Nancy Mitchell Jimmy Carter in Africa: Race and the Cold War Washington, DC

Date01 March 2017
DOI10.1177/0020702017694162
Published date01 March 2017
AuthorRobert Anthony Waters
Subject MatterBook Reviews
appropriate. Given the complex nature of treaty ratif‌ication in the US, should the
institutional complexities not also be factored into the explanatory calculus?
Thimm notes that the US’s timid approach—if not often outright opposition—to
multilateral treaties is ‘‘the result of America’s unique institutions. It is these insti-
tutions we should focus on’’ (249). The author observes that institutions do not
change, and therefore, as is vogue with scientif‌ic inquiry, variables are more
important than constants. However, ample evidence is put forth in this work to
suggest that institutions do constrain, condition, enable, and empower social
action. Therefore, more emphasis on the institutional environment—in addition
to the actors-based explanation—should also be a part of the explanation. It
would, for example, be quite interesting to discern the negotiating history of
Article 2, section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution, which sets the institutional
parameters for treaty ratif‌ication.
In the f‌inal analysis, one is compelled to agree with Thimm. Familiarity with the
US foreign policymaking process as well as the impact of domestic political actors in
foreign policymaking is key to understanding why the US joins some treaties and
why it does not join others. Awareness of the role that processes and actors play
in US treaty acceptance most certainly aids US as well as foreign negotiators
alike (248).
Nancy Mitchell
Jimmy Carter in Africa: Race and the Cold War
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Centre Press, 2016; 883pp., $45.00 USD (cloth)
ISBN: 9780804793858
Reviewed by: Robert Anthony Waters Jr, Ohio Northern University r-waters@onu.edu
Historian Nancy Mitchell has written a very good book about Jimmy Carter and
the Cold War in Africa, focusing on his response to crises in White-minority-ruled
Rhodesia and the Horn of Africa. The width and depth of her research is a model
that diplomatic historians should aspire to achieve, her writing f‌lows, and she
places Carter’s Africa policy within the larger context of US foreign policy and
politics. At times she provides an hour-by-hour account of events, and the pace
rarely drags. Despite these strengths, the book is ultimately unsuccessful because
Mitchell is trapped in the anti-Cold War paradigm that dominates US diplomatic
history.
In Southern Africa, Mitchell claims for Carter the mantle of true foreign policy
realist: he assessed Rhodesia as a potential Cold War hot spot, but also made a
careful study of the African context, giving his policy nuance and suppleness.
Mitchell praises Carter for his refusal to lift sanctions even after the White-minor-
ity government turned over a large share of power to nationalist Black leaders who
opposed the Marxist guerillas, arguing that without the guerillas, the civil war
would have continued and probably led to Cuban and Soviet intervention. She
concludes: ‘‘Carter ... had to ... claim the moral high ground but not end up on
Book Reviews 151

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT