1979 was not a watershed year for the Jimmy Carter Presidency. A lot was going wrong and a lot that had gone right just the year prior was in danger of sliding off the rails.

Iran was proving to be a bigger problem than originally thought with signals the Soviet Union were contemplating an overture or two towards Tehran. Our presence in the world was not on the best of terms. Embassy's in Iran and Afghanistan were attacked. Our Middle East policy, pointed with such optimism and accomplishment via the Camp David Peace Accords only a year earlier, was in danger of being derailed. The SALT II Treaty with the Soviet Union was on shaky ground if the Senate had anything to say about it and our agreement with The People's Republic Of China at the cost of our relationship with Taiwan had many in and out of government wondering if damage control would do any good.

And so Walter Cronkite, the Most Trusted Man In America, weighed in on the issue of our Foreign Policy and where we stood in the midst of all this. Here is his commentary for February 20, 1979 as broadcast by CBS Radio.

Listening to the United Nations meeting yesterday over the request to grant the Palestinian territory Nationhood, I was reminded of a similar situation with regards to the newly formed state of Israel in 1948, and how our Foreign Policy in the Middle East has always been one of inconsistency.

In 1948 a lot of what the U.S. did in the area of Foreign Affairs was predicated on aspects of the Cold War - always the threat of undue influence in any region from Moscow was of primary importance. And it shaped our relations with the rest of the world, and many times not with the best outcomes (Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia). Since the end of the era of the Soviet Union, it's become the threat of Islamic Extremists and another whole set of new and complicated fears.

But as much debate as there is going on now over the Palestinian question, there was going on with the Israeli question, sixty-three years earlier.

Here is a Sunday featuring the noted NBC newsman and commentator Clifton Utley from May of 1948, where Utley discusses the role of the U.S. in the Middle East and the newly declared nation of Israel in the United Nations.

In July 1967, with all the recent developments in the Middle East, the riots throughout America and escalating dissent towards the Vietnam War, Secretary of State Dean Rusk still maintained the eroding position that the majority of Americans supported the War and it was only a small "marginal" segment of the population trying to end it and get us out of there.

This interview from Face The Nation on July 30, 1967, features a trio of reporters - Marvin Kalb, Murray Marder and Martin Agronsky. They tried for some clarification from Rusk that our Foreign Policy was indeed going in the right direction and that the seemingly rampant violence hitting our cities was only a minor blemish on the bigger picture.

Dean Rusk: “I think they know enough about us to know that these riots have nothing to do with the situation that they face in Vietnam and their ambitions to take over South Vietnam by force. We’ve had some indication that they are becoming a little more sophisticated about the American political system and that they know that these marginal dissents and these minority views do not represent the United States or its policy or its determination. I think it would be a great mistake for them to think they get any comfort out of what has happened here recently in some of our cities. Obviously in their propaganda they are trying to use it to our disadvantage and this is happening also in Peking and Havana and Moscow.”

The only problem was, it was far from true and the level of dissent towards the war was escalating at a rapid rate. It was easy in 1964 to label dissent towards the war in Vietnam as marginal - only a comparatively few people actually knew there was war going on before the Gulf of Tonkin incident. But as the war dragged on and as casualty reports kept coming in (even though they were shaded in number so as to appear not so bad), it was hard to justify being there by 1967. The notion that billions of dollars were being spent on a War in Southeast Asia while our own cities languished in depressed times seemed wildly inexcusable. Despite the fact that a bastion of hawks and supporters of the war insisted it wasn't, the war was quickly becoming lost to the vast majority of American people. Particularly those who had sons fighting, or who were becoming of draft age and were facing the daunting prospects of being another number on the casualty lists.

But they tried to paint a rosy picture and they tried to say it was not what the majority really wanted. And Dean Rusk was somehow stuck propping up a rapidly weakening position.

Having noticed the steep and continuing climb in gas prices (over $4.00 a gallon in L.A.), and the state of nervousness surrounding the Jasmine Revolution, once again the oil producing Arab nations are being tagged as the culprits in the latest energy crisis. Whatever the circumstances are (and there are always countless circumstances for spikes in gas prices; some imagined, some imaginable), the region has not been a stranger to crisis situations. In 1973 it was the Arab Oil Embargo based on the then-Arab-Israeli War and our support of Israel in the way of military aid. And since there was the Cold War still going on, the Soviet Union was a source of concern with their support in the way of military aid to the Arab nations. There was also the domestic furor over Watergate which some have contended suited the Arab Oil Embargo quite nicely as it took our attention away from Nixon for a while. Whatever the real situation was, it created a crisis which has become something of a playing card ever since. But in 1973 it was something new and the signs of "no gas" were creeping up all over the country. Somehow, we knew this was the beginning of the future and it was never going to go back to the way it was.

And of course all the punditry and experts were lined up to explain what was going and why this was going on and in their way, get us used to it. One of those experts called upon was Walter Levy an economist and Oil consultant who appeared on an episode of Meet The Press on November 23, 1973 to explain what this all meant.

Walter Levy: “Certainly the last three years have shown that oil companies, that have huge operations in the Middle East, who discovered this oil, who developed it, exported it all over the world, have lost practically all of their bargaining power with regards to the Middle East producing countries. We have a story in the last three years of nothing but broken agreements between oil companies and oil producing countries. And where, when the producing country concerned, the producing country concerned, changed it’s demands, increased its requirements for money, for control, against arrangements just concluded, the oil companies could never afford to say ‘we want to negotiate, we want to change it’, because the usual reply of the producing country was ‘if you do not – quote/unquote agree today, we will legislate tomorrow’, and a minute before the legislation became due, the oil companies, just in order to protect whatever they still had said ‘yes, sir’.”

In what sounds like the ultimate "good cop-bad cop" scenario, the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 set a precedent which has been repeated over and over simply because it works. Shift blame, shrug shoulders, wring hands and repeat. And let's face it - this is way too comfortable a situation on the parts of the Oil Companies and the Oil producing countries to change since all parties are quite happily in bed with each other. The system has been figured out and is played at every chance. And it is most likely for that reason there will probably never be a successful alternative to Arab oil in our lifetimes. Ain't gonna happen IMHO.

With the current story unfolding in Cairo and the cautious attention being paid to events in Tahrir Square by most Arab nations, I'm reminded of another unfolding story that involved a newly emerging Egypt in the 1950's under Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser and how his rise to power came about as the result of a military coup and overthrow of a Monarchy and several decades of indirect British rule.

This radio documentary, Conflict In The Middle East from July 17, 1956 outlines what was happening in the Arab world as the result of the Suez Canal crisis and how the events in Egypt reverberated throughout the region and a new phrase Arab Nationalism was being touted to millions of Arabs. It's a fascinating document about the growth of Arab Nationalism and where it came from with numerous interviews with players in the conflict and assessments by observers.

Wilson Hall (NBC News Bureau Chief, Cairo): “This red hot nationalism is primarily directed against Great Britain and France. We Americans get hit by these verbal brickbats because we’re standing too close to the target. Arab Nationalism, and anti-Westernism, are inseparable. Anti-Western feeling is the easiest manifestation. The West is a handy symbol of Arab frustration which has built up for centuries. For more than five centuries the Arab states have been occupied, ruled, governed or kicked around by nations of Western Europe. Turks, the French, the British have all at one time claimed the Middle East as their bailiwick, their ‘sphere of influence’, ‘just theirs’. The Arabs are tired of being used, exploited is their term. Now they feel that they’re strong enough, and rich enough, to do something about it. The target, the one they’ve seen and been subjected to for generations; the West. The combination coach and quarterback of the Arab team is Gamal Abdul Nasser, leader of Egypt’s revolution. What trick plays he has on the blackboard, for running up the score for the Arabs blanking the West, is not certain. Critics of Nasser say he’s doing all this signal calling because he’s power mad, because he wants to rule all of the Arab world. Friends of Nasser say it’s not that at all. They say, the Arab world was right for a coach and a quarterback. Nasser just happened to come along. There’s probably some truth in both these theories. But this much is certain, Nasser is an all-out flame fanner for Arab Nationalism. The Arabs admire a man of action. Nasser is that. Almost single handedly, Nasser has transformed the Arab League from a rowdy debating society into a working league with a purpose. Nasser has received Czech arms for his growing army, with enough arms left over to parcel out to other Arab countries. Nasser is praised all over the Arab world as the first Arab who has had the nerve to stand up to the West. He pushed the British Army out of the Suez Canal Zone and British administration out of the Sudan. Egypt celebrated the evacuation of the British with a noisy three day celebration. With tears streaming down his face, Nasser raised the Egyptian flag over the Suez Canal Zone. He said ‘no foreign flag will ever again fly over Egypt.”

The Cold War is certainly over. Russia is no longer the dominating story. But it's interesting to see how recent all this history is (as I said yesterday, recent as far as country's go.) and how Nasser and Egypt in general, emerged as a powerful force among Arab nations. Nasser rose to power as the result of a Military coup and ran the country from 1952 until his death in 1970. Nasser wasn't well regarded by Western powers. His successor Anwar Sadat however, was. But that resulted in his assassination by members of the military, paving the way for Hosni Mubarak's rise to power as a military entity.

Over the coming hours and days the story will continue to emerge. But as always, there is a history to these events. The names and faces are all intertwined but the struggle is the same.

(1960 ended up like just about every other year before and since: Crisis)

It's getting about that time of year when the long glances back start. For C&L and just about every other blog it will be a look at 2009; what went on, what didn't go on, what crisis did we land in or avert. How did life as we know it change this particular year.

Since Newstalgia is mostly knee-deep in the past,I thought I would kick off the roundup of year-enders with a look at 1960 and how the world changed during that particular 12 months, and how a lot of it has remained the same.

1960 saw the election of a new President and the Cold War entering new and uncharted territory. It saw Africa emerging as a continent of newly independent nations, the Middle East contemplating Israel as a nuclear neighbor. Latin America was deemed the next hot spot in East-West relationships and Germany struggling with its divided status.

On December 28, 1960 CBS News ran a one-hour round table discussion between Edward R. Murrow, Howard K. Smith, David Schoenbrun, Daniel Schorr and other notable CBS News reporters, weighing the issues that made 1960 a memorable year.

Howard K. Smith: “Well, I think our change is about as drastic a change as you can have under constitutional government. I’ve emphasized the fact that the Presidents and their intents differ drastically. But the men around them differ too. The emphasis in the previous administration was on businessmen. At present I think scholars probably have a plurality. It’s said that if all the appointees made by Kennedy so far were to walk down the hall together there would be a deafening jangle of Phi Beta Kappa keys. And there are three Rhodes Scholars among them. Many of them are famed for some very useful and active ideas, but the main thing that induces me to believe this will be an active administration is the fact there has seldom been, since the Civil War, such an accumulation of crises and merely problems as there is now and we have to act or there will be disaster.”

Always the threat of disaster and some crisis. No matter when.

1960 or 2009 - it doesn't really change.

. . .and neither does the cost of keeping blogs together.

April 25th 1979. Israeli troops in Lebanon and terrorist attacks by the PLO bring strong condemnation from Egypt of Israeli handling of the situation. Egypt on the outs with just about every Arab nation because of the Peace signing. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the latest in a long line of nations breaking diplomatic ties with Anwar Sadat's Egypt. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter commemorates the day (April 25th) the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising took place in 1943. Rhodesia has its first Black Prime Minister with the election of Abel Muzorewa to the post and Iran's President Mehdi Bazargan is the object of an assassination attempt which Iranian News refuses to acknowledge. Gotta love 'em.

And so went another day with completely interchangeable historic parts.

We're still plugging away for donations to keep Newstalgia up and running. If you don't we may not . . .unfortunately.

As gas inches up to (and past in some places like Los Angeles) $4.00 a gallon, I remembered the last time there was a major outcry over prices at the pump. In 1973 the major culprit were the Oil companies and the major culprit now appears to be . . . yep, the oil companies.

Granted, the situation in the Middle East is uneasy at best, but it was in 1973 as well. However, in 1973 we weren't used to it. America enjoyed a seemingly limitless source of energy and oil and the crisis that confronted us then was pretty dramatic. So dramatic that NBC News devoted an entire 3 hours of Primetime programming to covering the story. Something that would never happen today. But in 1973 it was cause for major concern.

So today I'm going to run that entire show, all three hours. It's split up over three players and, even though I doubt you'll want to sit around and listen to it online, you will no doubt be better off downloading it and listening to it over several beers.

The story goes like this with highlights below:

Hour 1:

Frank McGee (NBC News – Talking about Nuclear Power Plants): “If the emergency cooling system failed, if there were a meltdown, some scientists think an area half the size of Pennsylvania might be contaminated, 100,000 people might die.”

Nuclear Power Plant Spokesperson: “There is no industry the world has ever known that has such safety features built into it. And there is no activity, no industry, no technology that has ever been developed that has such stringent rules for operation.”

Public Safety advocate: “There’s a large majority of the reactor experts that the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) relies on who have the most serious doubts about these safety assurances. We have hundreds of documents that have been suppressed by the AEC whose source was the safety community and these demonstrate very clearly that the controversy over the AEC’s claims is very deep and very serious.”

Bear in mind that six years later we had that episode at Three Mile Island - the Pennsylvania reference by McGee is purely ironic>

Continue reading »

This weekend, twenty-five years ago, it was all about The Persian Gulf and the U.S. decision to re-flag Kuwaiti Oil Tankers within the next ten days. Amid reports that Iran was mining the Gulf and the U.S. was inching closer to a shooting war. With the Iraqi bombing of the USS Stark, which claimed 37 crewmen, it would seem a showdown was inevitable.

Despite all that, there was no concrete Policy in place, with reference to our position on The Persian Gulf. This episode of Face The Nation was titled "Persian Gulf Policy: A Sea Of Confusion", and it reflected just how off the charts we were in handling crises overseas.

Joining Moderator Leslie Stahl were Under-Secretary of State Michael Armacost and Chairman of The House Armed Services Committe, Les Aspin, discussing what was becoming a fractured and and confusing policy and whether or not the re-flagging of Kuwaiti ships should be postponed.

Here is that broadcast. You get to decide.

This day in 1982 was about shooting wars. British troops landed on The Falkland Islands and the shooting war started. Amid reports of casualties and both sides claiming the upper hand, the propaganda wheels were in motion. The diplomatic wheels however were not, and even though Pope John Paul II appealed to Britain to show restraint and seek a peaceful solution, Margaret Thatcher said "thanks, but no thanks". And the war was on.

Likewise in the Middle East, only this time it was Iran who boasted major gains in territory over the Iraqi's, but it didn't look as though this thing would be over anytime soon. Terrorist bombs went off in Beirut, this time at the French Embassy and with scores of casualties.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world. Successor to the ailing Leonid Brezhnev was looking more and more like Yuri Andropov, head of the Secret Police.

On Capitol Hill - Pres. Reagan's Fiscal spending plan for 1983 goes to battle at the House. Reagan also pushed for The Department of Energy to be merged with the Department of Commerce. The Supreme Court ruled people on Nixon's Enemies list did not need to be revealed. The Abortion question was also back on the docket, this time via State's rulings on abortions.

The DeLorean Auto plant in Ireland was ordered closed by the Irish government, citing no buyers in the foreseeable future.

All that, and a lot more on this May 24th in 1982 from the CBS World News Roundup and the 9:00 am (PDT) network news.