American policy toward southern Africa during the Carter and Reagan administrations: The influence of interests and ideas on policy.

摘要

Most scholars adopt one of three explanations for what influenced American policy toward southern Africa during the Carter and Reagan administrations: economic interests; strategic concerns; or pressure from ethnic interest groups. Theories based on economic and strategic considerations cannot explain American sanctions against Rhodesia and South Africa, evidence of limited Soviet control over African client states, and the high level of conflict within each administration over policy. Ethnic interest groups unquestionably influenced policy, but their influence was due primarily to the beliefs they espoused, not their economic or demographic power.;This dissertation argues that ideas or beliefs, and more specifically, conflict between two philosophies of political change, were the primary influence on American policy toward southern Africa. Most Americans shared a common political philosophy, described by Hartz and Packenham as American liberalism, which emphasized the--often contradictory--goals of anti-radicalism and anti-authoritarianism. Some officials of the Carter and Reagan administrations, reacting to what they perceived as the inevitable and unacceptable levels of violent conflict caused by American liberal policies, developed an alternative philosophy that emphasized stability as its central goal. This approach contrasted sharply with American liberalism both in its toleration of radicalism and its insistence that transition to majority rule in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa occur through elite-led voluntary reform.;Conflict between American liberal anti-radicalism, growing American liberal anti-authoritarian activism against racial oppression, and attempts by some administration officials to introduce policies they believed would promote stability, best account for influences on, and apparent inconsistencies within, policies. In this instance, the influence of ideas or beliefs on policy was not a positive one: flawed assumptions within both philosophies, and conflicts and compromises between the two philosophies, appeared to heighten not just the influence of both radical and authoritarian forces in the region, but also the level of conflict and instability.