HIS 499 Thesis Final Draft

1
Arthur Olbert
History 499, Ricardo Lopez
Thesis Final Draft
Racial Identity and its Roots in the Reconfiguration of Power during the Cold War: 1959-1990
Traditional study of Cold War history typically involves the examination of the conflict
between the United States and the Soviet Union and the clash between their competing socio-
economic systems, Capitalism and Communism, and their associated political systems,
Democracy and Socialism. Given that the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the
dominate military and political powers after World War II, it is not surprising that the study of
Cold War history with which we have become accustomed to primarily focuses on the nuclear
arms race as a manifestation of the “war” between Capitalist democracy and communist
socialism. This Cold War historiography is Euro-centric because it focuses exclusively on the
northern hemisphere and in turn fails to acknowledge the historical role of the Latin American
and African Cold War experiences in the global conflict. Throughout Latin American history, as
well as for much of the Global South, few periods have “been as violent, turbulent, and some
would argue, transformative, as the half century that ran from the end of World War II to the
mid-1990s.”1 In fact, the Cold War experience of those nations in Latin America and Africa were
hardly “Cold” at all and were characterized by violence. It was in the nations of the Global south
where communist revolutionary and anti-communist counter-revolutionary forces directly
1 Joseph,Gilbert , and Daniela Spenser.In From the Cold: Latin America's New Encounter With the Cold War.
London: Duke University Press, 2008. P. 3

2
clashed, which resulted in violence that characterized the Cold War experience of nations in the
Global South.
By focusing the study of Cold War history on the experiences and historical roles of
Cuba and the African nations of Zaire, Angola, and South Africa in the international conflict, this
essay challenges the traditional “Communism versus Capitalism”, “Democracy versus
Socialism”, and “United States versus the Soviet Union” dichotomy characteristic of traditional
Cold War historiography. Analyzing the Cold War in terms of the ideological dichotomy
between Capitalism and Communism is commonplace because it provides a simple outline of the
War, but the Cold War was far more complex and cannot be broken down into dichotomies.
In reality, the Cold War was a multidimensional conflict in which leaders from nations on
all sides of the battle exploited the notion of an impending foreign threat to instill fear amongst
the populace and both legitimize and expand their authority on moral grounds. The ideological
justifications and motivations behind both revolutionary and counter revolutionary movements
were used as a veil to disguise the true objectives of those who held power, primarily the United
States government, Castro, and the USSR. The primary underlying objectives of both Castro and
the United States government in their support of revolution and counterrevolution respectively
was to expand their power domestically and abroad. This challenges the traditional assumption
that the United States support of counterrevolution was motivated by an ideological commitment
to the preservation of American values associated with capitalism such as freedom, self-
determination, and democracy. Simultaneously, it also challenges the concept that Castro’s
support of the Communist revolution was motivated by his supposed ideological commitment to
the prevention of international white domination at the hands of U.S. Imperialism. In the United
States, the notion of an impending foreign threat was associated with the Soviet Union, so the

3
containment of communism became a moral obligation to protect the American cultural tradition.
This moral obligation to protect the supposed American values of freedom and democracy
associated with Capitalism was used to justify the United States’ involvement in covert sabotage
operations in Cuba and support of counter-revolutionary Para-military operations in Africa.
Simultaneously, in Cuba the notion of an impending foreign threat was associated with United
States’ imperialism and the racial oppression of non-whites, both within the United States and
internationally as a result of communist containment. Castro utilized this threat to justify the
Cuban communist revolution as an ideological fight against racial oppression at the hands of US
imperialism, thereby justifying his authority and reinforcing his position of power on the
international stage.
By focusing on Cuba’s role as the principal third-world military power, I will show how
Castro’s military involvement in the Congo, Angola, and South Africa from 1959-1980 illustrate
the ideological veil of the Cuban revolution, which was to fight against racial oppression at the
hands of U.S. imperialism. Simultaneously, by focusing on the United States’ involvement
counter revolutionary movements in those same African nations, I will illustrate how the
containment of communism became the ideological veil for the United States’ imperial
objectives and the racist notions upon which these objectives were founded. In the process, I will
reveal that the Cold War was a multidimensional international conflict in which notions of racial
identity, such as racial superiority, racial equality, and racial justice were utilized as tools by
those in power to maintain and expand their power both domestically and abroad.
Racial identity was a highly explosive and controversial issue in the 20th century, and it
manifested itself in the international Cold War conflict. The United States’ communist
containment policy was essentially a geopolitical plan to establish a global capitalist empire in

4
which the United States would maintain imperial hegemony. This global empire would thrive on
the social, political, and economic exploitation of non-whites as a result of imperialism. Castro
utilized this to provide an ideological justification for his revolution, and to disguise his
ultimately parallel goal of enforcing and expanding his power domestically and internationally.
Thus, racial oppression at the hands of U.S. imperialism provided ideological justification to the
Cuban revolution and, in turn, Castro’s authority. The transnationalization of revolutionary and
counter revolutionary movements to Africa, spearheaded by Cuba and the United States
respectively, reflect the conscious efforts of Castro and the U.S. government to frame their quest
for power as an ideological war incorporating notions of racial identity. Without the communist
revolution, the United States would have no ideological enemy of which to claim they were
fighting against with their communist containment policy, and thus no way to justify their
military support of counter-revolutionary movements in Zaire, South Africa, and Angola.
Likewise, without the racial oppression linked to U.S. imperialism, communist containment
policy, and the counter-revolution in general, Castro would have no way to justify his authority
as the leader of the communist revolution and in turn no way of expanding his power to Africa.
Imperialism defined the Cold War. The Communist containment policy of the United
States was a definitive aspect of the Cold War even in conventional Cold War historiography.
The conflict between The United States and the Soviet Union is defined by the competition for
strategic geopolitical footholds in the Global South. A typical analysis of the Cold War
according to conventional historiography describes the conflict as American response to Soviet
expansionism in the form of Communist containment. This approach assumes that both the
United States and The Soviet Union viewed their conflict as ideological, grounded in the
contrasting principles of Capitalism and Communism. However, newly declassified CIA

5
documents, which I will analyze in detail later on, reveal the underlying imperial objectives of
and inherent racism within the United States Communist containment policy. In addition, newly
declassified Soviet documents reveal according to historian Melvyn Leffler that the Soviet Union
had no interest in participating in an ideological Communist revolution, but were rather
concerned with maintaining their position of power locally and internationally. Leffler states,
“The Cold War was not a simple case of Soviet Expansionism and American reaction.
Realpolitik held sway in the Kremlin. Ideology played an important role in shaping their
perceptions, but Soviet Leaders were not focused on promoting worldwide revolution. They were
concerned mostly with configurations of power, with protecting their country’s immediate
periphery, ensuring its security, and preserving their rule.”2 Given the rampant transnational
revolutionary and counter revolutionary violence that characterized the Cold War experience of
the Global South, if the Soviet Union had little interest in promoting ideological revolution, it
seems erroneous to frame the Cold War as an ideological conflict between the United States and
the Soviet Union and their political systems.
Instead, Cuba participated actively in the international Cold War conflict, and just like
the United States, Castro’s primary underlying objective was to both maintain and extend his
power. Castro justified his ultimate goal for power in just the same way as the United States
government, by creating an ideological opponent and labeling his quest for power as a revolution.
More specifically, by framing the Communist revolution as an ideological revolution whose
purpose was to achieve racial justice against the imperial domination of non-white peoples at the
hands of characteristically white imperial hegemonies. With this in mind, a new historiographical
2 Joseph,Gilbert, and Spenser, Daniela. P. 13

6
framework of the Cold War emerges which examines the conflict as a struggle between Castro,
the United States government, and the USSR over establishing and expanding power around the
globe. A more nuanced historiographical contextualization of the Cold War focuses on both
Castro’s and the United States government’s use of issues of race, specifically racial superiority
and racial injustice, to disguise their aspiration for power as a moral obligation to either prevent
the spread of communism, as was the case with the United States, or to fight against white
imperialism, as was the case with Cuba.
Although the United States government attempted to pass its communist containment
policy as a moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy, communist containment was in
reality founded upon racist principles in addition to serving as a moral disguise for their quest for
power. The United States involvement in South Africa during the apartheid is perhaps the most
striking example of the racist principles which Communist containment was founded upon and
its underlying imperial objectives. Thomas J. Noer, a historian from the Carthage College
department of history, provides a unique historical insight into the United States involvement in
South Africa from the years 1960-1980. In his introduction, he touts the United States supposed
commitment to self-determination and human rights, stating “Since its overthrow of British rule
in 1783, the United States has repeatedly supported the right of all peoples to self-
determination.”3 He then establishes his historiographical context, stating “In the decades
following World War II America faced a test to its traditional commitment to human rights and
self-determination as the peoples of Africa demanded and eventually gained their independence
3 Noer, Thomas. Truman, Eisenhower, and South Africa: The "Middle Road" and Apartheid.New York: Garland
Publishing Inc, 1998. P. 131

7
from Europe.”4 He illustrates that World War II weakened European colonial influence in Africa
and inspired the imagination of African leaders, as well as other leaders from the Global South,
who saw the conflict as a means of achieving their independence from European colonial rule.5
In addition, he claims African Americans garnered newfound political power after World War II,
which helped to make the issue of civil rights a dominant domestic and even international
concern.6 The political agency attained by African Americans inspired other non-white peoples,
such as Latinos, to participate in the international struggle for racial equality and the end of
imperialism, which was associated with racial oppression and exploitation. In the decades
following the war, the peoples of Africa demanded their independence from Europe, and the
creation of the United Nations increased expectations for the rapid end of colonialism and the
liberation of Africa. However, Noer states, “As the postwar conflict between the Soviet Union
and the United States intensified, the United States’ position on the decolonization of Africa
became more conservative.”7
Why did the United States government change its position from supporting the
decolonization of Africa in favor of continued European dominance? Noer’s response to this
question, which serves as his primary argument, is that “Self-determination became submerged
under the larger policy of global containment of communism.”8 A recently declassified CIA
national policy paper supports Noer’s argument and reveals the United States government’s
awareness of the worsening racial situation in South Africa and its potential problems for U.S.
foreign policy and national security interests. “As the gap between South Africa’s actions and
world opinion widens, the dilemma of balancing conflicting U.S. interests is becoming
4 Noer, Thomas. P. 131

8
increasingly hazardous. Both the trend in the UN and the immediate thrust of U.S. domestic
policy are running strongly counter to South Africa’s practices of racial segregation and
domination.”9 This document illustrates that the United States, throughout the 1950s and onward
in their political involvement in South Africa, was caught in a dilemma between her supposed
commitment to human rights and fulfilling her more immediate economic, political, and strategic
interests. The United States attempted to show its support of political freedom in Third World
nations while simultaneously maintaining normal relations with the white minority in South
Africa.
The same national policy paper articulates why the United States desired to maintain a
normal economic relationship with South Africa, despite its racist domestic policies. “Producing
over 50% of the world’s gold, marketing 80% of its diamonds, and selling large amounts of
uranium to the U.S. and the U.K. under long term contracts, South Africa has 45 commercially
exploited minerals.”10 The United States was clearly benefiting enormously from its economic
relationship with South Africa. The fact that the US did not employ a trade embargo against
South Africa in order to pressure for change as per Cuba, supports Noer’s argument that self-
determination became submerged under the larger policy of communist containment. In addition,
U.S. strategic interest in South Africa surpassed the commitment to self-determination and equal
rights. “The strategic importance of South Africa to the US is based on requirements of an
alternate to the suez canal as a sea route between the Indian and Atlantic Oceans; availability of
air and naval facilities in South Africa for US forces and limited South African military
capability to contribute to the security of Southern Africa in event of hostilities inimical to
9 FOIA, FRUS, 1964–1968 Volume XXIV, Africa, Document 600 National Policy Paper Washington,January 18,
1965. National Policy Paper—South Africa Document 600: National Policy Paper
10Document 600 National Policy Paper

9
overall Western or US interest.”11 Thus, the United States effectively supported racism in South
Africa in exchange for economic and strategic gain. Imperialism is defined by colonization for
economic and strategic benefit, and although South Africa was a Dutch colony, the national
policy paper reveals, “U.S. investments [n South Africa] exceed $600 million. Businessmen are
receiving high returns on their South African investments, which net from 12% to 30%
annually.”12 Thus, this national policy paper clearly exposes that the imperial motives of the
United States were veiled by Communist containment policy. In addition, the United States
government effectively supported the oppression of blacks in South Africa under apartheid in
exchange for continued economic and strategic benefit provided by the region’s petroleum
exports and strategic location against the Soviet Union.
Within the United States’ decision to support continued colonial dominance in Africa,
there existed notions of the racial superiority of Anglo Europeans and the inferiority of Africans,
further exposing the manifestation of racial identity within the global competition for power that
defined the Cold War. How did the United States’ support of continued Western-European
dominance in sub-Saharan Africa throughout the 1960s and 1970s illustrate the racist principles
of which communist containment was founded upon? Essentially because United States
government officials believed that Africans were inherently incompetent because of their racial
background and thus lacked the ability to establish a strong national government able to resist
Soviet subversion. A CIA national intelligence estimate from January 1961 discussing the
political turmoil in the Congo, a Portuguese colony, sheds some light on the matter. “Political
instability…appears to be the most likely prospect for the Congo for some time to come. There is
11 Document 600 National Policy Paper
12 Document 600 National Policy Paper

10
still no central government in the Congo. Anarchy lies close to the surface and political
fragmentation continues.”13 The estimate thus concludes, “Under these circumstances new
opportunities for short and long –range Bloc exploitation are increasing.”14 In summary, this
estimate reveals the United States government’s fear that too rapid decolonization of Africa
would result in political instability, leaving those African nations vulnerable to Soviet subversion
and communist influence.
Given that the primary objective of United States foreign policy during the Cold War
was to expand U.S. influence and prevent the spread of communism, it is not surprising, given
the close proximity of African colonies such as the Congo or South Africa to the Soviet Union,
that the United States expressed interest in continued colonial rule over the region. However,
what is quite provocative about this intelligence estimate is that it reveals the reason behind why
United States and Western European government officials believed African nations were not
ready for independence from colonial rule. The estimate states, “The Congolese people, largely
illiterate and primitive, had no concept of national unity.”15 Furthermore, “The almost total lack
of trained Congolese makes a competent indigenous administration of the country out of the
question for a long time.”16 This two-part statement is clearly rooted in notions of Caucasian
racial superiority. For one, it categorizes and distinguishes an entire ethnicity of people based on
problems that are inherent within their race exclusively. To call an entire ethnicity of people
“primitive” reflects the racist convictions held by many white United States government officials
13 FOIA, FRUS, 1961–1963 Volume XX, Congo Crisis, Document 2 Special National Intelligence Estimate,
Washington,January 10, 1961. Document 2: Special National Intelligence Estimate
14 Document 2 Special National Intelligence Estimate.
15 Document 2 Special National Intelligence Estimate
16 Document 2 Special National Intelligence Estimate

11
in regards to Africans and other non-white peoples. The second part of the statement supposes
the Congolese need to be trained by the United States in order to effectively govern their country,
which assumes that the Congolese are inherently incapable of doing so on their own solely
because of their ethnicity. By assuming that the Congolese need to be trained in order to
effectively govern their country, the United States government was revealing its belief that the
only way for the Congo to achieve political autonomy was to abandon their own cultural
tradition, which was preventing them from achieving political autonomy, and adopt the tradition
of the United States. Thus, policymakers believed Congolese culture was inferior to that of the
United States. The assumption that Western European cultural values were superior to those of
African nations reflects that many Americans did indeed believe that Black Africans were
inherently inferior because of their ethnicity and thus incapable of establishing a sturdy political,
economic, and social infrastructure. Assuming that an entire ethnicity of people is inherently
inferior solely because of their race is the definition of racism. This instance clearly reveals the
underlying racist motivations behind the United States’ Communist containment policy and the
manifestation of an international Cold War conflict in which racial identity played a key part in
the reconfiguration of power.
Racism did indeed play a large role in the motivations of Communist containment policy
in Africa, and indeed the Cold War conflict in its entirety. The imperial objectives and racist
principles of Communist containment policy did not only manifest themselves in Africa, they
manifested themselves in Latin America as well, which incites the notion that the United States
desired to establish a global capitalist empire in which they maintained imperial hegemony
throughout the Global South. This global empire would thrive on the exploitation and oppression
of non-whites in the Global South. James William Park, a historian who specializes in the

12
relationship between Latin America and the United States during the Cold War, provides a
unique historical insight into the motivations and objectives behind the United States
involvement in Latin America in his article “Latin America and the Discovery of
Underdevelopment, 1945-1960”. The purpose of his article is to examine modernization theory
and the reemergence of a sense of responsibility felt by Americans after World War II to provide
impoverished Latin American nations with democracy, industrialization, and a middle-class
dominated society. Park states that the solution, in the eyes of U.S. policymakers, was the
application of “modernization theory” to Latin America. Park defines Modernization Theory as
follows:
“In general terms modernization theory held that the path toward modernization, also
referred to as ‘development’, and early in the period as ‘Westernization’, had been traced by
England and followed by the U.S and Western Europe and that other nations could follow a
similar path by evolving in stages along a continuum from traditional to modern societies.”17
“Modernity” was defined economically as secular, urban, and industrial. Politically,
modernity was defined by the achievement of democracy and socially, modernity was defined by
spatial and social mobility, and a predominately middle-class society.18 The primary objective
behind the application of Modernization Theory was in reality to prevent the spread of
communist influence to Latin American nations by sharing with them the benefits of Capitalism,
as well as the social, economic, and political traditions of the Western Bloc. Just as communist
containment was founded upon notions of the racial superiority of Western European Caucasians
17 Park, James. Latin America and the Discovery of Underdevelopment,1945-1960.New York: Garland Publishing
Inc, 1998. P.198
18 Park, James. P.201

13
over non-white peoples from third world nations, so to was modernization theory. An American
economist from 1960 stated, “If economic development [in the third world] is to proceed, value
systems, attitudes and economic institutions, relations and organizations must correspond more
closely to those of the West with their greater emphasis on material gain.”19 The emphasis on the
“West” in modernization theory and in the economist’s statement effectively represents whites in
contrast to blacks and Latinos, and thus expose the racist motivations behind modernization
theory and U.S. aid to Latin America overall. Essentially, as Park argues, Modernization theory
strengthened existing racist attitudes towards Latin America by disparaging Latin American
institutions, traditions, and culture as a whole.20 More importantly, it required that Latin
American cultural traditions be completely abandoned in order to achieve modernization.21 Thus,
it was impossible in the eyes of U.S. policymakers, whose primary goal was the containment of
communism, for Latino Americans to achieve a “modernized” capitalist society, because of
problems inherent with their race. As was also reflected in the Congo and South Africa situations,
the international objectives of the communist containment policy were intrinsically linked to
notions of the racial superiority of white, western European culture over non-white cultures from
the Global south in Latin America and Africa.
Now that the racist motivations and imperialist objectives of communist containment
policy have been exposed, the influential role of racial identity within the struggle for power that
defined the Cold War becomes strikingly clear. Once the historiographical framework which
focuses on the active participation of Cuba as the principle third-world communist revolutionary
21 Park, James. P. 202

14
leader is established, Castro’s ultimate goal of cementing and expanding his power globally,
which parallels the ultimately imperial objectives of the United States, begins to emerge into the
historical spotlight. The ultimately racist principles upon which U.S. communist containment
policy was founded, coupled with its underlying imperial objectives, provided Castro the perfect
ideological opponent to his revolution. By labeling racial oppression at the hands of U.S.
imperialism as the ideological opponent to his revolution, particularly in an era where issues of
racial identity were so polarizing, Castro justified his position of leadership and expanded his
power by gaining new followers both within Cuba and abroad. The Angolan intervention serves
as the most sterling example of Cuba’s role in the international cold war conflict, and exposes
how Castro’s commitment to fighting U.S. imperialism served as an ideological veil to disguise
his ultimate objectives of extending his power globally.
Piero Gliejeses, in his article “The View From Havana”, provides a detailed analysis of
Angolan intervention and uses it to challenge the traditional Cold War dichotomy, which
illustrates the conflict as an ideological one between communism and capitalism. Through
analysis of declassified CIA and Cuban intelligence documents, he shows Castro’s involvement
in the Congo and the Angolan intervention was in fact a reflection of his commitment to racial
justice. Piero makes the claim that to Castro and the other Cuban revolutionary leaders, the
primary objective of the Communist revolution was not solely to fight capitalism, but to fight
racial oppression as a product of U.S. imperialism. As part of his challenge to traditional study of
Cold War history, Gleijeses illustrates through the analysis of Castro’s and other Cuban
revolutionary leaders’ speeches and writings that the Angolan intervention was in fact a sterling
example of Castro’s independence from the Soviet Union. Newly declassified CIA intelligence

15
released under the Freedom of Information act supports this claim, which I will explore in detail
in the following section.
Although Gliejeses’ argument does insight a challenge to the traditional U.S.-Soviet
Union dichotomy, his argument ultimately fails to break free from the tendency to dichotomize
the Cold War because he still claims that the Cold War was a dichotomized conflict between U.S.
supported counter revolution and Cuban supported Counter-revolution. Lillian Guerra, in her
article entitled “Beyond Paradox: Counter-revolution and the origins of Political Culture in the
Cuban Revolution, 1959-2009”, provides a more nuanced historiographical contextualization of
the Cold War that illustrates the multi-dimensional aspect of the conflict and breaks any
dichotomy typically associated with the Cold War conflict. Guerra argues that Castro used the
impending threat of U.S. counter-revolutionary movements and communist containment to
provide an ideological justification to the revolution. She states, “Put simply, [Cuban]
revolutionary leaders used U.S. hostility as a means for justifying a permanent state of war that
entailed strict policing of the actions and attitudes of citizens and fellow revolutionary activists
alike.”22 Given the historiographical context of this essay, which defines the Cold War as a
competition for power, Guerra’s argument suggests that revolutionary leaders primarily
concerned with establishing and maintaining power used the impending threat of U.S.
communist containment policy and its association with imperialism to maintain and expand their
authority. Likewise, the United States used the foreign threat of the Communist revolution to
justify their authority locally and internationally. Given Guerra’s historiographical insight, the
role of racial identity in the idealization of both the revolution and counter-revolution begins to
22
Lillian Guerra. Beyond Paradox: Counterrevolution and the Origins of Political Culture in the Cuban Revolution,
1959-2009,from A Century of Revolution.Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2010. P. 204

16
emerge from the background. Racial identity played a fundamental role in the competition over
the establishment and expansion of power that defined the Cold War conflict. Communist
containment policy was founded upon the belief in the inherent and ultimate superiority of white,
western-European cultural tradition over the cultural tradition of non-white peoples in third-
world nations. As has been revealed previously in this essay, this was because U.S. government
officials believed people from African and Latin American nations to be too “primitive” and thus
unable to withstand Soviet Subversion on their own because of flaws inherent within their race.
Simultaneously, revolutionary leaders from Cuba such as Fidel Castro exploited the supposed
impending threat of U.S. imperialism to justify his own revolution, gain support, and ultimately
expand his power locally and internationally.
The Cuban interest in Africa intensified in the 1960s and onward throughout the 1970s.
During this time period, Cuban revolutionaries believed that the Communist revolution had great
prospects in Africa. The interest of Cuban revolutionary leaders in Africa sparks some important
historical questions that pose a challenge to traditional Cold War historiography. What made
African nations so attractive to Cuban revolutionary leaders? Moreover, how does the Cuban
involvement in supporting revolution in Zaire and Angola portray Castro’s supposed
commitment to racial justice as an ideological veil to disguise his ultimate goal of extending his
power and influence globally? Gleijeses historical analysis attempts to answer some of these
very questions and explain their historical significance. In light of the Lillian Guerra’s argument
pertaining to Castro’s quest for power, a critical analysis of Gleijeses’ argument illustrates how
Castro used his ideological support of revolution in Africa to exercise his power abroad. In
addition, recently declassified Cuban government and military documents used by Gleijeses in

17
his historical analysis, as well as CIA intelligence released under the Freedom information act,
provide answers to these questions.
The beginning of 1960s marked a high point for the international communist revolution
spearheaded by Cuba. From Gleijeses account, “The View From Havana”, “This was the
moment of the Great illusion, when the Cubans, and many others, believed that the revolution
beckoned in Africa. Guerillas were fighting the Portuguese in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and
Mozambique. Above all there was Zaire, where armed revolt had been spreading with stunning
speed, threatening the survival of the corrupt pro-American regime that presidents Eisenhower
and Kennedy had laboriously put into place.”23 The support provided by Cuban revolutionary
forces and U.S. supported counter revolutionary forces in Zaire serves as a perfect historical
example of how both Castro and the US government justified their expansion of power abroad as
some sort of ideological commitment.
In an effort save the pro-American regime in Zaire, the Johnson administration raised an
army of more than one thousand specifically white mercenaries in a major covert operation. The
decision to send one thousand white mercenaries in order to crush the revolutionary effort in
Zaire clearly illustrates the link between racial identity and the struggle for power that was
framed as an ideological war against the expansion of communism by the United States. This act
in itself suggests that the United States’ Communist containment policy and international
counter-revolutionary efforts were motivated by notions of the racial superiority of white,
western European culture over Third World nations. Che Guevara’s written response to the
situation reveals the ideological motivation behind Cuba’s support of revolution in Africa. He
23 Gliejeses, Piero. The View From Havana: Lessons from Cuba's African Journey 1959-1976.London: Duke
University Press,2008 p. 113.

18
states, “Our view was that the situation in the Congo [Zaire] was a problem that concerned all
mankind.”24 To the Cubans, this decision by the Johnson administration was a staunch reflection
of the underlying imperial objectives of United States foreign policy towards third world nations
and the racist principles on which these objectives were founded. This perception is justified
given the Johnson administration’s decision to hire one thousand specifically white South
African mercenaries to crush the Zairian revolutionary regime. Thus, Cuba’s support of
revolutionary movements in Zaire not only to assisted the local revolution, but rather served as a
symbolic stand against U.S. imperialism and the counter-revolution worldwide, which Castro
used to justify his authority domestically and extend his power internationally.
In her fight against international racial oppression in Africa at the hands of imperialist,
pro-American regimes, Cuba provided military support, which, as is revealed in the following
statements made by Che Guevara, clearly illustrate how Castro effectively framed his pursuit of
power as an ideological war against racial oppression at the hands of U.S. imperialism. Guevara
went on a trip to Africa in 1974, where he met with the rebel leaders of Zaire, Laurent Kabila
and Gaston Soumialot and wrote “I offered him [Kabila], on behalf of our government, about
thirty instructors and all the weapons we could spare, and he accepted with delight. Soumialot
also asked that the instructors be black… Our next task was to select a group of black Cubans, all
volunteer, to join the struggle in the Congo [Zaire].”25 Soumialot’s request for specifically black
soldiers clearly illustrates how the ideological commitment to racial justice was utilized by
leaders of the revolutionary movement to exercise authority internationally. By examining the
Johnson administration’s dispatch of 1000 specifically white mercenaries to halt the
24 Gliejeses, Piero. P. 113
25 Gliejeses, Piero. P. 114.

19
revolutionary movement in Zaire alongside Soumialot’s request for specifically black
revolutionary leaders, the fundamental role of racial identity in the struggle for power definitive
of the Cold War conflict becomes blatantly obvious. As is revealed in this statement from Che’s
writings, the ideological commitment against racial injustice at the hands of US imperialism and
apartheid was effectively used to provide a tangible enemy to the revolution and in turn extend
Cuba’s power internationally. The war between communist revolution and anti-communist
counter-revolution was thus ultimately a competition for power in which racial identity was used
by those who held power to provide an ideological justification for maintaining and extending
their authority.
One aspect of Gleijeses’ historiographical insight that remains quite strong despite his
tendency to dichotomize the Cold War is his claim that Cuba did indeed play an active role in the
global conflict, independent of the Soviet Union. He claims that Castro’s involvement in the
Angolan intervention was not because of Soviet demand but rather quite the contrary; he claims
Castro’s participation in the Angolan intervention was a reflection of his commitment to racial
justice. From Gleijeses account: “ Castro sent troops [to Angola] because he was committed to
racial justice. The victory of the Pretoria-Washington Axis would have meant the victory of
apartheid, tightening the grip of white domination over the people of southern Africa. It was a
defining moment: Castro sent his soldiers.”26 Although Gleijeses’ argument fails to acknowledge
Castro’s use of racial justice as an ideological cover up for exercising and extending his power
abroad, his argument requires that the Cuban participation in the Angolan intervention was not
because of soviet demand, which reinforces the concept that Cuba did indeed participate actively
in the global reconfiguration of power independent of the Soviet Union. Gleijeses’ historical
26 Gliejeses, Piero. P.125

20
claim is supported by recently declassified Message from the Soviet Government to the United
States government, in which the Soviet government claims “Not a single Soviet man is taking
part in the hostilities in Angola. The Soviet Union never was and never could be in favor of
unleashing civil war in Angola. It has always supported and is acting in support of the aspirations
of the Angolan patriotic forces, as well as of the efforts of the African states designed to ensure
national independence and peaceful development of Angola.”27 This document clearly reveals
that the Soviet Union denied any participation in the Angolan intervention, and so the traditional
claim that Castro acted under Soviet demand in his participation in the Angolan intervention is
subject to further questioning. Rather, by claiming his involvement in the Angolan intervention
was a commitment to racial justice against apartheid and US imperialism, Castro was able to
provide an ideological justification for sending troops to Africa and thus exercising his power
internationally.
One aspect of both Gleijeses’ and Geurra’s historiographical framework that is subject to
further challenge is their strict association between the United States supported counter-
revolution, and the Cuban supported revolution. In reality, both Castro and the United States
government reached outward to gain allies within nations from opposing sides of the
revolution/counter-revolution. Alejandro De La Fuente, in his article ”Building a Nation for All”
reveals that in his fight against racial oppression at the hands of US imperialism, Castro
exploited the United States’ own domestic problems with racial equality to gain allies within the
United States. Simultaneously, the United States reached outward to local ruling elites in African
and Latin American nations, who were sympathetic to the demands of the hemisphere’s Cold
27 FOIA, FRUS, 1969-1976 Volume XXVIII, Southern Africa, Document 142, Message From the Soviet
Government to the United States Government, Moscow,undated Document 142: Message From the Soviet
Government to the United States Government

21
War hegemon. From the historical perspective provided by De La Fuente, the underlying racial
conflict of the Cold War was not simply an international struggle of non-white nations led by
Cuba against the racial oppression at the hands of characteristically white nations’ imperialistic
practices. Rather, Leaders from both the United States and Cuba reached out to potential allies
within nations from both hemispheres, reflecting a multi-dimensional, transnational conflict in
which notions of racial identity were used as an ideological justification for the expansion of
power. De La Fuente states, “In its search for allies within and outside of the United States, the
issue of race became a central pillar of Cuba’s international policy. Cuban authorities soon
realized that African Americans could be a valuable ally and that racism was a formidable
political weapon to counteract the negative campaign waged by the U.S. mainstream press
against the revolutionary government.”28 Castro’s decision to use the United States’ own
domestic problem with racism to gain African American support from within the United States
illustrates the transnationalization of the Cold War conflict. Simultaneously, declassified U.S.
intelligence reveals that the CIA engaged in political sabotage abroad in Cuba with the hopes of
gaining allies to the counter-revolution from within Cuba. A paper prepared for the U.S.
government states “The CIA covert action program aims at maintaining all feasible pressures on
Cuba and at creating and exploiting situations in Cuba to stimulate dissident elements within the
regime, particularly the armed forces, to carry out a coup.”29 This CIA intelligence illustrates that,
just as Castro reached out to potential allies within the United States, so too did Washington
reach out for potential allies within Cuba. The following section includes a speech delivered by
28 De La Fuente, Alejandro. Building A Nation For All. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.P.
296
29 FOIA, FRUS, 1964–1968 Volume XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba; Haiti; Guyana, Document 226, Paper
Prepared in the U.S. Government Washington,undated.Review Of Current Program Of Covert Action Against
Cuba

22
Castro that reveals his utilization of the United States’ own problems with racism to gain
revolutionary support from within the United States, which he in turn used to justify his authority.
In 1975, Castro delivered a speech entitled “We Stand with the People of Africa.” This
speech illustrates how Castro utilized the imperialism and racism associated with U.S.
communist containment policy and the counter-revolution to provide a tangible ideological
opponent to the revolution. This in turn reinforced the authority of revolutionary leaders and
provided an ideological justification for their ultimate objective, which was to maintain and
expand their power. Castro publicly empathizes with Angola stating “The imperialists seek to
prevent us from aiding our Angolan brothers.”30 Use of the term brothers in reference to Cuba’s
relationship with Angola reflects Castro’s attempt to empathize with other third world nations
and gain their support for the revolution. Since participating in the revolution essentially entailed
submitting to Castro’s authority as the principle revolutionary leader, Castro effectively extended
his power to Africa. Castro continues by saying “But we must tell the Yankees to bear in mind
we are a Latin American nation and a Latin African nation as well.”31 In this last statement,
Castro makes a conscious effort to dichotomize the Cold War as a conflict between Imperialist
Yankees, and Latin Americans and Africans. This provided a tangible ideological enemy for
Castro’s revolution, and thus legitimized his authority. In addition, he links racial oppression to
U.S. imperialism by citing the U.S. use of South African mercenary troops to curb the revolution
in Angola. He states “And today, who are the representatives, the symbols of the most hateful
and inhuman form of racial discrimination? The South African fascists and racists. And Yankee
imperialism… has launched South African mercenary troops in an attempt to crush Angola’s
30 Castro, Fidel, “We Stand With the People of Africa”, 1974, Frostburg State university ILL, p. 8
31 Castro, Fidel, p. 8

23
independence.”32 Castro’s statements in this speech illustrate how he exploited an ideological
commitment against white domination and racial oppression under apartheid to justify his quest
for power. The thesis of the speech truly exposes Castro’s use of ideology to legitimize his
ultimately imperial objectives parallel to those of the United States: “We are part of the world
revolutionary movement, and in Africa’s struggle against racists and imperialists, we’ll stand,
without hesitation, side-by-side with the peoples of Africa.”33 In one fell swoop, Castro draws
the link between U.S. imperialism and racial oppression, and establishes a special responsibility
toward Africa based on empathy for African nations as non-white, third world nations subjected
to imperialism. The words of Castro incite challenge to traditional approach to the study of Cold
war history, which typically portrays the conflict as an ideological war between the United States
and the Soviet Union. Instead, they lend credit to overall claim of this paper, that the Cold War
was in fact a global reconfiguration of power in which the ruling elite legitimized their ultimately
imperial objectives by proclaiming an ideological commitment to either prevent the spread of
communism or prevent U.S. imperial expansion. Effectively, the United States used the political
culture associated with the Cuban revolution to define the counter-revolution. Simultaneously,
Castro utilized the ideology associated with the counter-revolution to define the political culture
of the revolution. Neither the revolution nor counter-revolution could have existed without the
other because leaders from both sides used them to provide a tangible ideological enemy to
justify their authority.
As is revealed by his speech, Castro used the United States underlying imperial
objectives within her communist containment policy, which ultimately entailed the establishment
of a global empire that would thrive on the exploitation and oppression of non-white peoples in

24
third world nations, to define the political culture of the revolution. This became the principle
ideological opponent of the Cuban Communist revolution, which Castro utilized to justify his
ultimate objective of maintaining and expanding his power locally and internationally. Newly
released foreign relations documents from the CIA confirm the imperial objectives of the United
States, which Castro used to provide an ideological enemy for his revolution. A paper prepared
for the US government entitled “Review of the Current program of Covert Action Against Cuba”
confirms the imperialistic goals of the United States when it states, “The ultimate US objective is
the replacement of the present government in Cuba by one fully compatible with the goals of the
United States.”34 This statement clearly supports the notion that the primary motivations of
Communist containment policy were more than simply ideological. That is to say, Communist
containment policy was not solely motivated by the ideological and moral superiority of
Capitalism over Communism. Likewise, Castro’s revolution was not solely motivated by his
supposed ideological commitment to fighting racial oppression at the hands of U.S. imperialism.
Rather, both U.S. and Cuban foreign policy during the Cold War were primarily motivated by
“realpolitik”; those in power were concerned with establishing and expanding their power
throughout the globe, not only in the western hemisphere but the eastern hemisphere as well. In
order to carry out these objectives, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary leaders framed their
quest for power as an ideological commitment against an impending foreign threat. Government
officials from the United States relied on the supposed inability of non-white peoples from third
world nations to defend against Soviet subversion, an assumption which is highly racist, to
justify their participation in Counter-revolutionary movements in Africa. Simultaneously, Castro
34 FOIA, FRUS, 1964–1968 Volume XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba; Haiti; Guyana, Document 226, Paper
Prepared in the U.S. Government Washington,undated.Review Of Current Program Of Covert Action Against
Cuba Document 226: Paper Prepared in the U.S. Government

25
utilized the underlying imperial objectives and racism tied to United States communist
containment policy to provide a tangible ideological opponent to his revolution. This in turn
justified his quest for power and provided Castro a legitimate reason to participate in
revolutionary movements abroad in Africa and thereby expand his power internationally.
Greg Grandin, in his book The Last Colonial Massacre, provides an insightful historical
analysis of Revolution and Counter-revolution during the Cold War. He claims that ultimately,
“…Counter-revolutionary terror was inextricably tied to empire… That Washington was not
solely responsible for the coups and atrocities carried out by their [Latin American Allies]
matters less than the fact that they did little do discourage them.”35 In order to support this claim,
Grandin shows how ruling elites, sympathetic to the Counter revolutionary objectives of the
United States, reached both outward to the United States for support and downward to local
power holders who were able mobilize anti-communism among the population. Ultimately,
Grandin claims that the counter-revolution was “powered by subterranean currents of race
hatred.” 36
Grandin’s argument, in light of the evidence presented in this paper, supports a new
challenge to Cold War historiography. The ultimate goal of United States Cold War policy was
not to prevent the spread of communism, but rather to establish a Global capitalist empire in
which the United States would retain imperial hegemony. By its very nature, this empire would
thrive on the social, economic, and political exploitation of third-world “periphery” nations and
their peoples. This is turn provided Castro the perfect ideological justification he needed to
35 Grandin, Greg. The Last Colonial Massacre.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. P. 185
36 Grandin, Greg. P.186

26
participate in the global struggle for power that defined the Cold War conflict. Thus, Castro’s
ultimate objective in supporting the revolution was parallel to that of the United States in its
support of the Counter-revolution; both ultimately were concerned with cementing and
expanding their authority internationally and locally. This challenges the traditional assumption
that both the revolution and the counter-revolution were associated with a moral obligation to
either fight U.S. imperialism or prevent Communist expansion. Instead, this challenge supports
the concept that the ideology typically associated with the Cold War conflict was actually a veil
used by the ruling elite to disguise their quest for power as a moral obligation.
As the declassified CIA documents presented in this essay suggest, communist
containment was indeed founded upon the racist principle that “primitive” peoples in Africa
were unable to establish political and economic infrastructure capable of defending against soviet
subversion on their own because of problems inherent within their race. The documents also
expose the underlying imperial motives behind the United States counter-revolutionary
participation in Africa. Economic gain from petroleum and political gain the region’s strategic
location proved more important than the region’s racist apartheid policy, which reflects both the
imperial objectives and racist principles upon which communist containment was founded. The
United States decision to support the South African regime under apartheid for economic and
strategic gain exposed the racist principles and imperial objectives tied to communist
containment policy to the world, which provided Castro the perfect tangible, ideological enemy
for his own revolution. As is revealed by via the synthesis of Gleijeses, De La Fuente’s, and
Guerra’s arguments, the Cuban participation in the Angolan intervention was in fact a sterling
example of Castro’s use of his commitment to racial justice as an ideological justification for
extending the revolution, and thus his authority, to Africa. Both the United States government

27
and Castro were principally concerned with maintaining and expanding their power locally and
internationally. The United States used the supposed threat posed by the communist revolution to
American cultural values to justify their quest for power as an ideological counter-revolution.
Simultaneously, Castro used the United States own problems with racism and its support of
continued European dominance of colonial peoples in Africa to justify his own authority and
quest for power as an ideological revolution fighting against white imperial domination. Thus,
the Cold War was essentially a competition over global power and influence in which leaders of
both the revolution and counter-revolution framed their imperial objectives as ideological,
thereby providing a moral justification to their desire for power. Racial identity was the focal
point of the ideological justification for both Castro’s and the United States’ participation in
revolutionary and counter-revolutionary movements abroad. The extension of counter-
revolutionary and revolutionary support to Africa provided both Castro and the United States an
ideological justification for expanding their authority and power both internationally and locally.
Racial identity was a defining issue of the 20th century. In no other century have the
issues of race, such as racial equality, racial oppression, and self-determination, had such a
weighing influence on the foreign and domestic policies of nations worldwide. In addition, in no
other time period have the aforementioned issues of race been such a key issue of domestic and
international politics. Consequently, the explosiveness of the issue of racial equality provided
those in power a way of polarizing and instilling fear in the population, in turn providing
justification to their authority and a means of expanding their power abroad. Traditional Cold
War historiography dictates that the Cold War was an ideological conflict between the Soviet
Union and the United States and their cultural values represented by the two socio-economic
systems, Communism and Capitalism. However, as the historical scholarship, declassified

28
government documents, and speeches presented in this essay suggest, the Cold War was in fact a
war over global power in which the ruling elite, including revolutionary leaders such as Castro
and counter-revolutionary leaders such as the United States, utilized the issue of racial identity to
justify their expansion of power abroad to Africa as an ideological commitment. Cuba did indeed
active participate in this global struggle for power, and Castro’s goals paralleled those of the
United States and the Soviet Union in that he was principally concerned with maintaining and
expanding his power locally and internationally.
The underlying racist principles that communist containment policy was ultimately
founded upon, which assumed that non-white peoples from third-world nations would be unable
to defend against Soviet subversion because they are too “primitive”, were used as a justification
for continued European dominance of African colonies. The extension of counter-revolutionary
support to Africa thus provided the United States an ideologically justified method of expanding
its power and influence internationally. In addition, the communist revolution in Cuba was
labeled as a threat to American values such as freedom and democracy, and provided the United
States government the perfect tangible, ideological enemy of which to proclaim they were
fighting against in their quest for global power. Simultaneously, Castro labeled the United States
and the counter-revolution as a threat to the cultural values of Cuba and racial equality
worldwide, thus justifying his position of authority as the principle revolutionary leader capable
of defending against the United States. The underlying racist principles and imperial objectives
associated with the United States communist containment policy provided Castro the perfect
tangible, ideological enemy of which to proclaim he was fighting against in his quest for global
power. Thus, Castro used his commitment to racial justice against white imperial domination and
apartheid as an ideological justification for extending his authority and power to Africa.

29
Fear of an impending foreign threat to American cultural values is still utilized by the
ruling elite today to maintain and extend their authority both locally and internationally. The War
on Terror after 9/11 effectively provided the Bush Administration an ideological justification for
exercising U.S. authority in the Middle East. The majority of the fears linked to foreign threats
such as those associated with the Middle East are primarily grounded in differences of racial
identity. People inherently fear differences in cultural practices and ethnic differences of others,
primarily because they are foreign by nature. Those in positions of leadership are well aware of
this, and exploit our inherent fear of the unknown to justify and reinforce their position of
authority. Our culture’s supposed commitment to equality and self-determination should prevent
our leaders from exploiting our inherent fear of foreign races and cultural practices, yet clearly
our commitment to these values that we hold so dear has waned over the past century. The ruling
elite will continue to justify their thirst for more power as ideological, as that has proven
throughout history to be the best method of justifying one’s position of leadership. Until we can
fully commit ourselves to the cultural values of freedom, democracy, equality, and self-
determination that supposedly define the United States, those in positions of leadership will
continue to exploit our inherent fear of the unknown to justify, maintain, and expand their power.

HIS 499 Thesis Final Draft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to HIS 499 Thesis Final Draft

Similar to HIS 499 Thesis Final Draft (11)

HIS 499 Thesis Final Draft