Eye opener

Like Denise, I found it a bit of a revelation to hear the story Robert Williams; it seems like he has been overlooked by mainstream scholars as well as the secondary educational system. Perhaps this is because of his decisions to move to countries and regimes that were (and still are) at odds with the American government - swept under the carpet, much of his work for equity and civil rights have been ignored. Williams' motivation for leaving the U.S. and seeking shelter from its enemies makes sense from a personal viewpoint - he was disgusted, alienated, and disenfranchised by a country he had fought to protect and was justified in many of his actions - why not slap the government in the face and conspire with the enemy. What I found fascinating was the irresistable draw that our country still held for Williams, especially at the end of his life. To respond to your question, Denise, I would imagine that the U.S. government felt that at this stage in his activist career Williams was less of a threat at home than abroad, and that he would be far more willing to assist the government under favorable conditions.
In Robert Self's article "To Plan Our Liberation", he makes an interesting observation on the generational differences in approach of African Americans after the war. He draws a distinction between the early civil rights leaders and the younger black power movement that followed. The first and less confrontational movement was focused on integration as the catalyst for social justice and change that manifested itself as the civil rights movement; he argues that the Panthers and their less-integrative figures like Newton and Carmichael were actually articulating a new tradition born of a younger generation that had lost patience with the limitations of non-violence, and were willing to take a more active stance on securing their equity, rights, and jobs.