Juan D. Perón (1895-1974) is one of the most controversial figures in contemporary Latin American history. Whether he was a fascist, populist or another type of politician is still a problem which needs more detailed analysis of his thoughts and behavior. This paper attempts to trace the origin of his political ideas to his military background. While a professor of military history in the Argentine Superior War College in the decade of 1930's, he was a great admirer of German military theorists such as Clausewitz and Von der Goltz. Especially he was so greatly influenced by the latter's “nation in arms” or “total war” concept that he tried to analyze the Argentine reality from this point of view. Thus he realized that Argentina was a backward country not only in military, but also economic and political terms. It is logical, therefore, that after the 1943 coup d'état, Perón launched vast programs of industrialization, promoted nationalization of basic industries and enacted pro-labor measures based upon the theory of class harmony and national union. All of these had the common objective to strengthen and prepare the country for a “total war”. It is true he changed his position shifting toward the left after his fall in 1955, but his basic policies were repeated in a similar way in his last but short presidential period (1973-74). This paper describes Perón as a military-oriented reformer, confirming F. M. Nunn's hypothesis that “military professionalism cannot be accomplished without a measure of professional militarism.”
The Cuban Revolution had progressed from the democratic phase to the socialist without interruption, soon after its triumph over the Batista dictatorship backed by the U. S. imperialism in 1959. The problem on which we should like shed light in this paper is: Why could Fidel Castro lead such a revolution as a passionate non-communist revolutionary, in spite of the fact that the Popular Socialist Party (the Communist Party in Cuba) had been relatively strong in Latin America? We could find a principal reason for it in his basic thoughts and activities as their realization. In the first place, he has always emphasized the role of the popular masses in the revolutionary process. Even in formulating the armed struggle as the principal way to the revolution, as in the Moncada attack and the guerrilla warfare in Sierra Maestra, he had striven to develop the revolutionary consciousness of the people. The idea that the people make history has been running as a constant current in his mind. Secondly, he has persistently pursed for the formation of the united front against the Batista dictatorship and the U. S. imperialism. It is true that the 26th of July Movement led by him could not reach to the agreement of common struggle with the Popular Socialist Party until immediately after the victory of the revolution, but it was because of the profound anti-communism, the main obstacle to the united front, of the other bourgeois opposition party leaders, who had signed the “Pact of Caracas” with the Movement. Fidel has never had any animosity against the communism, having read and learnt the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin since his university years, though he had had some “prejudices” against the Communists. Hence, his constant presence in the revolutionary leadership. Thirdly and finally, he has consistently looked for the democracy, not only in the political aspect, as did the bourgeois opposition political leaders, but also in the economic and social, that is, in the true sense. Thanks to his profound conception of democracy, he could naturally and spontaneously transform himself from the simple democrat into the assiduous socialist. And he could add some particular hues to the Cuban socialism, with the democratic emphasis.
The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between life and thought of President Marcos, especially his leadership for the martial law regime and the framwork of the Philippine politics. Marcos came out from the framework of the party politics that was under the landlord and oligarchy. During the process the party politics had been getting absence of representative function because of the plutocracy and the “two factions one party system”, the presidential power had been strengthened through its administrative and financial power. President Marcos further strengthened the presidential power and the result was the martial law regime. He could take his leadership of this process under the condition of strong presidential power, economic development policy foremost in the developing countries, and the public desire for “peace and order”. We took notice of the same base of the political situation before and after the proclamation of martial law in the field of Philippine economic and financial dependency to the U. S. and the oligarchic society. The “radical change” President Marcos pursued has developed only in this political situation.
Ho Chi Minh is called Lenin in Vietnam. As is well known, he devoted his whole life to the liberation of his homeland. I cannot discuss all of his thoughts and political action in the limited space given to me. In addition, almost none of his diary is left anywhere and, as far as I know, there are only ten works or so on his biography. But each work has its own point of view. Therefore, I will offer my thesis as follows: 1) I will take into consider the period from his birth to his entrance into the French Communist Party. In this period, however, his dominant thoughts is nationalism and anti-colonialism. 2) He took part in the Fifth Congress of Comintern and grew to the orthodox Communist (Marxist). And he was sent, on a special mission of forming the revolutionary organization, to China, Hong Kong and Thailand. Another important fact was that the Comintern desided to form the anti-fascism united front in 1935. 3) Along Comintern lines, he made the Viet-Minh in his homeland in 1941. As the result of political and army movement the Viet-Minh succeeded in the August Revolution, and grasped all political powers all over the country. But its victory was destructed by the Great-powers, so that the Indochina War begun. In this section, the emphasis is laid on his pliable strategy and tactics at many political crisis. 4) In 1954 the Geneva Conference put an end to the Indochina War. But the Geneva Agreements divided Vietnam right in two which had been historically one country. Ho Chi Minh had a great agony. But finally he dicided at first to construct socialism in the North Vietnam and then, to liberate the South where U. S. A. and Ngo Dinh Diem regime begun to rule. In 1960 the South Vietnam Liberation National Front was born in the South and Vietnam War (The Second Indochina War) begun. This war ended on April 1975 with the liberation of Saigon; which although he died on the third of September in 1969 was named Ho Chi Minh operation. In this section the main stress in laid on the moralistic phase of Ho Chi Minh.
Western observers gave the name of Nasserism to the regime and ideology of Gamal Abdel Nasser with a violent hatred of military rule as uncivilized autocracy. However, amidst the cold war, it represented a hatred of neutralism by Nasser who came into power from the middle class, in sharp contrast with the old type Arab nationalists of landed aristocracy who clung to the West to keep their power and status. A typical middle class aspiration for political self-determination can be seen in the movement of the Muslim Brethren which mobilized the massive Arab populace against the West. At first Nasser, as a radical nationalitarian, was enthusiastic about the Brethren, but he soon became cold-hearted due to the Brethren's political immaturity. At the time of the second defeat of Egypt by Israel, Nasser had to reorganize the national economy under the slogan of “Arab socialism, ” although it was in fact a modernizationist approach based on the traditional Muslim ethos of social justice. This was combined with his Pan-Arabism initiated by Egypt to defen Arab sovereignty against Israel and a possible reinvasion by the West. The third defeat caused a new threat within the Arab camp: the Fatah movement came into existence, armed with the ideology of “people's war” aiming at the liberation of Palestine by the Palestinians in confrontation with Israel and aiming at the Arab states who were hesitant to fight against Israel. The Fatah leader Arafat, a middle class radical without an established power base, was an ex-member of the Muslim Brethren, and was a relative of the Jerusalem grand Mufti, a well known pro-Nazi, fanatic islamist, who led bloody conflicts against the Jews in Palestine since the 1920's. Arafat was hostile to the Mufti, and became an active Brethren but shifted to the leftist camp under the influence of an Algerian nationalist. Because of his militant activities, Arafat was appointed to the head of the PLO, originally sponsored by Nasser himself, although Nasser was an opponent of the people's war strategy as an ex-soldier. Anwar Sadat, successor to Nasser, represents the other extreme of the middle class response to the changing international setting of the Arab states in world politics. He prefers to emphasize Egypt's national interest rather than the Arab Cause in Palestine. It seems to be the very opposite of Nasser's approach, but there are points in common with Nasser.
This is a brief, tentative comparative study of ideas and behaviors on nation-building of Kwame Nkrumah, an ex-president of Ghana and Julius K. Nyerere, the president of Tanzania. They are both known as ones of most specutacular political leaders and thinkers in contemporary Africa. In the decisive period of nation-building in every national history, a number of great personalities emerged, whose ideas and behaviors consolidated the national characters for transmission to subsequent generations. Nkrumah and Nyerere are, in the sense, compared to e. g., George Washington and Maximilien Robespierre who played leading parts in the nationalist revolutions in the United States and France respectively. It should, however, be noted one difference of roles played between by contemporary African nationalist leaders and by their early western counterparts. In western countries capitalist nationalities already existed, when nationalists began their movements. Their functions were to change the nationalities or groups of people produced by objective socio-economic processes, into nations or groups created by subjective political processes, that is, by nationalist movements. In Africa the nationalities or the basic foundations for nations still remained to be achieved, after the nationalists had been called into actions. Their duties are, therefore, twofold. They have to creat their nationalities, at the same time to change the nationalities into the nations. And therefore, they have, in a sense, opporturities to choose the kind of nations and the way to creat nations as they like. Almost all nationalist leaders in Africa, including Nkrumah and Nyerere, have chosen the socialist kind and way. In the most critical situations which struck the two nations five years after the independence, both Nkrumah and Nyerere determined to launch socialist policies. Ghana was hit by a socio-economic crisis caused by the fall of cocoa prices. Nkrumah insisted he saw insidious neo-colonialist hands behind the price fall. Tanzania suffered diplomatic difficulties with Britain, West Germany and the United Sates. The Western powers stopped aids to her. Nkrumah wanted to see a single African Nation united under ‘the United States of Africa’, which is advanced, industrialized and so powerful that it could stand against neo-colonialist interventions. His socialism was nothing but a centrally planed economics directed by the Continental Government in order to have got strength enough to oppose neo-colonialist maneuvers. ‘CPP program for Work and Happiness’ of 1962 and the Seven Year Development Plan of 1964 were instruments of his socialist ideas. But he was toppled by the 1966 coup, before the Plan completed. Nyerere's ideas and methods are ‘ujamaa’ and ‘self-reliance.’ Ujamaa means familyhood in Swahili. He likes to see Tanzanian Nation to become something like a modern ujamaa, which has got rid of old ujamaa's defections such as unequal treatment of women and general poverty. He opposes to too fast industrialization and unification of Africa, which Nkrumah eagerly advocated. Nyerere insists upon Tanzanian nation-building by self-reliance. He means by the word that Tanzanian development should be done primarily with Tanzanian own resources, not with foreign money. TANU's ‘Arusha Declaration’ of 1967 was a product of his ideas and methods. Some writers criticize Nkrumah and Nyerere on two points among others: that they mistakenly denied the class struggles in Africa, and that they succumbed to neo-colonialists. These critics are right in some points but not the case in others. Nyerere does not always neglect the class problems in Tanzania, while Nkrumah failed to see class struggles in Ghana. Questions of neo-coloniclism are not so simple as easily solved by such cries of anticolonialism slogans some writers cherish, although neo-colonialism is no doubt an evil thing, badly needed to be
From the outbreak of World War II to the present time, people in no fewer than 50 countries have resorted to guerrilla warfare or to other forms of popular armed struggle. The guerrilla liberation struggles were begun in Africa in the 1960's, which provide some of the best examples of national liberation movement. The people of ‘Portuguese’ Guiné took up arms to free their country from colonial domination in 1963 under the leadership of the PAIGC (Partido Africano da Independência da Guiné e Cabo Verde), led by Amilcar Cabral, its founder and secretary-general. Amilcar Cabral is gradually gaining recognition as the most original and significant African revolutionary thinker to appear since the death of Franz Fanon and Kwame Nkrumah. This reputation is strengthened by the independence of Guiné-Bissau. Not only did he make notable theoretical contributions to analyzing the reality of his country in the context of national liberation movements, but he also did so in the area of revolutionary practice. The thought of Amilcar Cabral is of primary importance to the people of Africa in the struggles against colonialism and neo-colonialism now going on across the continent. And further, his theories have a great deal of significance for the people and revolutionaries of the three continents. This paper provides a brief assessment of the thought and behavior of Amilcar Cabral. The first part surveys books and articles on the study of Amilcar Cabral. The second part delineates the chronological summary of Amilcar Cabral. The third part traces in outline the thought and activities of Amilcar Cabral.