Customer Reviews

The Political Economy of Third World Intervention: Mines, Money, and U.S. Policy in the Congo Crisis (American Politics and Political Economy Series)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

If the maryland reader were more eruidite, he might find that Dr. Gibbs isn't the only intellectual who asserts that CIA-orchestrated coups in Guatemala were influenced by ties with banana corporations. In fact, it's practically common knowledge that the CIA was acting in the interest of united fruit co. when it implemented "Operation PBSUCCESS," for the LEGALLY AND DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Guatemalan president at the time, Jacobo Arbenz, was implementing a land reform program that threatened US companies like United Fruit by enabling members of the guatemalan communist party to farm land that United fruit owned.

There are a few Books and television documentaries that argue (quite convincingly) the claim that the coup in Guatemala was motivated by an american interest in preserving a "friendship" with united fruit company.One book, "Banana Wars" written by anthropologists Dr. Mark Moberg and Dr. Steve Striffler. There was also a segment in a history channel documentary on this , as well (Though, unfortunately) I forgot the title. Another great book on the matter is: "Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala" by: by Stephen C. Schlesinger, Stephen Kinzer, John H. Coatsworth, John H. Coatsworth.

At some point, people who find allegations that corporate interests manipulate US foreign policy absurd will have to face the fact that the american government would rather put profits and above people.

Too much of U.S. scholarship avoids any mention of business interests, despite the fact that business organizations outspend labor unions and other interest factions by an overwhelming margin, whether in U.S. domestic politics or foreign policy. David Gibbs provides pathbreaking archival evidence of business divisions that influenced the shift in U.S. policy toward the Congo from the Eisenhower to the Kennedy Administrations. Gibbs persuasively argues that most accounts of U.S. policy toward the Congo fail to explain the extent to which both Eisenhower and Kennedy sought to appease U.S. business interests with a particular stake in the Congo's war for independence against colonial Belgium. The book is well-researched and lucid in its arguments, carefully examining both theories of U.S. foreign policy and their application to the Congo crisis. Very useful for anyone that wants to go beyond official explanations for U.S. foreign policy behavior in Africa and elsewhere.

David Gibbs argues US intervention in the Congo was done at the behest of certain US multinational Business interests. The USSR did effect tactical maneuvering, but of no primary significance regarding motives for intervention. On the surface the war appears to be Colonialists VS Anti-Colonialists or "Containing Communism" ..Gibbs peers beyond the rhetoric and exposes entirely different motives...

Basically a feud developed between Belgium business and US multinationals partly spearheaded by Maurice Tempelsman. Tempelsman owned/owns? a private multinational business which delt heavily in Commodites e.g., diamonds and copper. Strangely, it seems more than a few US/UN connected politicians/bureacrats wind up on Templeton's payroll. For example, the CIA's Africa Division Chief,Lawrence Devlin became a full time employee for Templeton. Several agents via legal firms also connect the dots to Tempelton... On the Belgium side a mining company has its own tactical maneuvering for propping up corrupt politicians and using mercenaries/belgian military etc. A proxy/propaganda war develops between US multinationals and Belgium multinationals. A brief period of cooperation ensues when rebels threatened western domination. After the rebels were supressed the feud reimurged. In the end US multinationals Trump Belgian interests to become the primary economic and political force in the Congo region. Europeans viewed this as US encroachment on the African continent which was regarded as a European sphere of influence after WWII.

An interesting addendum to Gibbs work... Maurice Tempelsman spearheaded efforts to certify the Prohibition of "conflict diamonds" i.e. to prevent the sale of diamonds to finance terrorism, drug laundering etc..I have a very cynical view of this.

The depth of Gibb's research is excellent. The index is very user friendly. So much information packed into 211 pgs. Very good use/organization of footnotes,bibliography and primary sources. I am looking forward to his upcoming book on Yugoslavia.

Dated and not very helpful for a current evaluation of foreign involvement in africa and the third world. Useful, though, as a historical resource for a snapshot of left wing cold war scholarship during the Reagan era.

For a more current take on this same subject, check out titles by William Easterly and David Weil.

This book is based on the Business Conflict Model, which Gibbs uses to explain US foreign policy in developing nations. As you may have guessed, the model assumes that all foreign policy to third world nations is based on private business interest. It is us policy to protect American interest abroad. Usually that includes business investment and such. Anyway the book uses one approach to understand US policy , while also offering that other approaches are not as useful.

I am currently a student at the University of Arizona in Dr. Gibbs' Individuals and Societies 103 class (entitled "What is Politics?), and can say that Dr. Gibbs applies his bias in most everything he teaches. While I have not read his Ph.D. dissertation, I can analyze what he does in classes and apply them to the likelihood of the quality of this work.

About 50% of the real-life examples used in class are regarding the recent war in Iraq. About 75% of his example are either logical arguments by liberals or fallacious arguments by conservatives (usually by technical fallacy or by an example's failure to include obvious evidence). He clearly engages in selectively choosing which examples to use in order to push his agenda. I fear my views may be punished, though I am currently unable to tell because our first test is this Friday.

As long as Dr. Gibbs continues to teach our class in this fashion, think about what kind of chicanery he could spin on foreign policy.

This book, which was originally David Gibbs' PhD disseratation is perhaps the most ludicrous work ever produced in the history of academia. Gibbs claims that the US intervention in the Congo following their indepedence was motivated entirely by investor Maurice Templesman's interest in the Congolese Diamond mines. According to Gibbs, after Kennedy's election in 1960 the US stepped up its intervention in the Congo since Tempelsman and Kennedy were close, and he thus influenced the Administration to intervene to ensure that the Diamond mines would be controlled by the US. Gibbs downplays the US interest in preventing Communist or Soviet influence in the region. In fact, Gibbs has stated elsewhere that covert operations like the on in the Congo are not kept secret in order to keep it from foreign governments, but to prevent America's own citizens from finding out about it! Tempelsman in fact wrote a respone MIT in which he ridicules this slander, noting that one man cannot create US policy, even if he wanted to. Gibbs, in his characteristic cynical fashion, proudly hangs the letter on the door to his office. This excuse for an academic work somehow got Gibbs a job at the University of Arizona's Department of Political Science where he continues to teach his paranoid conspiracy theories to young students, many of whom unfortunately start believing it. Among other gems by David N. Gibbs include his statement that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 posed no threat to the US, that the US coups in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954 were influenced by narrow business interests in oil and bananas respectively, and that all US foreign policy is controlled by business interests who use their power to get the US Government to do their bidding. Never in the history of International Relations theory has such an absurd theory been postulated. Even Radical theorists like Gabriel Kolko view US policy as tailored to the general needs of capitalism, but not to individual companies. Meanwhile, Gibbs continues to hurt our young students minds with his toxic waste. The University of Arizona should be ashamed to have him in their department, and hopefully he will not get tenure for the nonsense he writes or else more young minds will be harmed.