous speech emphasizing the role of France's people in her liberation.[28] After his return to Paris, he moved back into his office at the War Ministry, thus proclaiming continuity of the Third Republic and denying the legitimacy of the Vichy regime.[29]
He served as President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic starting in September, 1944. As such he sent the French Far East Expeditionary Corps to re-establish French sovereignty in French Indochina in 1945. He made Admiral d'Argenlieu High commissioner of French Indochina and General Leclerc commander-in-chief in French Indochina and commander of the expeditionary corps.[30] Under de Gaulle's leadership, a joint force of his Free French together with French colonial troops from North Africa enabled France to field an entire army on the western front after Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France. This force, the French First Army, helped to liberate almost one third of the country and meant that France actively rejoined the Allies in the struggle against Germany. The French First Army captured a large section of German territory after the allied invasion thus enabling France to be an active participant in the signing of the German surrender. Also, through the intervention of the British and Americans at Yalta and despite the resistance of the Russians, a French zone of occupation was created in Germany.[31] De Gaulle finally resigned on 20 January 1946, complaining of conflict between the political parties, and disapproving of the draft constitution for the Fourth Republic, which he believed placed too much power in the hands of a parliament with its shifting party alliances.[32] He was succeeded by Félix Gouin (SFIO), then Georges Bidault (MRP) and finally Léon Blum (SFIO).[33]
[edit] 1946–58: Out of power
De Gaulle's opposition to the proposed constitution failed as the parties of the left supported a parliamentary regime. The second draft constitution narrowly approved at the referendum of October 1946 was even less to de Gaulle's liking than the first. He then returned to his home at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises to write his war memoirs.[8]
In April 1947 de Gaulle made a renewed attempt to transform the political scene by creating a Rassemblement du Peuple Français (Rally of the French People, or RPF), but after initial success the movement lost momentum. In May 1953, he withdrew again from active politics, though the RPF lingered until September 1955.[8]
He once more retired to his country home to continue his war memoirs, Mémoires de guerre.[8] During this period of formal retirement, however, de Gaulle maintained regular contact with past political lieutenants from wartime and RPF days, including sympathizers involved in political developments in French Algeria.
[edit] 1958: Collapse of the Fourth Republic
Further information: May 1958 crisis
The Fourth Republic was tainted by political instability, failures in Indochina and inability to resolve the Algerian question. It did, however, pass the 1956 loi-cadre Deferre which granted independence to Tunisia and Morocco, while the Premier Pierre Mendès-France put an end to the Indochina War through the Geneva Conference of 1954.[34]
On 13 May 1958, settlers seized the government buildings in Algiers, attacking what they saw as French government weakness in the face of demands among the Arab majority for Algerian independence. A "Committee of Civil and Army Public Security" was created under the presidency of General Jacques Massu, a Gaullist sympathizer. General Raoul Salan, Commander-in-Chief in Algeria, announced on radio that he was assuming provisional power, and appealed for "confidence in the Army and its leaders".[35]
Under the pressure of Massu, Salan declared Vive de Gaulle! from the balcony of the Algiers Government-General building on 15 May.[36] De Gaulle answered two days later that he was ready to "assume the powers of the Republic".[37] Many worried as they saw this answer as support for the army.
At a 19 May press conference, de Gaulle asserted again that he was at the disposal of the country. As a journalist expressed the concerns of some who feared that he would violate civil liberties, de Gaulle retorted vehemently:
"Have I ever done that? Au contraire, I have reestablished them when they had disappeared. Who honestly believes that, at age 67, I would start a career as a dictator?"
[38]
A republican by conviction, de Gaulle maintained throughout the crisis that he would accept power only from the lawfully constituted authorities.
The crisis deepened as French paratroops from Algeria seized Corsica and a landing near Paris was discussed (Operation Resurrection).[39] Political leaders on many sides agreed to support the General's return to power, except François Mitterrand, Pierre Mendès-France, Alain Savary, the Communist Party, and certain other leftists. On 29 May the French President, René Coty, appealed to the "most illustrious of Frenchmen" to confer with him and to examine what was immediately necessary for the creation of a government of national safety, and what could be done to bring about a profound reform of the country's institutions.[40]
De Gaulle remained intent on replacing the constitution of the Fourth Republic, which he blamed for France's political weakness. (Indeed he had resigned 12 years previously because he believed the parties made the task of government too difficult.) He set as a condition for his return that he be given wide emergency powers for six months and that a new constitution be proposed to the French people.[41] On 1 June 1958, de Gaulle became Premier and was given emergency powers for six months by the National Assembly.[42]
On 28 September 1958, a referendum took place and 79.2 percent of those who voted supported the new constitution and the creation of the Fifth Republic. The colonies (Algeria was officially a part of France, not a colony) were given the choice between immediate independence and the new constitution. All African colonies voted for the new constitution and the replacement of the French Union by the French Community, except Guinea, which thus became the first French African colony to gain independence, at the cost of the immediate ending of all French assistance.[43]
According to de Gaulle, the head of state should represent "the spirit of the nation" to the nation itself and to the world: "une certaine idée de la France" (a certain idea of France).[44]
[edit] 1958–62: Founding of the Fifth Republic
De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer in 1961 at the Köln/Bonn airport
In the November 1958 elections, de Gaulle and his supporters (initially organised in the Union pour la Nouvelle République-Union Démocratique du Travail, then the Union des Démocrates pour la Vème République, and later still the Union des Démocrates pour la République, UDR) won a comfortable majority. In December, de Gaulle was elected President by the electoral college with 78% of the vote, and inaugurated in January 1959.[45]
He oversaw tough economic measures to revitalize the country, including the issuing of a new franc (worth 100 old francs).[46] Internationally, he rebuffed both the United States and the Soviet Union, pushing for an independent France with its own nuclear weapons, and strongly encouraged a "Free Europe", believing that a confederation of all European nations would restore the past glories of the great European empires.[47] He set about building Franco-German cooperation as the cornerstone of the European Economic Community (EEC), paying the first state visit to Germany by a French head of state since Napoleon.[48] In January 1963, Germany and France signed a treaty of friendship, the Élysée Treaty.[49] France also reduced its dollar reserves, trading them for gold from the U.S. government, thereby reducing the US' economic influence abroad.[50]
On 23 November 1959, in a speech in Strasbourg, de Gaulle announced his vision for Europe:
“ Oui, c’est l’Europe, depuis l’Atlantique jusqu’à l’Oural, c’est toute l’Europe, qui décidera du destin du monde.
("Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.")
”
Monument to de Gaulle in Moscow
His expression, "Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals", has often been cited throughout the history of European integration. It became, for the next ten years, a favourite political rallying cry of de Gaulle's. His vision stood in contrast to the Atlanticism of the United States and Britain, preferring instead a Europe that would act as a third pole between the United States and the Soviet Union. By including in his ideal of Europe all the territory up to the Urals, de Gaulle was implicitly offering détente to the Soviets, while his phrase was also interpreted as excluding the United Kingdom from a future Europe.
“ A European Europe means that it exists by itself for itself, in other words in the midst of the world - it has its own policy. ”
De Gaulle believed that the war in Algeria was not defensible internationally, and he became reconciled to its eventual independence.[51] This stance greatly angered the French settlers and their metropolitan supporters, and de Gaulle was forced to suppress two uprisings in Algeria by French settlers and troops, in the second of which (the Generals' Putsch in April 1961) France herself was threatened with invasion by rebel paratroops.[52] De Gaulle's government also covered up the Paris massacre of 1961, issued under the orders of the police prefect Maurice Papon. He was also targeted by the settler Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS) terrorist group and several assassination attempts were made on him; the most famous is that of 22 August 1962, when he and his wife narrowly escaped an assassination attempt when their Citroën DS was targeted by machine gun fire arranged by Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry at the Petit-Clamart.[53] After a referendum on Algerian self-determination carried out in 1961, de Gaulle arranged a cease-fire in Algeria with the March 1962 Evian Accords, legitimated by another referendum a month later.[54] Although the Algerian issue was settled, Prime Minister Michel Debré resigned over the final settlement and was replaced with Georges Pompidou on 14 April 1962.[55] Algeria became independent in July 1962, while an amnesty was later issued covering all crimes committed during the war, including the use of torture. In just a few months in 1962, 900,000 French settlers left the country. The exodus accelerated after the 5th of July 1962 massacre.[56]
In September 1962, De Gaulle sought a constitutional amendment to allow the president to be directly elected by the people and issued another referendum to this end. After a motion of censure voted by the Parliament on 4 October 1962, de Gaulle dissolved the National Assembly and held new elections. Although the left progressed, the Gaullists won an increased majority—this despite opposition from the Christian-Democrat MRP and the National Centre of Independents and Peasants (CNIP) who criticised de Gaulle's euroscepticism and presidentialism.[57][58] De Gaulle's proposal to change the election procedure for the French presidency was approved at the referendum on 28 October 1962 by more than three-fifths of voters despite a broad "coalition of no" formed by most of the parties, opposed to a presidential regime. Thereafter the President was to be elected by direct universal suffrage.[59]
[edit] 1962–68: Politics of grandeur
With the Algerian conflict behind him, de Gaulle was able to achieve his two main objectives: to reform and develop the French economy, and to promote an independent foreign policy and a strong stance on the international stage. This was named by foreign observers the "politics of grandeur" (politique de grandeur).[60]
[edit] "Thirty glorious years"
In the context of a population boom unseen in France since the 18th century, the government under prime minister Georges Pompidou oversaw a rapid transformation and expansion of the French economy. With dirigisme—a unique combination of capitalism and state-directed economy—the government intervened heavily in the economy, using indicative five-year plans as its main tool.
High-profile projects, mostly but not always financially successful, were launched: the extension of Marseille harbor (soon ranking third in Europe and first in the Mediterranean); the promotion of the Caravelle passenger jetliner (a predecessor of Airbus); the decision to start building the supersonic Franco-British Concorde airliner in Toulouse; the expansion of the French auto industry with state-owned Renault at its center; and the building of the first motorways between Paris and the provinces.
With these projects, the French economy recorded growth rates unrivalled since the 19th century. In 1964, for the first time in 200 years, France's GDP overtook that of the United Kingdom, a position it held until the 1990s. This period is still remembered in France with some nostalgia as the peak of the Trente Glorieuses ("Thirty Glorious Years" of economic growth between 1945 and 1974).[61]
He vetoed the British application to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1963 because, he said, he thought the United Kingdom lacked the necessary political will to be part of a strong Europe.[62] He further saw Britain as a "Trojan Horse" for the USA.[63] He maintained there were incompatibilities between continental European and British economic interests. In addition, he demanded that the United Kingdom accept all the conditions laid down by the six existing members of the EEC (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands) and revoke its commitments to countries within its own free trade area. He supported a deepening and an acceleration of common market integration rather than expansion.[64] However, in this latter respect, a detailed study of the formative years of the EEC argues that the defence of French economic interests, especially in agriculture, in fact played a more dominant role in determining de Gaulle's stance towards British entry than the various political and foreign policy considerations that have often been cited.[65] The General's attitude was also influenced by resentments which had come about during his exile in Britain during the Second World War. Added to these were fears of an Anglo-American agreement in regard to nuclear weapons – the USA had provided Britain with Polaris missiles the previous year.[66]
[edit] Fourth nuclear power
France became the world's fourth nuclear power on 13 February 1960 when a nuclear device was exploded in the Sahara some 700 miles south-south-west of Algiers.[67]
[edit] Recognition of the People's Republic of China
De Gaulle was convinced that a strong and independent France could act as a balancing force between the United States and the Soviet Union, a policy seen as little more than posturing and opportunism by his critics, particularly in Britain and the United States, to which France was formally allied. In January 1964, France established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC)—the first step towards formal recognition. This was done without first severing links with the Republic of China (Taiwan), led by Chiang Kai-shek. Hitherto the PRC had insisted that all nations abide by a "one China" condition, and at first it was unclear how the matter would be settled.[68] However, the agreement to exchange ambassadors was subject to a delay of three months and in February, Chiang Kai-shek resolved the problem by cutting off diplomatic relations with France.[69] Eight years later U.S. President Richard Nixon visited the PRC and began normalising relations - a policy which was confirmed in the Shanghai Communiqué of 28 February 1972.[70]
As part of a European tour, Nixon visited France in 1969.[71] He and de Gaulle both shared the same non-Wilsonian approach to world affairs, believing in nations and their relative strengths, rather than in ideologies, international organizations, or multilateral agreements. De Gaulle is famously known for calling the United Nations le Machin ("the thing").[72]
[edit] Second round
In December 1965, de Gaulle returned as president for a second seven-year term, but this time he had to go through a second round of voting in which he defeated François Mitterrand, who did far better than anyone dreamed possible, gaining 45 per cent of the vote.[73] In February 1966, France withdrew from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization. De Gaulle, haunted by the memories of 1940, wanted France to remain the master of the decisions affecting it, unlike in the 1930s, when France had to follow in step with her British ally. He also declared that all foreign military forces had to leave French territory and gave them one year to redeploy. [74]
In September 1966, in a famous speech in Phnom Penh (Cambodia), he expressed France's disapproval of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam as the only way to ensure peace.[75] As the Vietnam War had its roots in the previous Indochina War, in which the United States had provided France with aid, this speech did little to endear de Gaulle to the Americans[who?][citation needed], even if their leaders later came to the same conclusion.
[edit] Empty Chair Crisis
During the establishment of the European Community, de Gaulle helped precipitate one of the greatest crises in the history of the EC, the Empty Chair Crisis. It involved the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, but almost more importantly the use of qualified majority voting in the EC (as opposed to unanimity). In June 1965, after France and the other five members could not agree, de Gaulle withdrew France's representatives from the EC. Their absence left the organization essentially unable to run its affairs until the Luxembourg compromise was reached in January 1966.[76] De Gaulle succeeded in influencing the decision-making mechanism written into the Treaty of Rome by insisting on solidarity founded on mutual understanding.[77] He vetoed Britain's entry into the EEC a second time, in June 1967.[78]
[edit] Six-Day War
With tension rising in the Middle East in 1967, de Gaulle on 2 June declared an arms embargo against Israel, just three days before the outbreak of the Six-Day War. This, however, did not affect spare parts for the French military hardware with which the Israeli armed forces were equipped.[79]
This was an abrupt change in policy. In 1956 France, Britain, and Israel had cooperated in an elaborate effort to retake the Suez Canal from Egypt. Israel's air force operated French Mirage and Mystère jets in the Six-Day War, and its navy was building its new missile boats in Cherbourg. Though paid for, their transfer to Israel was now blocked by de Gaulle's government. But they were smuggled out in an operation that drew further denunciations from the French government. The last boats took to the sea in December 1969, directly after a major deal between France and now-independent Algeria exchanging French armaments for Algerian oil.[80]
Under de Gaulle, following the independence of Algeria, France embarked on foreign policy more favourable to the Arab side. General de Gaulle's even-handed position in 1967 at the time of the Six Day War played a part in France's newfound popularity in the Arab world.[81] Israel turned towards the United States for arms, and toward its own industry.
De Gaulle supported the principle of a just settlement for both the Arab and Jewish refugees of the Middle East within the framework of the United Nations. This was stated upon the adoption of UN Resolution 242, in his press conference of 27 November 1967 and contained in his letter to David Ben-Gurion dated 9 January 1968.
[edit] Nigerian Civil War
The Eastern Region of Nigeria declared itself independent under the name of The Independent Republic of Biafra on 30 May 1967. On 6 July the first shots in the Nigerian civil war were fired, marking the start of a conflict would last until January 1970.[82] Britain provided military aid to the Federal Republic of Nigeria—yet more was made available by the Soviet Union. Under de Gaulle's leadership, France embarked on a period of interference outside the traditional French zone of influence. A policy geared toward the break-up of Nigeria put Britain and France into opposing camps. Relations between France and Nigeria had been under strain since the third French nuclear explosion in the Sahara in December 1960. From August 1968, when its embargo was lifted, France provided limited and covert support to the breakaway province. Although French arms helped to keep Biafra in action for the final 15 months of the civil war, its involvement was seen as insufficient and counterproductive. The Biafran Chief of Staff stated that the French "did more harm than good by raising false hopes and by providing the British with an excuse to reinforce Nigeria."[83]
[edit] Vive le Québec libre!
Main article: Vive le Québec libre speech
A day after his Vive le Québec Libre! speech, Charles de Gaulle attracts a crowd at Montreal's Expo 67 on 25 July 1967.
In July 1967, de Gaulle visited Canada, which was celebrating its centennial with a world's fair, Expo 67. On 24 July, speaking to a large crowd from a balcony at Montreal's city hall, de Gaulle shouted Vive le Québec! (Long live Quebec!) then added, Vive le Québec libre! (Long live Free Québec!). The Canadian media harshly criticised the statement, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson stated that "Canadians do not need to be liberated."[84] De Gaulle left Canada two days later without proceeding to Ottawa as scheduled. He never returned to Canada. The speech caused outrage in most of Canada; it led to a serious diplomatic rift between the two countries.[85] However, the event was seen as a watershed moment by the Quebec sovereignty movement.
In the following year, De Gaulle visited Brittany, where he declaimed a poem written by his uncle (also called Charles de Gaulle) in the Breton language. The speech followed a series of crackdowns on Breton nationalism. De Gaulle was accused of double standards for on the one hand demanding a "free" Quebec because of its differences from English-speaking Canada, while on the other oppressing a regionalist movement in Brittany.[86]
In December 1967, claiming continental European solidarity, de Gaulle again rejected British entry into the European Economic Community. The United Kingdom nevertheless became a member of the EEC in January 1973. [87]
[edit] Visit to Paraguay
During the mid-1960s, de Gaulle paid a visit to Asunción, Paraguay, making him the first foreign head of state to ever pay a visit to the country.[88]
[edit] May 1968
de Gaulle at the inauguration of the German embassy in Paris, February 1968
Main article: May 1968
De Gaulle's government was criticised within France, particularly for its heavy-handed style. While the written press and elections were free, the state had a monopoly on television and radio broadcasts (though there were private stations broadcasting from abroad; see ORTF) and the executive occasionally told public broadcasters the bias that they desired on news. In many respects, society was traditionalistic and repressive—this included the position of women.[89][90] Many factors contributed to a general weariness of sections of the public, particularly the student youth, which led to the events of May 1968.
The huge demonstrations and strikes in France in May 1968 severely challenged de Gaulle's legitimacy. He made a flying visit to Germany and met with Jacques Massu, the then chief of the French forces occupying Germany, to discuss possible army intervention against the protesters.[91]
In a private meeting discussing the students' and workers' demands for direct participation in business and government he coined the phrase "La réforme oui, la chienlit non", which can be politely translated as 'reform yes, masquerade/chaos no.' It was a vernacular scatological pun meaning 'chie-en-lit, no'. The term is now common parlance in French political commentary, used both critically and ironically referring back to De Gaulle. [92][93]
But de Gaulle offered to accept some of the reforms the demonstrators sought. He again considered a referendum to support his moves, but Pompidou persuaded him to dissolve parliament (in which the government had all but lost its majority in the March 1967 elections) and hold new elections instead. The June 1968 elections were a major success for the Gaullists and their allies; when shown the spectre of revolution or even civil war, the majority of the country rallied to him. His party won 358 of 487 seats. Pompidou was suddenly replaced by Maurice Couve de Murville in July.[94]
[edit] Retirement and death
US president Richard Nixon visiting president Charles de Gaulle one month before de Gaulle's retirement.
Charles de Gaulle resigned the presidency on 28 April 1969,[95] following the defeat of his referendum to transform the Senate (upper house of the French parliament, wielding less power than the National Assembly) into an advisory body while giving extended powers to regional councils. As in 1946, de Gaulle refused to stay in power without widespread popular support.
De Gaulle retired once again to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, where he died suddenly in 1970, two weeks before his 80th birthday, in the middle of writing his memoirs. He was generally in very robust health until then despite an operation on his prostate some years before. He had been sitting in front of the television while waiting for the start of the news when he felt unwell and collapsed. His wife called the doctor and the local vicar, but by the time they arrived he had died: the cause of death was an aneurysm of the aorta.[96]
Grave of Charles de Gaulle at Colombey-les-Deux-Églises
De Gaulle had made arrangements that insisted that his funeral would be held at Colombey, and that no presidents or ministers attend his funeral, only his Compagnons de la Libération. [97]
Heads of state had to content themselves with a simultaneous service at Notre-Dame Cathedral. He was carried to his grave on an armoured reconnaissance vehicle, and as he was lowered into the ground the bells of all the churches in France tolled starting from Notre Dame and spreading out from there.
He specified that his tombstone bear the simple inscription of his name and his dates of birth and death. Therefore, it simply says: "Charles de Gaulle, 1890–1970".[98]
De Gaulle was nearly destitute when he died. When he retired, he did not accept pensions to which he was entitled as a retired president and as a retired general. Instead, he only accepted a pension to which colonels are entitled.
His family had to sell the Boisserie residence. It was purchased by a foundation and is currently the Charles de Gaulle Museum.
[edit] Private life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
