KC Johnson

Core 1220: Nov. 30

The Struggles of the West

Watergate scandal (four parts), click next at the bottom of 1st three pages

OPEC oil embargo (and US response)

Growth of real gross national product (in percentages);

green signifies negative growth each year; yellow signifies positive growth each year

Helsinki Accords (1975)–signed by United States, USSR, Canada, and all European countries EXCEPT Albania:

IV. Territorial integrity of States

The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States.

Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.

The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other’s territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.

. . .VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.

Within this framework the participating States will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.

The participating States on whose territory national minorities exist will respect the right of persons belonging to such minorities to equality before the law, will afford them the full opportunity for the actual enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and will, in this manner, protect their legitimate interests in this sphere.

The participating States recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well- being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States.

They will constantly respect these rights and freedoms in their mutual relations and will endeavour jointly and separately, including in co-operation with the United Nations, to promote universal and effective respect for them.

They confirm the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in this field.

In the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the participating States will act in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They will also fulfil their obligations as set forth in the international declarations and agreements in this field, including inter alia the International Covenants on Human Rights, by which they may be bound.

VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples

The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self- determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal significance of respect for and effective exercise of equal rights and self- determination of peoples for the development of friendly relations among themselves as among all States; they also recall the importance of the elimination of any form of violation of this principle.


Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party, British prime minister candidate) announces her political program, 1979 (BBC Film and Television Archive: OUP transcript):

Michael Cole, BBC

Then, jackets off for the first conference. Half the 300 newsmen couldn’t get in, many of them overseas journalists intrigued by the prospect of a woman Prime Minister. With both major parties now fielding their leaders, Mrs Thatcher said she felt her day one had gone well, and what’s more she’d enjoyed it.

David Holmes, BBC

Enjoyment which showed itself strongly as she introduced her manifesto with considerable panache this morning. It’s a manifesto which has policies on inflation at its head. Conservatives would fight it by proper monetary discipline, gradually reducing the level of government borrowing and making substantial economies in government spending. If the government does not economise, says the manifesto, the sacrifices required of ordinary people will be all the greater. The manifesto comes from a party which believes it’ll be the next government. But a party, as she and her colleagues took the stage today, making only limited promises.


We are a party that does not believe in promising to spend money before that new money has been created and made by extra production. You will, therefore, find that the promises are very limited. To do anything other would mean that we would have to take away more money from people in the way of taxes and rates or put more borrowing onto the next generation when taxes, rates and borrowing are already too high.

The whole strategy of the manifesto is, therefore, that we must create extra wealth, produce more goods and services and increase the slice of the cake before we can decide how that extra shall be sliced up.

David Holmes, BBC

But one promise is made very firmly. It takes first place in what the Conservatives are offering the electorate—to cut direct taxation. The manifesto promises to cut income tax at all levels, particularly at the bottom and top of the income scale. No tax would fall on the low paid through the raising of tax thresholds. But there’d have to be increases in taxes on spending like VAT to help pay for these cuts. Mrs Thatcher was asked how long the country would have to wait for all this:


One of the objects of cutting that direct tax is to make it worthwhile to do the extra work, to get better managers back into British industry. With better managers and making it worthwhile to work, to persuade trade unions to drop some of the restrictive practices, and that alone could put such a boost to output, even without any extra investment, and certainly there will be a time lag, certainly we shall have to look for as many economies in public expenditure as we possibly can to get the transfer.

We shall hope to make a start, a very definite start, in cutting tax in the first year in the first budget, because we believe it is an article of faith, and we’re not going to get the increased wealth production unless we do. That will be a start, and only a start.

David Holmes, BBC

Conservatives would denationalise the aerospace and shipbuilding industries, they’d run down the National Enterprise Board and sell off its shareholdings in industry. They don’t say they’d never subsidise a struggling firm in the national interest, but such help would be temporary and tapered.

Conservatives would spend more on defence, strengthen the peace, sharpen the punishment of young offenders, ask MPs to vote soon on capital punishment.

Then back in the mainstream, they’d these proposals on pay bargaining. Free bargaining in private firms, no government interference, cash limits would regulate pay in public concerns, there would be no question of subsidising excessive pay deals, but they’d seek to make no strike agreements in a few essential services like those who’ve been on strike this winter.

And on the trade unions, Conservatives would try for this reform among others; limit picketing to those in dispute at their own place of work. Safeguards on the closed shop would include a right of appeal against expulsion from the union, and the granting of a closed shop only if a big majority of workers voted for it on a secret ballot, such secret ballots to be backed by public funds. And when workers go on strike, there’d be a reduction in the social security benefits their families could draw. Conservatives want the unions themselves to bear a greater part of the cost of being on strike.

The question’s always been, how would the unions react to such proposals? One foreign questioner wondered if Mrs Thatcher was ready for the confrontation?

East German Journalist

Do you think you have got enough policemen, soldiers, whatever it takes, to have a confrontation with extremists on an issue of face?


I don’t think we’re quite on the same wavelength. [loud laughter, especially from platform, Willie Whitelaw leading it] British trade union …

East German Journalist

Will you have a confrontation?


I don’t anticipate a confrontation. British trade unions should represent their members. There are 12 million members. I believe we shall have a greater proportion of those voting Conservative than we’ve ever had before, because they approve of the changes which we’re going to make, and because many, many of them would far rather have the trade unions out of politics, looking after the interests of their members in a traditional trade union way, than what is happening now.

I believe we shall get a very great deal of co-operation. I believe that many, many, members of trade unions will say thank goodness someone’s prepared to tackle this in a positive way. You can keep your confrontation; it’s not for me.

David Holmes, BBC

Just as the campaign was dying down for Easter, the Prime Minister launched himself into a vigorous attack on Mrs Thatcher. He’s taken up an incident at this morning’s news conference in Conservative headquarters over the future of public sector pay.

Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues were asked what they’d do about the awards of the Comparability Commission which has been set up to consider how the low paid among public service employees compared with those in private firms, and how far they should be brought into line. It’s one way the government tried to negotiate a path out of this winter’s pay troubles. The Conservatives have made quite clear that they dislike the new body, and in answer to questions this morning, they described how they’d treat the cases referred to it. Would they honour the awards? Sir Geoffrey Howe replied, then Mrs Thatcher took up the point.


Cash settlements already agreed will be honoured. Where they go to the Comparability Commission and the amount recommended is above the amount of money available, then if you’re to meet them in full, economies may well have to be found elsewhere. Exactly in line with the …


words inaudible


Otherwise, you see, no, otherwise it means demanding more in tax and rates from people who are already paying too much.


I see that, but does that mean that you would honour those awards and then economise?


You have to do the two at the same time, otherwise you would go above the cash limit. Uh, you would have, in fact, if you honour the award and keep the same number of people—well, I doubt whether you could keep the same number of people—but you may well have to look for economies elsewhere in a service, or elsewhere in the economy.

President Jimmy Carter announces a U.S. boycott of the 1980 Olympics, in Moscow, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

January 23, 1980: From Jimmy Carter’s State of the Union Address: “Three basic developments have helped to shape our challenges: the steady growth and increased projection of Soviet military power beyond its own borders; the overwhelming dependence of the Western democracies on oil supplies from the Middle East; and the press of social and religious and economic and political change in the many nations of the developing world, exemplified by the revolution in Iran…now we face a broader and more fundamental challenge in this region because of the recent military action of the Soviet Union…The implications of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could pose the most serious threat to the peace since the Second World War. The vast majority of nations on Earth have condemned this latest Soviet attempt to extend its colonial domination of others and have demanded the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops…The Soviet Union must pay a concrete price for their aggression. While this invasion continues, we and the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as usual with the Soviet Union…I have notified the Olympic Committee that with Soviet invading forces in Afghanistan, neither the American people nor I will support sending an Olympic team to Moscow. The Soviet Union is going to have to answer some basic questions: Will it help promote a more stable international environment in which its own legitimate, peaceful concerns can be pursued? Or will it continue to expand its military power far beyond its genuine security needs, and use that power for colonial conquest? The Soviet Union must realize that its decision to use military force in Afghanistan will be costly to every political and economic relationship it values…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: