Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Introduction: Toward International Accountability for All Dependent Territories -- 1. Laying the Groundwork: International Interest in Non-Self- Governing Territories -- 2. Fits and Starts: The Contours of International Accountability Emerge -- 3. Organizational Foundations: The Committee on Information Becomes Operational -- 4. Rhetoric and Routine: The Last Vestiges of Western Dominance -- 5. Taking Off the Gloves: New UN Activism in the Chapter XI Territories -- 6. Power Shifts: The Full-On Drive for Accountability -- 7. Crossing the Rubicon: Proponents of Accountability Take Control -- 8. Activism Triumphant: Achieving International Accountability for All Dependent Territories -- Conclusion: International Accountability Assessed -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Introduction -- Part I: NATO -- 1. NATO United, NATO Divided: The Transatlantic Relationship -- 2. Colonialism and the Atlantic Alliance: Anglo-American Perspectives at the United Nations, 1945-1963 -- 3. "Learning by Doing": Disintegrating Factors and the Development of Political Cooperation in Early NATO -- 4. Failed Rampart: NATO's Balkan Front -- 5. Containing the French Malaise?: The Role of NATO's Secretary General, 1958-1968 -- 6. The Multilateral Force as an Instrument for a European Nuclear Force? -- 7. Ostpolitik as a Source of Intrabloc Tensions -- 8. The Florentine in Winter: François Mitterrand and the Ending of the Cold War, 1989-1991 -- Part II: The Warsaw Pact -- 9. The Warsaw Pact: An Alliance in Search of a Purpose -- 10. Polish-East German Relations, 1945-1958 -- 11. The Warsaw Pact and the German Question, 1955-1970: Conflict and Consensus -- 12. The Warsaw Pact and Southern Tier Conflicts, 1959-1969 -- 13. The Sino-Soviet Conflict and the Warsaw Pact, 1969-1980 -- 14. Why Was There No "Second Cold War" in Europe?: Hungary and the East-West Crisis Following the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan -- Contributors -- Index

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the United States sought to challenge the Soviet Union's credibility as a champion of decolonization by casting Soviet control of Central Asia, the Baltic republics, and Eastern Europe in imperial terms, or what U.S. officials came to call "Red Colonialism." Waged in large measure at the United Nations (UN) and other international forums, the Red Colonialism campaign sought to contrast the evolutionary nature of Western colonialism with the seeming permanence of Soviet domination. The campaign underscored the U.S. government's preoccupation with the Soviet threat at a time when much of the developing world was focused on other matters, such as national self-determination, racial equality, and economic development. This article looks at the genesis and nature of the Red Colonialism campaign and explains why a variety of factors ultimately prevented it from gaining much traction at the UN.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the United States sought to challenge the Soviet Union's credibility as a champion of decolonization by casting Soviet control of Central Asia, the Baltic republics, and Eastern Europe in imperial terms, or what U.S. officials came to call 'Red Colonialism.' Waged in large measure at the United Nations (UN) and other international forums, the Red Colonialism campaign sought to contrast the evolutionary nature of Western colonialism with the seeming permanence of Soviet domination. The campaign underscored the U.S. government's preoccupation with the Soviet threat at a time when much of the developing world was focused on other matters, such as national self-determination, racial equality, and economic development. This article looks at the genesis and nature of the Red Colonialism campaign and explains why a variety of factors ultimately prevented it from gaining much traction at the UN. Adapted from the source document.

The evolution of US attitudes toward imperialism is examined. These changing attitudes are then related to public understandings of US national identity. A chronological sweep of US history is utilized, beginning with Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, the Mexican War (America's first armed conflict over territorial control), & the Samoan & Venezuelan disputes of 1895, incidents that highlight America's tendency toward anti-imperialism. Post-1890s, Americans adopted a distinct anti-imperialist attitude. Following the war with Spain, & lasting until 1940, Americans favored decolonization, yet emerged by the early 20th century as a Western power with self-interested ideals. The final stage of US attitudes concerning imperialism began with WWII & continued through the period of decolonization that followed. During this period, attitudes were contradictory, irresolute, & marked by the introduction of new principles. It can be concluded from this examination that US attitudes toward imperialism & colonialism were always guided by America's own needs & interests. Finally, America's national identity has been shaped by its power status. When the nation was weak, it remained anti-imperial. When it gained in strength, anti-imperialistic attitudes were subordinated by practical geopolitical factors. K. Larsen