Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article argues that ṣulḥ-i kull (peace for all) as a specific term was introduced in the 1590s by a small group of avant-garde Neoplatonists who worked at the court of the Mughal emperor Akbar. It was only in the following century that ṣulḥ-i kull developed into the ethos that became the ideological mainstay of Mughal rule both internally, for its administrative elites, and externally, vis-à-vis their main rivals: the Uzbeks in Central Asia and the Safavids in Iran. The early stages in the making of this ideology can be followed in some detail by studying Akbar's neglected millennial history, the Tarikh-i Alfi. In fact, this vast Mughal world history demonstrates that apart from Neoplatonic akhlāq, there was another important building block that so far has been missing altogether in the making of ṣulḥ-i kull, that is, the practical model of the Pax Mongolica, as established under Chinggis Khan, the most famous of Mughal ancestors. Most crucially, it is in the Tarikh-i Alfi that we find the legacies of Persianate akhlāq and Mongol yasa (law) married to each other. In fact, it was through akhlāq that the peace of the Mongols became the Mughal peace for all.

Statistical results from the census of Iranian population in 2006

As illustration of the contradictory beliefs held by US citizens regarding foreign policy, Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the U of Maryland & author of several studies of US public opinion, interviewed a composite of average Americans concerning their views. The composite was formed from the majority positions in comprehensive polling data. The results portray American public opinion as complex, refusing to side with simplistic beliefs, but vacillating between altruism & self-concern; protectionism & entrepreneurial expansionism; & isolationist & multilateral approaches to peacekeeping & world problem solving. Americans' perceptions of their country's participation in foreign aid & world peacekeeping are higher than the actual reality. Terrorism is seen as a key concern for the future. 1 Table. L. A. Hoffman

THERE EXISTS A CONCERN THAT THE SOVIETS ARE STILL COMMITTED MARXISTLENINISTS ULTIMATELY INTENT ON FOMENTING SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES A FORM OF DOUBLETHINK WHICH REFLECTS WIDESPREAD FEELINGS IN THE SOVIET UNION. SOVIETS ARE LOSING FAITH IN THE STATE "RELIGION" ESTABLISHED BY LENIN, NEVERTHELESS LENIN IS STILL REVERED. IT EXPLORES WHAT THE DECLINE OF LENINISM PORTENDS FOR FUTURE SOVIET BEHAVIOR. IT CONCLUDES THAT IT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE SOVIETS ARE ENTIRELY TRUSTWORTHY. THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT THE GHOST OF LENIN WILL ARISE ONCE AGAIN AND IMBUE SOVIET POLICY WITH REVOLUTIONARY AMBITION. BUT GIVEN THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN SOVIET IDEOLOGY AND FOREIGN-POLICY BEHAVIOR, THIS RISK IS SMALL AND EASILY OUTWEIGHED BY THE RISK OF FOREGOING THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREATER SOVIET-AMERICAN COOPERATION.