American foreign policy during thepresidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) focused heavily on theCold War which shifted from détente to confrontation. The Reagan administration pursued a policy ofrollback with regards to communist regimes. TheReagan Doctrine operationalized these goals as the United States offered financial, logistical, training, and military equipment to anti-communist opposition inAfghanistan,Angola, andNicaragua.^[1][2] He expanded support to anti-communist movements in Central andEastern Europe.

Reagan's foreign policy also saw major shifts with regards to the Middle East. US intervention in theLebanese Civil War was halted as Reagan ordered an evacuation of troops following the1983 Marine Corps Barracks Attack. The1979 Iran hostage crisis in Tehran strained relations with Iran and during theIran-Iraq War, the administration publicly supported Iraq and sold weapons toSaddam Hussein.

Anti-communism was at the forefront with Reagan's Latin American foreign policy and the US supported forces fighting communist insurgencies or governments. As his administration progressed, opposition to continued US aid for these groups began to gather steam in Congress. Eventually, Congress forbade any US financial or material aid to certain anti-communist groups, among them theContras in Nicaragua. In response, the Reagan administration facilitated covert arms sales to Iran and used the proceeds to fund Latin American anti-communists. The fallout from theIran-Contra affair dominated Reagan's second term in office.

His policies are credited to have helped weaken theSoviet Union and its control overWarsaw Pact countries.^{[3][additional citation(s) needed]} Although scholars have pushed back against giving Reagan the lion's share of the credit.^[4] Western confrontation combined with the Soviet Union's mishandling of domestic affairs led to its weakening and ultimate dissolution. In 1989, after Reagan left office the Revolutions of 1989 saw Eastern European countries overthrow their communist regimes. Following the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 the United States emerged as the world's sole superpower and Reagan's successor George H.W. Bush sought to improve relations with formercommunist regimes inRussia andEastern Europe.^[5]

Reagan's 1985 foreign policy team

George H. W. Bush

William J. Casey

Robert McFarlane

George Shultz

Caspar Weinberger

Reagan had close friendships with key political leaders across the globe, especially the two strong conservativesMargaret Thatcher in Britain, andBrian Mulroney in Canada. He and Thatcher provided mutual support in terms of fighting liberalism, reducing the welfare state, and confronting theSoviet Union in what turned out to be the final years of theCold War.^[6]

Reagan ultimately departed from the historical policy ofdétente with the Soviet Union, which had been followed afterWorld War II by consecutiveU.S. presidents, includingRichard Nixon,Gerald Ford, andJimmy Carter. The Reagan administration implemented a new policy towards the Soviet Union, detailed in NSDD-32, aNational Security Decisions Directive, to begin confronting the Soviet Union on three fronts: decreasing Soviet access to high technology and diminishing their resources, including depressing the value of Soviet commodities on the world market; to (also) increase American defense expenditures to strengthen the U.S. negotiating position; and to force the Soviets to devote more of their economic resources to defense. The massive American military build-up was the most visible.

Reagan supported anti-communist groups around the world. In a policy known as the "Reagan Doctrine", his administration promised aid and counterinsurgency assistance to right-wing repressive regimes, such as theMarcos dictatorship in thePhilippines, theSouth Africanapartheid government, and theHissène Habré dictatorship inChad, as well as to guerrilla movements opposing governments linked to the Soviet Union, such as theContras in Nicaragua, theMujahideen in Afghanistan, and theUNITA in Angola.^[7] During theSoviet–Afghan War, Reagan deployed the CIA'sSpecial Activities Division (SAD) Paramilitary Officers to train, equip, and lead the Mujahideen forces against the Soviet Army.^[8][9] Although the CIA (in general) and U.S. CongressmanCharlie Wilson from Texas have received most of the attention, the key architect of this strategy wasMichael G. Vickers, a young Paramilitary Officer.^[10] President Reagan's Covert Action program has been given credit for assisting in ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.^[11][12] When the Polish government suppressed theSolidarity movement in late 1981, Reagan imposed economic sanctions on thePeople's Republic of Poland.

In its national security policies, the administration Reagan administration revived theB-1 bomber program in 1981 that had been canceled by theCarter administration, continued secret development of theB-2 Spirit that Carter intended to replace the B-1, and began production of the MX"Peacekeeper" missile. In response to Soviet deployment of theRSD-10 Pioneer and in accordance withNATO'sdouble-track decision, the administration deployedPershing II missiles in West Germany to gain a stronger bargaining position to eventually eliminate that entire class of nuclear weapons. His position was that if the Soviets did not remove the RSD-10 missiles (without a concession from the US), America would simply introduce the Pershing II missiles for a stronger bargaining position, and both missiles would be eliminated.

One of Reagan's proposals was theStrategic Defense Initiative (SDI). He believed this defense shield could make nuclear war impossible, but the unlikelihood that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars". Critics of the SDI believed that the technological objective was unattainable, that the attempt would likely accelerate thearms race, and that the extraordinary expenditures amounted to a military-industrialboondoggle. Supporters responded that the SDI gave the President a stronger bargaining position. Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned.^[13]

Reagan believed that the American economy was on the move again while the Soviet economy had become stagnant. For a while, the Soviet decline was masked by high prices for Soviet oil exports, but that crutch collapsed in the early-1980s. In November 1985, the oil price was $30/barrel for crude, and in March 1986, it had fallen to only $12.^[14]

Reagan's militant rhetoric inspired dissidents in the Soviet Empire, but also startled allies and alarmed critics.^{[citation needed]} In a famous address to theNational Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983, he called theSoviet Union an "evil empire" that would be consigned to the "ash heap of history". After Soviet fighters downedKorean Airlines Flight 007 on September 1, 1983, he labeled the act an "act of barbarism ... [of] inhuman brutality". Reagan's description of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" drew the wrath of some as provocative, but his description was staunchly defended by his conservative supporters.Michael Johns ofThe Heritage Foundation prominently defended Reagan in aPolicy Review article, "Seventy Years of Evil", in which he identified 208 alleged acts of evil by the Soviet Union since theBolshevik Revolution in 1917.^[15]

On March 3, 1983, Reagan predicted that communism would collapse: "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose—last pages even now are being written", he said.^[16] He elaborated on June 8, 1982, to theBritish Parliament. Reagan argued that the Soviet Union was in deep economic crisis and stated that the Soviet Union "runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens."

This was before Gorbachev rose to power in 1985. Reagan later wrote in hisautobiographyAn American Life that he "did not see the profound changes that would occur in the Soviet Union after Gorbachev rose to power." To confront the Soviet Union's serious economic problems, Gorbachev implemented bold new policies for economic liberalisation and openness calledglasnost andperestroika.

Reagan relaxed his aggressive rhetoric toward the Soviet Union after Gorbachev becameGeneral Secretary of the Soviet Politburo in 1985, and took on a position of negotiating. In turn, the Soviets reversed their hostile view of Reagan and began negotiating in earnest.^[17] The Soviet Union was in deep economic trouble, and could no longer afford an increasingly expensive Cold War. The military consumed as much as 25% of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense ofconsumer goods and investment in civilian sectors.^[18] But the size of theSoviet Armed Forces was not necessarily the result of a simple action-reaction arms race with the United States.^[19] Instead, Soviet spending on thearms race and other Cold War commitments can be understood as both a cause and effect of the deep-seated structural problems in the Soviet system, which accumulated at leasta decade of economic stagnation during the Brezhnev years.^[20] Soviet investment in the defense sector was not necessarily driven by military necessity, but in large part by the interests of massive party and state bureaucracies dependent on the sector for their own power and privileges.^[21]

By the timeMikhail Gorbachev had ascended to power in 1985, the Soviets suffered from aneconomic growth rate close to zero percent, combined with a sharp fall inhard currency earnings as a result of the downward slide in worldoil prices in the 1980s;^[22] petroleum exports made up around 60 percent of the Soviet Union's total export earnings.^[18] To restructure the Soviet economy before it collapsed, Gorbachev announced an agenda of rapid reform, based upon what he calledperestroika, meaning "restructuring", andglasnost, meaning "liberalization" and "openness". Reform required Gorbachev to redirect the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more profitable areas in the civilian sector. As a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy inEastern Europe.

Many U.S.-based Sovietologists and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race,^[23] but Reagan recognized the real change in the direction of the Soviet leadership, and shifted to skillful diplomacy to personally push Gorbachev further with his reforms.^[24]

Reagan sincerely believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to simply look at the prosperous American economy, they too would embracefree markets and a free society.^[25]

At a speech given at theBerlin Wall on the city's 750th birthday,^[26] Reagan pushed Gorbachev further in front of 20,000 onlookers: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The last sentence became "the four most famous words of Ronald Reagan's Presidency".^[26] Reagan later said that the "forceful tone" of his speech was influenced by hearing before his speech that those on the East side of the wall attempting to hear him had been kept away by police.^[26] The Soviet news agency wrote that Reagan's visit was "openly provocative, war-mongering".^[26]

The east–west tensions that had reached intense new heights earlier in the decade rapidly subsided through the mid-to-late 1980s. In 1988, the Soviets officially declared that they would no longer intervene in the affairs of allied states in Eastern Europe. In 1989, Soviet forces withdrew fromAfghanistan.

Reagan'sSecretary of StateGeorge P. Shultz, a former economics professor, privately instructedGorbachev on free market economics. At Gorbachev's request, Reagan gave a speech on free markets at Moscow University.^[27]

When Reagan visited Moscow, he was viewed as a celebrity by the Soviets. Ajournalist asked the president if he still considered the Soviet Union the evil empire. "No", he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."^[28]

In his autobiographyAn American Life, Reagan expressed his optimism about the new direction they charted, his warm feelings for Gorbachev, and his concern for Gorbachev's safety because Gorbachev pushed reforms so hard. "I was concerned for his safety", Reagan wrote. "I've still worried about him. How hard and fast can he push reforms without risking his life?" Events would unravel far beyond what Gorbachev originally intended.

According toDavid Remnick in his bookLenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, Gorbachev'sperestroika andglasnost reforms opened the Pandora's box of freedom. Once the people benefited from the reforms, they wanted more. "Once the regime eased up enough to permit a full-scale examination of the Soviet past", Remnick wrote, "radical change was inevitable. Once the System showed itself for what it was and had been, it was doomed."

In December 1989, Gorbachev andGeorge H. W. Bush declared the Cold War officially over at a summit meeting inMalta.^[29] The Soviet alliance system was by then on the brink of collapse, and the Communist regimes of the Warsaw Pact were losing power. On March 11, 1990Lithuania, led by newly electedVytautas Landsbergis, declared independence from the Soviet Union. The gate to the Berlin Wall was opened and Gorbachev approved. Gorbachev proposed to PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush massive troop reductions in Eastern Europe. In the USSR itself, Gorbachev tried to reform the party to destroy resistance to his reforms, but, in doing so, ultimately weakened the bonds that held the state and union together. By February 1990, theCommunist Party was forced to surrender its 73-year-old monopoly on state power. Soviet hardliners rebelled and staged a coup against Gorbachev, but it failed.Boris Yeltsin rallied Russians in the street while Gorbachev was held hostage. By December 1991, the union-state had dissolved, breaking the USSR up into fifteen separate independent states.Boris Yeltsin became leader of the new Russia.^[30]

In her eulogy to Ronald Reagan athis funeral, former British Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher, whom Reagan worked very closely with during his tenure in office, said, "Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War — not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends. ... Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire.' But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation."

For his role, Gorbachev received the firstRonald Reagan Freedom Award, as well as theNobel Peace Prize.

Reagan had been a prominent spokesman on behalf ofTaiwan in the political arena, but his advisors convinced him to announce in his 1980 campaign that he would continue the opening to China. Haig argued strenuously that thePeople's Republic of China could be a major ally against the Soviet Union. Beijing refused to accept anytwo-China policy but agreed to postpone any showdown. As President, Reagan issued the "Six Assurances" toTaiwan and a joint communique with the PRC reaffirming theone-China policy.^[31] As the Cold War wound down during Reagan's second term, and Shultz replaced Haig, the need for China as an ally faded away. Shultz focused much more on economic trade with Japan.Beijing warmly welcomed the president when he visited in 1984.^[32]

In commercial space travel, Reagan backed a plan which allowed American satellites to be exported and launched on China'sLong March rockets.^[33][34] This was criticized byBill Nelson, then a Florida representative, as delaying U.S.'s own commercial space development, while industry leaders criticized the idea of a nation-state competing with private entities in the rocketry market.^[35] The China satellite export deal continued through Bush and Clinton administrations.^[34]

Trade issues with Japan dominated relationships, especially the threat thatAmerican automobile and high tech industries would be overwhelmed. After 1945, the U.S. produced about 75 percent of world'sauto production. In 1980, the U.S. was overtaken by Japan and then became world's leader again in 1994. In 2006, Japan narrowly passed the U.S. in production and held this rank until 2009, when China took the top spot with 13.8 million units. Japan's economic miracle emerged from a systematic program of subsidized investment in strategic industries—steel, machinery, electronics, chemicals, autos, shipbuilding, and aircraft.^[36][37] During Reagan's first term, Japanese government and private investors owned a third of the debt sold by theUS Treasury, providing Americans with hard currency used to buy Japanese goods.^[38] In March 1985 the Senate voted 92–0 in favor of a Republican resolution that condemned Japan's trade practices as "unfair" and called on President Reagan to curb Japanese imports.^[39] In 1981, Japanese automakers entered into the "voluntary export restraint" limiting the number of autos that they could export to the U.S. to 1.68 million per year.^[40]

Although the main current of the Reagan administration was anti-communism, Michael J. Heale argued that popular fears of Japan amounted to another "Yellow Peril". By 1990, Japan had eclipsed the Soviet Union as "the greatest perceived threat" in opinion polls.^[41]

Although Pakistan was ruled byMuhammad Zia-ul-Haq and his military dictatorship (1978–1988), it was an important ally against Soviet efforts to take control of Afghanistan.^[42] Reagan's new priorities enabled the effective effort by CongressmanCharles Wilson (D-TX), aided byJoanne Herring, andCIA Afghan Desk ChiefGust Avrakotos to increase the funding forOperation Cyclone. Congress passed a six-year $3.2 billion programme of economic and military assistance, plus secret to the Afghan resistance sent through Pakistan. American officials visited the country on a routine basis, bolstering the Zia regime and weakening Pakistan's liberals, socialists, communists, and democracy advocates.General Akhtar Abdur Rahman ofISI andWilliam Casey of CIA worked together in harmony, and in an atmosphere of mutual trust. Reagan sold Pakistan attack helicopters, self-propelled howitzers, armoured personnel carriers, 40F-16 Fighting Falcon warplanes, nuclear technology, naval warships, and intelligence equipment and training.^[43][44]

Indira Gandhireturned to power in India in 1980 and relations were slow to improve. India gave tacit support to the USSR in theSoviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. New Delhi sounded out Washington on the purchase of a range of American defence technology, including F-5 aircraft, super computers, night vision goggles and radars. In 1984 Washington approved the supply of selected technology to India including gas turbines for naval frigates and engines for prototypes for India's light combat aircraft. There were also unpublicised transfers of technology, including the engagement of an American company,Continental Electronics, to design and build a new VLF communications station atTirunelveli,Tamil Nadu.^[45] However, by the late 1980s there was a significant effort by both countries to improve relations.^[46]

Upon becoming president, Reagan moved quickly to undermine Soviet efforts to support the government of Afghanistan, as theSoviet Army had entered that country at Kabul's request in 1979.

Islamic mujahideen guerrillas were covertly supported and trained, and backed in theirjihad against the occupying Soviets by the CIA. The agency sent billions of dollars in military aid to the guerrillas, in what came to be known as"Charlie Wilson's War".

One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.^[48] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the PakistaniISI in a program calledOperation Cyclone. Somewhere between $2–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to equip troops with weapons.

With U.S. and other funding, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents. On July 20, 1987, thewithdrawal of Soviet troops from the country was announced pursuant to the negotiations that led to theGeneva Accords of 1988,^[49] with the last Soviets leaving on February 15, 1989.

The early foundations ofal-Qaeda were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.^[50] However, theseallegations are rejected bySteve Coll ("If the CIA did have contact withbin Laden during the 1980s and subsequently covered it up, it has so far done an excellent job"),^[51]Peter Bergen ("The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence"),^[52] andJason Burke ("It is often said that bin Laden was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and, indeed, would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul–Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up").^[53]

Reagan sought to apply theReagan Doctrine of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad toCambodia, which was under Vietnamese occupation after having oustedPol Pot's communistKhmer Rouge regime which had perpetrated theCambodian genocide. The Vietnamese had installed the communistPRK government led bySalvation Front dissidentHeng Samrin. The largest resistance movement fighting the PRK government was largely made up of members of the China-backed formerKhmer Rouge regime, whose human rights record was among the worst of the 20th century.

Therefore, Reagan authorized the covert provision of aid to smaller Cambodian resistance movements, referred to collectively as the "non-communist resistance" (NCR) and including the partisans ofNorodom Sihanouk and a coalition called theKhmer People's National Liberation Front (KPNLF)^[54] then run bySon Sann, in an effort to force an end to the Vietnamese occupation. In 1982, covert aid amounted to $5 million per year, ostensibly for non-lethal aid only; this amount was increased to $8 million in 1984 and $12 million in 1987 and 1988. In late 1988, Reagan decreased CIA-mediated funding to $8 million (following reports that theThai military had diverted $3.5 million), but at the same time gave new flexibility to the funds, permitting the NCR to purchase U.S.-made weapons in Singapore and otherASEAN markets. Meanwhile, in 1985, the Reagan administration established a separate, overt aid program for the NCR known as the Solarz Fund. The overt Solarz Fund channeled about $5 million per year ofhumanitarian aid to the NCR throughUSAID.^[55]

After thefall of communism in 1989, Vietnam lost Russian help. Vietnam withdrew, and Cambodia's PRK government was forced to negotiate for peace, resulting in the 1991 Paris Agreements.^[56] Then, under United Nations supervision, free elections were held in 1993.^[57]

Headed byGeneral Suharto, Indonesiainvaded East Timor in 1975 andoccupied the country until 1999. Under Reagan, the U.S. continued military aid provision to theSuharto regime, a policy established in 1975 under Ford and continued by the Carter administration.^[58] In December 1983, a letter signed by 122 members of Congress addressed to President Reagan was publicized. The letter noted "persistent reports fromAmnesty International and other organizations of human rights violations" and asked the president "to add the plight of the people ofEast Timor to [his] agenda."^[59] Uncompromising, Reagan continued the arms trade to the Suharto regime.

The Reagan administration's average in yearly arms sales toJakarta for his first term was $40 million. In 1986, the president approved an unprecedented sale of $300 million, though yearly sales were significantly lower in his term's remainder. The policy of arms trade to Indonesia resumed under Bush and Clinton, and completely ended after the UN-sponsored1999 East Timorese independence referendum.^[58][60]

The primary U.S. interest in thePhilippines was its military bases (e.g.Clark Air Base,Subic Bay Naval Base, etc.) whose land was leased from the Philippine government. The bases'geostrategic importance came from being situated close to the internationalsea lanes connecting thePersian Gulf,Southeast Asia, andNortheast Asia.^[61]

The Reagan administration repeatedly stood by Filipino dictatorFerdinand Marcos. From the declaration of martial law in 1972 until 1983 the U.S. government backed the Marcos regime with $2.5 billion in bilateral military and economic aid and about $5.5 billion through multilateral institutions such as theWorld Bank.^[62] As early as 1973, U.S. officials were aware that Philippine government agents were in the U.S. to harass Filipino dissidents. In June 1981, two anti-Marcos labor activists were assassinated outside of a union hall inSeattle. That same month, Vice PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush praised Marcos for his "adherence to democratic principles and to the democratic processes" after he won the1981 election.^[a]

Reagan's support did not waiver, despite the uproar over Marcos'assassination of his chief political rival,Sen.Benigno Aquino Jr. on August 21, 1983. After a Marcos-appointed board of inquiry, called theAgrava Board, blamed the murder on a plot among Aquinos' military bodyguards, the Marcos-appointedSandiganbayan court acquitted the 25 accused military personnel on December 2, 1985.^[67] Despite continued charges that the Marcos regime was corrupt and repressive, Reagan continued to stress the close links that existed between the Philippines and the U.S.^[67]

In February 1986, Aquino's widow,Corazon Aquino,ran for president against Marcos. The U.S. and UK sent official delegations to monitor the election. However, when U.S. observers reported widespread election fraud and violence on the part of the Marcos campaign, Reagan turned a blind eye and declared the U.S. neutral.^[67] One observer,Sen.Richard Lugar, reported that the Marcos government was trying to juggle the vote count.^[67] Lugar, along with Sen.Bob Dole andSam Nunn, publicly protested the president's indifference.^[67] On February 22–25, thousands of citizens took to the streets in a series of demonstrations known as thePeople Power Revolution. In response,Filipino military and government leaders abandoned Marcos.^[67] The Reagan administration swiftly shifted to pressuring Marcos to step down so as to ensure thepeaceful transition of power.^[68]Corazon Aquino's taking office as president marked the restoration of democracy in the country, and the U.S. recognized the Aquino government on Feb. 25. Still, Reagan's stubborn defense of Marcos strained relations.

This came into play during negotiations to renew the U.S. leases on its Philippine bases. The U.S. had to make concessions and promise substantial increases in economic and military aid before the Aquino government would renew the lease agreements.^[67] In September 1991, however, resentment led to thePhilippine Senate voting to terminate the leases.^[69]

Reagan had close friendships with many political leaders across the globe, especially Margaret Thatcher in Britain, andBrian Mulroney inCanada. Despite opposite personalities, Reagan and Thatcher bonded quickly, arguesDavid Cannadine:

In many ways they were very different figures: he was sunny, genial, charming, relaxed, upbeat, and with little intellectual curiosity or command of policy detail; she was domineering, belligerent, confrontational, tireless, hyperactive, and with an unrivalled command of facts and figures. But the chemistry between them worked. Reagan had been grateful for her interest in him at a time when the British establishment refused to take him seriously; she agreed with him about the importance of creating wealth, cutting taxes, and building up stronger defences against Soviet Russia; and both believed in liberty and free-market freedom, and in the need to outface what Reagan would later call 'the evil empire'.^[70]

The United States maintained consular relations with thePapal States from 1797 to 1870 and diplomatic relations with thePope, in his capacity as head of the Papal States, from 1848 to 1868, though not at the ambassadorial level. These relations lapsed with the loss of all papal territories in 1870.

From 1870 to 1984, the United States did not havediplomatic relations with the Holy See. Several presidents, however, designated personal envoys to visitVatican City periodically for discussions of international humanitarian and political issues.Myron C. Taylor was the first of these representatives, serving from 1939 to 1950. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan also appointed personal envoys to the Pope.

Despite long-standing opposition byProtestant denominations to diplomatic recognition of the Vatican,^[71] the U.S. and Vatican City announced the establishment of diplomatic relations on January 10, 1984. On March 7, 1984, the Senate confirmedWilliam A. Wilson as the first U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. Ambassador Wilson had been President Reagan's personal envoy to the Pope since 1981. The Holy See named ArchbishopPio Laghi as the Vatican's firstApostolic Nuncio (equivalent to ambassador) to the U.S.^[72] A coalition of Protestant groups responded by filing a lawsuit to nullify this diplomatic relationship, claiming it violated theseparation of church and state.^[71]

The U.S. supported theSolidarity movement in Poland, led byLech Wałęsa. In power was the Communist Prime MinisterWojciech Jaruzelski, who tried to keep control without Soviet intervention. He launched a crackdown in 1981. Washington protested but had little leverage. In response to Jaruzelski's October 1982 ban on labor organizations, Reagan imposed economic sanctions and major European nations eventually did the same. Martial law ended in July 1983.^[73] Using the CIA project codenamed QRHELPFUL, the Reagan administration funded and supported Solidarity and cooperated with the Pope in mobilizing anti-Communist forces in Poland.^[74]

When theIran–Iraq War broke out following the IranianIslamic revolution of 1979, the United States initially remained neutral in the conflict. However, as the war intensified, the Reagan administration would covertly intervene to maintain a balance of power, supporting both nations at various times. The U.S. mainly sided withIraq, believing thatIranian leaderAyatollah Khomeini threatened regional stability more than Iraqi PresidentSaddam Hussein. U.S. officials feared that an Iranian victory would emboldenIslamic fundamentalists in theArab states, perhaps leading to the overthrow of secular governments—and damage to Western corporate interests—in Saudi Arabia,Jordan, andKuwait.^{[citation needed]} After initialIraqi Armed Forces victories were reversed and an Iranian victory appeared possible in 1982, the American government initiatedOperation Staunch to attempt to cut off the Iranian regime's access to weapons (notwithstanding their later shipment of weapons to Iran in theIran–Contra affair). The U.S. providedintelligence information and financial assistance to the Iraqi military regime.

On April 18, 1988, Reagan authorizedOperation Praying Mantis, a one-day naval strike against Iranian naval ships, boats, and command posts in retaliation for themining of a U.S. guided missile frigate. One day later, Reagan sent a letter to theSpeaker of the House of Representatives and thePresident Pro Tempore of the Senate.^[75]USS Simpson (FFG-56) is mentioned in firing onIranianF-4 Phantom II fighters built by the United States.

Israel was granted "major non-NATO ally" status in 1989, giving it access to expanded weapons systems and opportunities to bid on US defense contracts. The United States maintained grant aid to Israel at $3 billion annually and implemented afree trade agreement in 1985. Since then all customs duties between the two trading partners have been eliminated. Relations soured when Israel carried outOperation Opera, an Israeli airstrike on the Osirak nuclear reactor inBaghdad. Reagan suspended a shipment of military aircraft to Israel, and harshly criticized the action.^[76] Relations also soured during the1982 Lebanon War, when the United States even contemplated sanctions to stop the IsraeliSiege of Beirut. The US reminded Israel that weaponry provided by the US was to be used for defensive purposes only, and suspended shipments ofcluster munitions to Israel. Although the war exposed some serious differences between Israeli and US policies (such as Israel's rejection of theReagan peace plan of September 1, 1982), it did not alter the administration's favoritism for Israel and the emphasis it placed on Israel's importance to the United States. Although critical of Israeli actions, the United States vetoed a Soviet-proposed United Nations Security Council resolution to impose an arms embargo on Israel.^{[citation needed]}

In 1985, the US supported Israel's economic stabilization through roughly $1.5 billion in two-year loan guarantees the creation of a US–Israel bilateral economic forum called the U.S.–Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).^{[citation needed]}

The second Reagan term ended on what many Israelis considered to be a sour note when the United States opened a dialogue with thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in December 1988. But, despite the US–PLO dialogue, the Pollard spy case, and the Israeli rejection of the Shultz peace initiative in the spring of 1988, pro-Israeli organizations in the United States characterized the Reagan administration (and the 100th Congress) as the "most pro-Israel ever", and praised the positive overall tone of bilateral relations.^{[citation needed]}

The attempts of certain members of the White House national security staff to circumvent Congressional proscription of covert military aid to the Contras ultimately resulted in the Iran-Contra Affair.

Two members of administration,National Security AdvisorJohn Poindexter and Col.Oliver North worked through CIA and military channels to sell arms to the Iranian government and give the profits to the contra guerillas in Nicaragua, who were engaged in a bloody civil war. Both actions were contrary to acts ofCongress. Reagan professed ignorance of the plot, but admitted that he had supported the initial sale of arms to Iran, on the grounds that such sales were supposed to help secure the release of Americans being held hostage by the Iranian-backedHezbollah inLebanon.

Reagan quickly called for the appointment of anIndependent Counsel to investigate the wider scandal; the resultingTower Commission report found that the President was guilty of the scandal, only in that his lax control of his own staff resulted in the arms sales. (The report also revealed that U.S. officials helped Khomeini identify and purge communists within the Iranian government.^[77]) The failure of these scandals to have a lasting impact on Reagan's reputation led RepresentativePatricia Schroeder to dub him the "Teflon President", a term that has been occasionally attached to later Presidents and their scandals. Ten officials in the Reagan administration were convicted, and others were forced to resign. Secretary of DefenseCaspar Weinberger was indicted forperjury and later received a presidential pardon from George H.W. Bush, days before the trial was to begin. In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as the ninth-worst mistake by a U.S. president.^[78]

With the approval of Congress, Reagan in 1983 sent forces to Lebanon to reduce the threat of civil war. The American peacekeeping forces inBeirut, a part ofa multinational force during theLebanese Civil War, were attacked on October 23, 1983. TheBeirut barracks bombing killed 241 American servicemen and wounded more than 60 others by a suicide truck bomber.^[79] Reagan sent in a battleship to shell Syrian positions in Lebanon. Shortly after the barracks bombing, Reagan appointed a military fact-finding committee headed by retired AdmiralRobert L. J. Long to investigate the bombing. He then withdrew all the marines from Lebanon.^[80]

Relations between Libya and the U.S. under President Reagan were continually contentious, beginning with theGulf of Sidra incident in 1981. Washington saw Libyan leaderMuammar Gaddafi as a dangerous, erratic friend of the Soviets and kept Libya on the watch list.^[82][83]

Tensions exploded into military action in early April 1986, whena bomb exploded in a Berlin discothèque, resulting in the injury of 63 American military personnel and death of one serviceman.^[84] Stating that there was "irrefutable proof" that Libya had directed the "terrorist bombing", Reagan authorized a series ofair strikes on ground targets in Libya on April 15. British Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher allowed theUS Air Force to use Britain's air bases to launch the attack, on the justification that the UK was supporting America's right to self-defense underArticle 51 of the United Nations Charter. Reagan told a national audience, "When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I'm in this office."^[85] The attack was designed to haltGaddafi's "ability to export terrorism", offering him "incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior".^[86]

TheUN Security Council rejected criticism of the U.S. However, by a vote of 79 in favor to 28 against with 33 abstentions, theUnited Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 41/38 which "condemns the military attack perpetrated against theSocialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on 15 April 1986, which constitutes a violation of theCharter of the United Nations and ofinternational law."^[87]

The Reagan administration strengthened the alliance withSaudi Arabia as it kept the commitment to defend the Kingdom. The "special relationship" between Riyadh and Washington really began to flourish after 1981, as the Saudis turned to the Reagan administration to safeguard their orders of advanced weapons. Saudi Arabia was part of theReagan Doctrine. Secretary of Defense,Caspar Weinberger was previously affiliated with construction giantBechtel, which had major interests in Saudi Arabia.

After only two weeks in office, Weinberger announced that the administration wanted to do everything it could to strengthen Saudi defenses in the wake ofthe fall of the Shah inIran. On March 6, 1981, the administration announced plans to sell new arms to the Saudis to halt what it perceived to be a "serious deterioration" in Western security interests in the region. On April 1, theNational Security Council (NSC) decided to expand the administration's initial arms package to include five AWACS surveillance planes, the most advanced of their kind in the world. The total Saudi purchase, including the AWACS, came to $8.5 billion. Reagan vowed to push the sale through, declaring that Saudi Arabia must not be allowed to fall like Iran and that the United States would forfeit "all credibility" in the Middle East if Congress blocked the sale. Finally, after extraordinary arm-twisting by President Reagan, the Senate approved the deal in late October.^[88]

Reagan proposed a 300 million sale of weapons to the Saudis.^[89] Facing this proposal, the Senate voted 73-22 to reject Reagan's proposed arms sale.^[90][91] The House followed shortly after on a 356-to-62 vote.^[92][93] On May 22, 1986, Reagan vetoed.^[94][95] On June 5, 1986, The Senate failed by one vote to override Reagan's veto.^[96][97][98]

Through his terms Reagan supported the anti-communist regimes ofGuatemala andEl Salvador and theContra rebels inNicaragua, as well as democratic transitions of power inBolivia (1982),Honduras (1981),Argentina (1983),Brazil (1985),Uruguay (1984), andSuriname (1987). His support for the contras inNicaragua was controversial, due to the poor human rights record of the rebels.^[99] Support for the governments ofGuatemala andEl Salvador was also controversial due to the repressive nature of those governments and what was later determined to begenocide in Guatemala.^{[100][101][102]}

In the case of theFalklands War in 1982, the Reagan administration faced competing obligations to both sides, bound to the United Kingdom as a member of theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to Argentina by theInter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact"). However, theNorth Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support each other if an attack occurred inEurope orNorth America north of theTropic of Cancer, and the Rio Pact only obliges the U.S. to intervene if the territory of one of the signatories was attacked—the UK never attacked Argentine territory. As the conflict developed, the Reagan administration tilted its support towards Britain.

Undermining the hostile regime in Nicaragua was a high priority for Reagan.^[103] He described Nicaragua under theSandinista National Liberation Front as "a Soviet ally on the American mainland". In a public address in March 1986, Reagan stated that "Using Nicaragua as a base, the Soviets and Cubans can become the dominant power in the crucial corridor between North and South America."^[104]

The Reagan administration lent logistical, financial, and militarysupport to the Contras, based in neighboringHonduras, who waged aguerrilla insurgency in an effort to topple theSandinista government of Nicaragua (which was headed byDaniel Ortega). This support was funneled through the CIA to the rebels, and continued right through Reagan's period in office. The scorched earth tactics of the Contras were condemned for their brutality by several historians.^[99]

In 1983, theCIA created a group of "Unilaterally Controlled Latino Assets" (UCLAs), whose task was to "sabotage ports, refineries, boats and bridges, and try to make it look like the contras had done it."^[105][106] In January 1984, these UCLA's carried out the operation for which they would be best known; the mining of several Nicaraguan harbors, which sank several Nicaraguan boats and damaged at least five foreign vessels. This incident led to the ratification of theBoland Amendment by the US Congress, and brought an avalanche of international condemnation down on the United States.^[107] The CIA also provided training and arms, as well as funding, directly to the Contras.^[108]

In response to the insurgency, the regime passed a new law, the "Law for the Maintenance of Order and Public Security", under which the "Tribunales Populares Anti-Somozistas" allowed for the holding of suspected counter-revolutionaries without trial. The State of Emergency most notably affected rights and guarantees contained in the "Statute on Rights and Guarantees of Nicaraguans".^[109] Many civil liberties were curtailed or canceled such as the freedom to organize demonstrations, the inviolability of the home, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and, the freedom to strike.^[109]

TheBoland Amendment made it illegal under U.S. law to provide arms to the contra militants. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration continued to arm and fund the contras through theIran-Contra scandal, pursuant to which the U.S. secretly sold arms to Iran in violation of U.S. law in exchange for cash used by the U.S. to supply arms to the contras, also in violation of law. The U.S. argued that:^[110]

Nicaragua's neighbors have asked for assistance against Nicaraguan aggression, and the United States has responded. Those countries have repeatedly and publicly made clear that they consider themselves to be the victims of aggression from Nicaragua, and that they desire United States assistance in meeting both subversive attacks and the conventional threat posed by the relatively immenseNicaraguan Armed Forces.

The Sandinista government won victory in the1984 Nicaraguan elections. The elections had been declared "free, fair, and hotly contested" by election observers such as New York's Human Rights Commission.^[111] However, the elections were conducted under the SOE. Political prisoners were still held as it took place, and several opposition parties refused to participate.^[112]

In addition, the Reagan administration criticized the elections becauseArturo Cruz, the candidate nominated by theCoordinadora Democrática Nicaragüense, refused to run. However, the U.S. reportedly urged Cruz to avoid participation. Several senior administration officials toldThe New York Times that "the administration never contemplated letting Cruz stay in the race because then the Sandinistas could justifiably claim that the elections were legitimate".^[113]

The U.S. continued to pressure the government by illegally arming the contra insurgency. On October 5, 1985, the Sandinistas broadened thestate of emergency begun in 1982 and suspended many more civil rights. A new regulation also forced any organization outside of the government to first submit any statement it wanted to make public to the censorship bureau for prior censorship.^[114]

It has been argued that "probably a key factor in preventing the 1984 elections from establishingliberal democratic rule was the United States' policy toward Nicaragua."^[115] Others have disputed this view, claiming that "the Sandinistas' decision to hold elections in 1984 was largely of foreign inspiration".^[116]

As the contras' insurgency continued with U.S. support, the Sandinistas struggled to maintain power. They lost power in 1990, when they ended the SOE and held an election that all the main opposition parties competed in. The Sandinistas have been accused of killing thousands by Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights.^[117] The contras have also been accused of committing war crimes, such as rape, arson, and the killing of civilians.^[118]

Historian Greg Grandin described a disjuncture between official ideals preached by the U.S. and actual U.S. support for terrorism.

Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counter insurgent state but anti-communistmercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism ... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America's dirty wars, their faith in America's mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.^[119]

Similarly, former diplomat Clara Nieto, in her bookMasters of War, charged that "the CIA launched a series of terrorist actions from the "mothership" off Nicaragua's coast. In September 1983, she charged the agency attackedPuerto Sandino with rockets. The following month, frogmen blew up the underwater oil pipeline in the same port — the only one in the country. In October there was an attack on Pierto Corinto, Nicaragua's largest port, with mortars, rockets, and grenades blowing up five large oil and gasoline storage tanks. More than a hundred people were wounded, and the fierce fire, which could not be brought under control for two days, forced the evacuation of 23,000 people."^[120]

Supporters of the Reagan administration have pointed out that the US had been the largest provider of aid to Nicaragua, and twice offered to resume aid if the Sandinistas agreed to stop arming communist insurgents inEl Salvador.^[121] Former official Roger Miranda wrote that "Washington could not ignore Sandinista attempts to overthrow Central American governments."^[122] Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights condemned Sandinistahuman rights violations, recording at least 2,000 murders in the first six months and 3,000 disappearances in the first few years. It has since documented 14,000 cases of torture, rape, kidnapping, mutilation and murder.^[117] The Sandinistas admitted to forcing 180,000 peasants into resettlement camps.^[123]

InNicaragua v. United States,^[124] theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violatedinternational law by supporting the contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and bymining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by theUnited Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.^[125] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the government ofVioleta Chamorro).^[126] on November 12, 1987, the UN General Assembly called for "full and immediate compliance" with the World Court decision. OnlyIsrael joined the United States in opposing adherence to the ruling.^[127]

The Reagan policy in El Salvador aimed to prevent a leftist takeover and maintain a pro-American government. The policy succeeded in preventing the far-left FMLN from gaining power. However, it also faced substantial criticism for the human rights abuses committed by the Salvadoran government and its security forces.^[128] In theSalvadoran Civil War between the government ofEl Salvador and theFarabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), a coalition or umbrella organization of five left-wing militias, the U.S. supported both the Salvadoran government^[129][130] and the centrist Christian Democrats. The government's security forces were split between reformists and right-wing extremists, who used death squads to stop political and economic change. The Carter administration repeatedly intervened to prevent right-wing coups. The Reagan administration repeatedly threatened aid suspensions to halt right-wing atrocities. As a result, the death squads made plans to kill the U.S. Ambassador.^[131]

After years of bloody fighting; the rebels were forced, in part due to U.S. involvement, to concede defeat. The U.S. then threatened to cut off aid to the Salvadoran regime unless it made democratic reforms, which might have let the rebels regroup. As a result; a new Constitution was promulgated, theArmed Forces regulated, a "civilian" police force established, the FMLN metamorphosed from a guerrilla army to a political party that competed in free and fair elections, and anamnesty law was legislated in 1993.^[132]

In 2002, aBBC article about PresidentGeorge W. Bush's visit to El Salvador reported that, "U.S. officials say that President George H.W. Bush's policies set the stage for peace, turning El Salvador into a democratic success story." The article also talks about the "tremendous irony that President George W Bush [was] chosen to visit El Salvador on the anniversary of the murder of the country's Archbishop,Óscar Romero, 22 years ago. The irony also falls on his father who was involved with the war during his presidency.^[133]

Reagan's policy has been criticized due to the human rights abuses proven repeatedly to be perpetrated by El Salvadoran security force withAmnesty International reporting that it had received: "regular, often daily, reports identifying El Salvador's regular security and military units as responsible for the torture, "disappearance" and killing of civilians. Types of torture reported by those who have survived arrest and interrogation included beatings, sexual abuse, use of chemicals to disorient, mock executions, and the burning of flesh withsulphuric acid."^[134]Rudolph Rummel has estimated that from 1979 to 1987, government forces perpetrated between 12,000 and 25,000democidal killings,^[135] withUNHCR estimating higher total figures.^[136]

During the war, the FMLN received some aid from the governments of Nicaragua and Cuba, though most weapons were seized from government forces.^[137] In 1983, an FMLN broadcast boasted of Cuban and Nicaraguan backing; an FMLN commander alleged that the war was directed by Cuba and that nearly all of his weapons came from Nicaragua. In 1985, the Sandinistas offered to stop military aid to forces in El Salvador in return for an end to the contra insurgency.^[138] The Soviet bloc supplied enough arms for several battalions.^[139]

The US increased aid as atrocities declined. The UN Truth Commission received direct complaints of almost 2,600 victims of serious violence occurring in 1980. It received direct complaints of just over 140 victims of serious violence occurring in 1985.^[140]

GivenJosé Efraín Ríos Montt's staunchanticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit toGuatemala City in December 1982.^[141] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."^[142] That same day, Guatemalan troops massacred hundreds at Dos Erres.

Ignoring this, Reagan claimed that Guatemala's human rights conditions were improving and used this to justify several major shipments of military hardware to Rios Montt; $4 million in helicopter spare parts and $6.3 million in additional military supplies in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The decision was taken in spite of records concerning human rights violations, bypassing theCongress.^{[143][144][145][146][147]} Meanwhile, a then-secret 1983 CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" and an increasing number of bodies "appearing in ditches and gullies".^[148] Indigenous Mayans suffered greatly under Ríos Montt's rule. The UN-backed officialHistorical Clarification Commission found that this was a campaign of deliberategenocide against the population.^[149] In May 2013, Ríos Montt was found guilty ofgenocide against Mayan Indian groups by a Guatemalan court. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison (50 years for genocide and 30 years for crimes against humanity). However, the sentence was quashed by the Constitutional Court and his retrial was never completed because he died.^[100] It is estimated that up to tens of thousands of non-combatants were killed during Ríos Montt's time as head of state.^[150]

The invasion of the Caribbean island Grenada in 1983, ordered by President Reagan, was the first major foreign event of the administration, as well as the first major operation conducted by the military since theVietnam War. President Reagan justified the invasion by claiming that the cooperation of the island with communistCuba posed a threat to the United States, and stated the invasion was a response to the illegal overthrow and execution of Grenadian Prime MinisterMaurice Bishop, himself a communist, by another faction of communists within his government. After the start of planning for the invasion, theOrganisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States,Barbados, andJamaica, among other nations, for assistance. The US invasion was poorly done, for it took over 10,000 U.S. forces eight days of fighting, suffering nineteen fatalities and 116 injuries, fighting against several hundred lightly armed policemen and Cuban construction workers.Grenada's Governor-General,Paul Scoon, announced the resumption of the constitution and appointed a new government, and U.S. forces withdrew that December.

While the invasion enjoyed public support in the United States^[151][152] it was criticized by the United Kingdom, Canada and theUnited Nations General Assembly as "a flagrant violation ofinternational law".^[153] The date of the invasion is now a national holiday in Grenada, calledThanksgiving Day.^[154]

At first glance, it appeared that the U.S. had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to theUnited Kingdom as a member of theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to Argentina by theInter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, known as the "Rio Pact". However, theNorth Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs inEurope orNorth America north of theTropic of Cancer, and the Rio Pact only obliges the U.S. to intervene if one of the adherents to the treaty is attacked—the UK never attackedArgentina, only Argentine forces on British territory.

In March,Secretary of StateAlexander Haig directed theUS Ambassador to ArgentinaHarry W. Shlaudeman to warn the Argentine government away from any invasion. President Reagan requested assurances from Galtieri against an invasion and offered the services of his vice president,George H. W. Bush, asmediator, but was refused.

In fact, theReagan administration was sharply divided on the issue. Meeting on April 5, Haig and Assistant Secretary of State for Political AffairsLawrence Eagleburger favoured backing Britain, concerned that equivocation would undermine the NATO alliance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders, however, feared that supporting Britain would undermine U.S.anti-communist efforts inLatin America. He received the firm backing ofU.N. AmbassadorJeane Kirkpatrick, Haig's nominal subordinate and political rival. Kirkpatrick was guest of honour at a dinner held by the Argentine ambassador to the United States, on the day that the Argentine armed forces landed on the islands.

TheWhite House continued itsneutrality. Reagan assented to Haig andSecretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger's position. Between April 8 and 30, Haig headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission betweenLondon andBuenos Aires. According to a BBC documentary titled "The Falklands War and the White House",^[155] Caspar Weinberger's Department of Defense began a number of non-public actions to support and supply the British military while Haig's shuttle diplomacy was still ongoing. Haig's message to the Argentines was that the British would indeed fight, and that the U.S. would support Britain, but at the time he was not aware that the U.S. was providing support already.^{[citation needed]}

At the end of the April, Reagan declared U.S. support for Britain, and announced the imposition ofeconomic sanctions on Argentina.

At 11:30 pm London time on May 31, 1982, Reagan told Mrs Thatcher that "The best chance for peace was before complete Argentine humiliation", he told her. "As the UK now had the upper hand militarily, it should strike a deal now." and suggesting a multi-national, peacekeeping force. Her reply was that "Britain had had to go into the islands alone, with no outside help, she could not now let the invader gain from his aggression."^[156]

American non-interference was vital to the American-British relationship.Ascension Island, a British possession, was vital in the long-term supply of the Task Force South; however, the airbase stationed on it was run and operated by the U.S. The American commander of the base was ordered to assist the British in any way and for a brief period Ascension Air Field was one of the busiest airports in the world. The most important NATO contributions were intelligence information and the rescheduled supply of the latest model ofSidewinder Limaall-aspect infra-red seeking missiles, which allowed existing British stocks to be employed.

Margaret Thatcher stated that "without theHarrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by U.S. Secretary of DefenseCaspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands."

In early May, Caspar Weinberger offered the use of an American aircraft carrier.^[157] This seemingly extremely generous offer was seen by some as vital: it was noted by Rear Admiral Woodward that the loss ofInvincible would have been a severe setback, but the loss ofHermes would have meant an end to the whole operation. Weinberger admitted^[158] that there would have been many problems if a request had ever been made; not least, it would have meant U.S. personnel becoming directly involved in the conflict, as training British forces to crew the vessel would have taken years. In the July 2012 newsletter of theUnited States Naval Institute, which was reprinted online at the institute's web site, it was revealed that theReagan administration actively offered the use of the amphibious assault helicopter carrierIwo Jima (pictured) as a replacement in case either of the two British carriers had been damaged or destroyed. This top-secret contingency plan was revealed to the staff of the Naval Institute byJohn Lehman, theU.S. Secretary of the Navy at the time of the Falklands War, from a speech provided to the Naval Institute that Lehman made inPortsmouth, U.K., on June 26, 2012. Lehman stated that the loan of theIwo Jima was made in response to a request from theRoyal Navy, and it had the endorsement ofU.S. PresidentRonald Reagan andU.S. Secretary of DefenseCaspar Weinberger. The actual planning for theIwo Jima loan-out was done by the staff of theU.S. Second Fleet under the direction ofVice Admiral James Lyons who confirmed Lehman's revelations with the Naval Institute staff. Contingency planning envisioned Americanmilitary contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of theIwo Jima's systems, assisting the British in manning the U.S. helicopter carrier during the loan-out. Naval analystEric Wertheim compared this arrangement to theFlying Tigers. Significantly, except forU.S. Secretary of StateAlexander Haig, theU.S. Department of State was not included in the loan-out negotiations.^[159] These 2012 revelations made headlines in the United Kingdom, but except for the U.S. Naval Institute, not in the United States.^[160]

Both Weinberger and Reagan were later awarded the British honour ofKnight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE). American critics of the U.S. role claimed that, by failing to side with Argentina, the U.S. violated its ownMonroe Doctrine.

In 1983, the Reagan administration approached Australia with proposals for testing the new generation of Americanintercontinental ballistic missiles, theMX missile. American test ranges in the Pacific were insufficient for testing the new long-range missiles and the United States military wished to use theTasman Sea as a target area.AustralianPrime MinisterMalcolm Fraser of theLiberal Party had agreed to provide monitoring sites near Sydney for this purpose.^[161] However, in 1985, the new-elected Prime MinisterBob Hawke, of theLabor Party, withdrew Australia from the testing program, sparking criticism from the Reagan administration. Hawke had been pressured into doing so by the left-wing faction of the Labor Party, which opposed the proposed MX missile test in the Tasman Sea. The Labor left-wing faction also strongly sympathized with theNew ZealandFourth Labour Government's anti-nuclear policy and supported aSouth Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.^{[162][163][164]}

To preserve its joint Australian-US military communications facilities, the Reagan administration also had to assure the Hawke Government that those installations would not be used in theStrategic Defense Initiative project, which the Australian Labor Party strongly opposed. Despite these disagreements, the Hawke Labor Government still remained supportive of theANZUS security treaty, a trilateral pact between Australia, New Zealand and the United States which was signed on September 1, 1951. It also did not support its New Zealand counterpart's ban on nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered ships. Following the US's suspension of defence and intelligence cooperation with New Zealand in February 1985, the Australian government also endorsed the Reagan administration's plans to cancel trilateral military exercises and to postpone the ANZUS foreign ministers conference. However, it still continued to maintain bilateral military ties and continued to share intelligence information with New Zealand.^[164] Unlike New Zealand, Australia continued to allowUS Navy warships to visit its ports and to participate in joint military exercises with the United States.^[165][166]

In 1984, the newly electedLabour government underPrime MinisterDavid Lange adopted a hardlineanti-nuclear position, banning the entry ofnuclear-powered andnuclear-armed warships intoNew Zealand waters. Reasons cited were the dangers ofAmerican nuclear weapons, continued nuclear testing in the South Pacific, and opposition to US President Reagan's policy of aggressively confronting the Soviet Union.Nuclear disarmament was also championed by a vocalpacifistanti-nuclear movement aligned with the mainstreampolitical left. Since theUnited States Navy refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard ships, this law essentially refused access to New Zealand ports for all USN ships. Since New Zealand was a member of the tripartiteANZUS security alliance, which also included Australia and the United States, this created tensions in US-NZ relations.^[167][168]

The Reagan administration regarded New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance as incongruous with its Cold War policy of only conducting strategic arms reductions from a position of strength. The US government was also concerned that the Soviet Union was working through local Communist parties like theSocialist Unity Party to influence the Labour Party, anti-nuclear organizations, and thetrade union movement as part of a strategy of steering New Zealand's foreign policy away from its traditional ally the United States.^[169]

In February 1985, a port-visit request by the United States for theUSS Buchanan was refused by the New Zealand government on the basis that the Buchanan was capable of launching nuclear depth bombs. Following consultations with Australia and after further negotiations with the New Zealand government broke down, the Reagan administration severed its ANZUS treaty obligations to NZ until US Navy ships were readmitted to NZ ports. Despite the ANZUS split, Secretary of StateGeorge P. Shultz maintained that the ANZUS structure was still in place, should NZ decide to reverse its anti-nuclear policy and return to a fully operational defense relationship with the US.^[170] TheRepublicanSenatorWilliam Cohen also advocated trade retaliation against New Zealand and urged the Reagan administration to negotiate a separate bilateral security treaty with Australia.^[171][172] Ultimately, the Reagan administration opted not to pursue economic retaliatory measures against New Zealand.^[173] President Reagan also maintained inNSDD 193 (National Security Decision Directive) that New Zealand still remained a "friend, but not an ally".^[174]

In 1987, the RepublicanCongressmanWilliam Broomfield sponsored a bill known as the Broomfield Bill (the New Zealand Military Preference Suspension Act) that would have deprived New Zealand of its favored status as an ally when purchasing military equipment from the United States. On October 20, 1987, theUnited States House of Representatives passed the Broomfield Bill by a substantial majority. According to former New Zealand diplomatMalcolm Templeton, this bill was a symbolic endorsement by theDemocratic-controlledCongress of the Reagan administration's earlier decision to suspend its defence commitments to New Zealand. The Broomfield Bill also included an amendment added by the Democratic CongressmanStephen J. Solarz that would allow the U.S. president to restore the ANZUS relationship if NZ modified its nuclear-free policy.^[175]

However, the Broomfield Bill languished in theUnited States Senate. Following the1988 US Senate elections, thelame duck100th Congress dropped a package containing the Broomfield Bill afterSenatorEdward Kennedy opposed its inclusion. Thus, the Broomfield Bill was never passed by the Senate and formally ratified into law. While the Reagan administration continued to eschew contact with theLange government, it continued to maintain ties with the center-right oppositionNational Party, which opposed the Nuclear Free Bill. Despite the suspension of ANZUS ties and ship visits, the United States'sAntarctica research programOperation Deep Freeze continued to send military aircraft toChristchurch International Airport en route to US bases in the Antarctica.^[175]

The Heritage Foundation and theUnited States Information Service also unsuccessfully tried to influence New Zealand public opinion in favor of supporting the resumption of ANZUS ties by sponsoring trips to the US by sympathetic journalists, politicians, and academics. Several of these individuals later tried to organize grassroots pro-ANZUS groups to counter the influence of the peace movement.^[176][177] Undaunted, the Labour government wasre-elected in 1987 and went on to passNew Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 into law, making the entire country anuclear-free zone, but still remaining within the ANZUS alliance.^[170]

War between western supported movements and the communistMPLA government inAngola, andCuban andSouth African military intervention there, led to a decades-longcivil war that cost up to one million lives.^[178] The Reagan administration offered covert aid to the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), a group of anti-communist and pro capitalist fighters led byJonas Savimbi, whose attacks were backed by South Africa and the US. Dr. Peter Hammond, a Christian missionary who lived in Angola at the time, recalled:

There were over 50,000 Cuban troops in the country. The communists had attacked and destroyed many churches.MiG-23s andMi-24 Hind helicopter gun ships were terrorising villagers in Angola. I documented numerous atrocities, including the strafing of villages, schools and churches. In 1986, I remember hearing Ronald Reagan's speech ... "We are going to send stinger missiles to the UNITA Freedom Fighters in Angola!" Those who were listening to the SW radio with me looked at one another in stunned amazement. After a long silence as we wondered if our ears had actually heard what we thought we heard, one of us said: "That would be nice!" We scarcely dared believe that it would happen. But it did. Not long afterwards the stinger missiles began to arrive in UNITA controlled Free Angola. Soviet aircraft were shot down. The bombing and strafing of villagers, schools and churches came to an end. Without any doubt, Ronald Reagan's policies saved many tens of thousands of lives in Angola.^[179]

Human rights observers have accused the MPLA of "genocidal atrocities", "systematic extermination", "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity".^[180] The MPLA held blatantly rigged elections in 1992, which were rejected by eight opposition parties. An official observer wrote that there was little UN supervision, that 500,000 UNITA voters were disenfranchised and that there were 100 clandestine polling stations. UNITA sent peace negotiators to the capital, where the MPLA murdered them, along with 20,000 UNITA members. Savimbi was still ready to continue the elections. The MPLA then massacred tens of thousands of UNITA andNational Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) voters nationwide.^[181][182]

Savimbi was strongly supported byThe Heritage Foundation, whose foreign policy analystMichael Johns and other conservatives visited regularly with Savimbi in his clandestine camps in Jamba and provided the rebel leader with ongoing political and military guidance in his war against the Angolan government. During a visit toWashington, D.C. in 1986, Reagan invited Savimbi to meet with him at theWhite House. Following the meeting, Reagan spoke of UNITA winning "a victory that electrifies the world". Savimbi also met with Reagan's successor,George H. W. Bush, who promised Savimbi "all appropriate and effective assistance".^[183]

The killing of Savimbi in February 2002 by the Angolan military led to the decline of UNITA's influence. Savimbi was succeeded byPaulo Lukamba Gato. Six weeks after Savimbi's death, UNITA agreed to a ceasefire with the MPLA, but Angola remains deeply divided politically between MPLA and UNITA supporters.Parliamentary elections in September 2008 resulted in an overwhelming majority for the MPLA, but their legitimacy was questioned by international observers.

During Ronald Reagan's presidencySouth Africa continued to use a non-democratic system of government based onracial discrimination, known asapartheid, in which the minority ofwhite South Africans exerted nearly complete legal control over the lives of the non-white majority of the citizens. In the early 1980s the issue had moved to the center of international attention as a result of events in thetownships and outcry at the death ofStephen Biko. Reagan administration policy called for "constructive engagement" with the apartheid government of South Africa. This consisted of providing incentives to encourage the South African government to engage in dialogue with its black citizens over a possible end to apartheid.^[184] In opposition to the condemnations issued by the US Congress and public demands for diplomatic or economic sanctions, Reagan made relatively minor criticisms of the regime, which was otherwise internationally isolated, and the US granted recognition and economic and military aid to the government during Reagan's first term.^[185] South Africa's military was then engaged in anoccupation of Namibia and proxy wars in several neighboring countries, in alliance with Savimbi's UNITA. Reagan administration officials saw the apartheid government as a key anti-communist ally.^[186]

In a 1984 address to the UN, Reagan supported a peaceful evolution away from apartheid but was unwilling to pressure South Africa to change. WhenSouth African Anglican bishopDesmond Tutu won theNobel Peace Prize for his efforts to eliminate apartheid, Reagan received him in late 1984, congratulated him, but reiterated his policy of constructive engagement.^[184] However, speaking onCapitol Hill at a House hearing, Tutu delivered a speech, declaring "constructive engagement is an abomination, an unmitigated disaster."^[187]

In my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian. ... You are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are either in favor of evil or you are in favor of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral.^[188]

As Reagan began his second term, black opposition to apartheid grew increasingly militant and occasionally violent, as did the apartheid government's crackdown. In April 1985 Reagan came under attack from within theRepublican Party itself. The Republican majority in the Senate voted 89–4 on a resolution condemning apartheid.^[189] By summer Congress was pushing for sanctions, so Reagan decided to preempt congressional action and make an "abrupt reversal" by issuing on September 9 Executive Order 12532 prohibiting some kinds of bank loans to the apartheid government and imposing an arms embargo.^[190][191] However, these sanctions were seen as weak by anti-Apartheid activists. In September 1986, Reagan vetoed the tougher sanctions of theComprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA), but this was overridden by a bipartisan effort in Congress the following month. However, Reagan refused to enforce the sanctions in any meaningful way.^[192] At least 2,000 political prisoners remained detained without trial.

In October 1987, pursuant to the CAAA, Reagan submitted a follow-up report that said additional sanctions "would not be helpful".^[193]P. W. Botha, the South African foreign minister, responded by saying that Reagan "and his administration have an understanding" of what he called "the reality of South Africa".^[188] In 1988, Congress rejected a bill that would have imposed a total economic embargo against the Republic.^[194]

By 1990, under Reagan's successor George H. W. Bush, the new South African government ofF. W. de Klerk was introducing widespread reforms.^[195]

Mobutu Sese Seko enjoyed a very warm relationship with theReagan administration, through financial donations. During Reagan's presidency, Mobutu visited theWhite House three times, and criticism of Zaire's human rights record by the US was effectively muted. During a state visit by Mobutu in 1983, Reagan praised the Zairian strongman as "a voice of good sense and goodwill".^[196]

Reagan referred to the "genocide of the Armenians" in a 1981 statement commemorating the liberation of the Nazi death camps.^[197] Reagan was the first U.S. president to personally use the term "genocide" to reference the systematic eradication of theArmenian people at the hands of theOttoman Empire between 1915 and 1923.^[198]

Previously, the U.S. spent over a billion dollars in humanitarian relief funding for the crisis starting in 1918 and also recognized the Armenian "genocide" in a statement to the International Court of Justice in 1951.^[198]

In 1985, Reagan visited Kolmeshohe cemetery inBitburg in "honor of German soldiers killed in World War II".^[199][200] The Kolmeshohe cemetery included graves of 49NaziWaffen-SS soldiers.^[200] Reagan andWest German ChancellorHelmut Kohl planned to lay a wreath in the cemetery "in a spirit of reconciliation, in a spirit of forty years of peace, in a spirit of economic and military compatibility."^[201] Reagan had declined to visit anyconcentration camps during the visit because he thought it would "send the wrong signal" to the German people and was "unnecessary".^[199][201]

This led to protest and condemnation by Jewish groups, veterans,Congress, and theAnti-Defamation League.^[200] Politicians, veterans, and Jewish demonstrators from the United States, France, Britain, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Israel, and other countries protested the Reagan's visit.^[200] Due to theBitburg controversy, Reagan did end up visiting theBergen-Belsen concentration camp during his trip. During the visit Reagan honoredAnne Frank but also stated, "The evil world ofNazism turned all values upside down. Nevertheless, we can mourn the German war dead today as human beings, crushed by a vicious ideology."^[200]

Leading up to the visit, U.S. presidentRichard Nixon acknowledged Reagan's planned trip already caused "substantial domestic political damage", but he urged Reagan not to cancel or alter the itinerary, as it would "undermine Reagan's standing with the Western European allies and his ability to negotiate with theSoviets and in the Middle East, putting the credibility of future negotiations is at stake."^[202]

The New York Times reported in 1985, "White House aides have acknowledged that (Reagan's)Bitburg visit is probably the biggest fiasco of Mr. Reagan's Presidency."^[200] They described Reagan's decision to go through with the Bitburg visit was a "blunder", and one of the few times that Reagan lost a confrontation in the court of public opinion.^[201]

In 1986, the U.S. ratified theUnited NationsGenocide Convention, 36 years after originally signing the treaty.^[203] The convention was created "in response to the Nazi atrocities against the Jews".^[203] TheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the textbook ofOxford UniversityHuman Rights explained the sudden ratification as a direct response to theBitburg controversy and an attempt for Reagan to "make amends" for the visit.^[204][205]

This "gesture of concession to public outrage" was undermined by "a number of provisions immunizing the U.S. against the possibility of ever being charged with genocide."^[206] The U.S. ratification included so many treaty reservations "that the convention would not meaningfully bind the United States to much of anything" and the ratification was described as substantially "meaningless".^[205][203]

The vote to ratify the treaty in the Senate was 83 in favor, 11 against and 6 not voting.^[206] The U.S. was the 98th country to ratify the Genocide Convention.^[206]The U.S. had previously refused to become a party from 1948 to 1985 because it was "nervous about its own record on race": U.S. Southern senators worried "thatJim Crow laws could constitute genocide under the Convention".^[204][205]

On April 6, 1984, the United States attempted to modify its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice, in order to exclude disputes involving Central America for a period of two years.^[207] Then on January 18, 1985, the United States notified the ICJ that it would no longer participate in theNicaragua v. United States proceedings.^[207] On June 27, 1986, the ICJ ruled that U.S. support to the contras in Nicaragua was illegal, and demanded that the U.S. pay reparations to theSandinistas.^[208] Reagan's State Department said "the United States rejected the Court's verdict, and said the ICJ was not equipped to judge complex international military issues."^[209]

Finally, and most significantly, on October 7, 1985, the United States terminated its acceptance of the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction.^[207] The decision was critiqued byThe New York Times as "damaging our foreign policy interests, undermining our legitimacy as a voice for morality, eroding the rule of law in international relations."^[210]

• Cold War
• List of international presidential trips made by Ronald Reagan
• Presidency of Ronald Reagan
• Reagan Doctrine

• Aldous, Richard.Reagan and Thatcher: The Difficult Relationship (2012), on relations with Britain
• Andrew, Christopher.For the President's Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush (1996) pp 457–502.
• Arnson, Cynthia J.Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America (Pantheon, 1989)
• Baier, Brett and Catherine Whitney.Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire (William Morrow, 2018).
• Bell, Coral.The Reagan Paradox: U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1980s (1989) short overview by Australian scholaronline
• Brown, Archie.The Human Factor: Gorbachev, Reagan and Thatcher, and the End of the Cold War (Oxford UP, 2020).
• Busch, Andrew E. "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" inPresidential Studies Quarterly. 27#3 (1997). pp. 451+
• Cohen, Stephen Philip. "The Reagan Administration and India". inThe Hope and the Reality (Routledge, 2019) pp. 139–153.
• Coleman, Bradley Lynn, and Kyle Longley, eds.Reagan and the World: Leadership and National Security, 1981–1989 (2017) 13 essays by scholars;excerpt
• Crandall, Russell.The Salvador Option: The United States in El Salvador, 1977–1992 (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
• Downing, Taylor.1983: Reagan, Andropov, and a World on the Brink (Hachette UK, 2018).
• Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan administration, economic warfare, and starting to close down the cold war".Diplomatic History 29.3 (2005): 531–556.
• Dujmovic, Nicholas. "Reagan, Intelligence, Casey, and the CIA: A Reappraisal",International Journal of Intelligence & Counterintelligence (2013) 26#1 pp. 1–30.
• Draper, Theodore. A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair (1991).
• Dunn, Peter M. ed.American Intervention In Grenada: The Implications Of Operation "Urgent Fury" (2019)
• Esno, Tyler. "Reagan's Economic War on the Soviet Union",Diplomatic History (2018) 42#2 281–304,Reagan’s Economic War on the Soviet Union.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War. political history of S.D.I. (2000).
• Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy".Journal of Strategic Studies (2): 379–409. Argues Reagan applied naval might against Soviet weaknesses. It involved a large naval buildup and aggressive exercises near the USSR; it targeted their strategic missile submarines. American intelligence helped Washington to revise its strategy of military operations.
• Gaddis, John Lewis.Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War (2nd ed. 2005), pp 342–79.
• Green, Michael J.By More Than Providence: Grand Strategy and American Power in the Asia Pacific Since 1783 (Columbia UP, 2017) pp 327–428.online
• Goodhart, Michael.Human Rights: Politics and Practice (3rd edn). Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds.The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength? Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
• Inboden, William.The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan, the Cold War, and the World on the Brink (Penguin Random House, 2022)two scholarly book reviews online
• Inboden, William. "Grand Strategy and Petty Squabbles: The Paradox of the Reagan National Security Council", inThe Power of the Past: History and Statecraft, ed. by Hal Brands and Jeremi Suri. (Brookings Institution Press, 2016), pp 151–80.
• Kane, N. Stephen.Selling Reagan's Foreign Policy: Going Public vs. Executive Bargaining (Lexington Books, 2018).
• Kengor, Paul (2006).The Crusader. New York: Regan Books.ISBN 978-0-06-113690-0.
• Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"Strategic Insights, 3#8 (August 2004)online
• Kyvig, David. ed.Reagan and the World (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy.
• La Barca, Giuseppe.International Trade under President Reagan: US Trade Policy in the 1980s (Bloomsbury, 2023).ISBN 978-1-350-27141-8
• Laham, Nicholas.Crossing the Rubicon: Ronald Reagan and US Policy in the Middle East (2018).
• Leffler, Melvyn P. "Ronald Reagan and the Cold War: What Mattered Most"Texas National Security Review (2018) 1#3 (May 2018)online
• Lucas, Scott, and Robert Pee. "Re-evaluating democracy promotion: the Reagan administration, allied authoritarian states, and regime change".Journal of Cold War Studies (2020).
• Mann, James.The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War (Penguin, 2010)
• Melanson, Richard A.American Foreign Policy Since the Vietnam War: The Search for Consensus from Nixon to Clinton (2015).
• Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy".Presidential Studies Quarterly (2006) 36#1 75–88. Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
• Pee, Robert, and William Michael Schmidli, eds.The Reagan Administration, the Cold War, and the Transition to Democracy Promotion (Springer, 2018).
• Ratnesar, Romesh.Tear Down This Wall: A City, a President, and the Speech that Ended the Cold War (2009)
• Schmidt, Werner. "Ronald Reagan and his Rhetoric in Foreign Policy". inThe Reagan Administration (De Gruyter, 2019) pp. 77–88.
• Schmertz, Eric J. et al. eds.Ronald Reagan and the World (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders.
• Schweizer, Peter.Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism (2002)
• Service, Robert.The End of the Cold War: 1985-1991 (2015)excerpt
• Søndergaard, Rasmus Sinding.Reagan, Congress, and Human Rights: Contesting Morality in US Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
• Travis, Philip W.Reagan's War on Terrorism in Nicaragua: The Outlaw State (2016)
• Velasco, Jesús.Neoconservatives in U.S. Foreign Policy Under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush: Voices Behind the Throne (Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2010)
• Walker, Thomas W., et al.Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War On Nicaragua (Routledge, 2019).
• Wallison, Peter J.Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency. Westview Press, 2003. 282 pp.
• Wills, David C.The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration. (2004).
• Wilson, James Graham.The Triumph of Improvisation: Gorbachev's Adaptability, Reagan's Engagement, and the End of the Cold War (2014)
• Wilson, James Graham. "How Grand Was Reagan's Strategy, 1976–1984?"Diplomacy and Statecraft. 18#4. (2007). 773–803.
• Wormann, Claudia. "Reconstruction of Economic Strength? The (Foreign) Economic Policy of the Reagan Administration". inThe Reagan Administration (De Gruyter, 2019) pp. 51–74.online

• Cannato, Vincent J. "The 1980s—A Historiographical Survey."The Routledge History of the Twentieth-Century United States (Routledge, 2018). 84-93.
• Carpenter, Ryan "Researching Reagan: a guide for scholars of national security policy during the Ronald Reagan presidency" in Bradley Lynn Coleman, ed.Reagan and the World: Leadership and National Security, 1981–1989 (2017) 293–306.
• Head, Simon. "Reagan, Nuclear Weapons, and the End of the Cold War" inRonald Reagan and the 1980s: Perceptions, Policies, Legacies ed. by Cheryl Hudson and Gareth Davies (2008): pp. 81–100
• Kalinovsky, Artemy, and Craig Daigle, "Explanations for the End of the Cold War", inThe Routledge Handbook of the Cold War, ed. Artemy Kalinovsky and Craig Daigle (2014) pp 281–304.
• McMahon, Robert. "Making sense of American Foreign policy during the Reagan years",Diplomatic History 19#2 (1995): 367–84.
• Matlock, Jr., Jack F. "Ronald Reagan and the End of the Cold War" inRonald Reagan and the 1980s: Perceptions, Policies, Legacies ed. by Cheryl Hudson and Gareth Davies (2008): pp. 57–80.
• Paulauskas, Michael V. "Reagan, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, 1981–1985."A Companion to Ronald Reagan (2015) pp: 275-294.
• Prados, John.How the Cold War Ended: Debating and Doing History (Potomac Books, 2011).
• Roberts, Priscilla. " 'All the Right People': The Historiography of the American Foreign Policy Establishment."Journal of American Studies 26.3 (1992): 409-434.online
• Salla; Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds.Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations (Greenwood Press. 1995).
• Schulzinger, Robert D. "Complaints, Self-justifications, and Analysis: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations since 1969."Diplomatic History 15.2 (1991): 245-264.
• Siekmeier, James F. "The Iran–Contra Affair." inA Companion to Ronald Reagan (2015): 321-338.
• Wilson, James Graham. "The Reagan Administration and the World, 1981–1988". inA Companion to US Foreign Relations: Colonial Era to the Present (2020): 1068–1082.
• Witham, Nick. "Confronting a 'crisis in historical perspective': Walter LaFeber, Gabriel Kolko and the functions of revisionist historiography during the Reagan era."Left History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Historical Inquiry and Debate 15.1 (2010): 65-86.

• Haig, Alexander.Caveat. New York: Macmillan, 1984.
• Matlock Jr., Jack F.Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2004. He was Reagan's ambassador to Moscow
• McMahon, Robert J. "Making Sense of American Foreign Policy during the Reagan Years",Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (1995): 367–384. Reviews the key autobiographies.
• Shultz, George P.Turmoil and Triumph: My Years As Secretary of State. New York: Scribner, 1993.
• Weinberger, Caspar.Fighting for Peace: Seven Critical Years in the Pentagon. New York: Warner Books Inc., 1991. by Secretary of Defense

• U.S. State Department Office of the Historian: Reagan's Foreign Policy.
• U.S. Policy Towards the Contras from theDean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• The Ronald Reagan Presidential LibraryArchived March 6, 2016, at theWayback Machine
• The Reagan Files: Collection of thousands of top-secret documents from the Reagan administration.

• Presidency of Ronald Reagan
• History of the foreign relations of the United States
• United States foreign policy
• Foreign policy by United States presidential administration
• Public policy of the Reagan administration

• CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN
• Webarchive template wayback links
• All articles with dead external links
• Articles with dead external links from April 2024
• Articles with permanently dead external links
• Articles with dead external links from October 2017
• CS1: unfit URL
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use mdy dates from February 2022
• All articles needing additional references
• Articles needing additional references from June 2025
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from November 2008
• Articles with unsourced statements from April 2022
• Articles with unsourced statements from August 2020
• Articles with unsourced statements from July 2019
• Articles containing video clips