DOCSLIB.ORG

Index of Cases of Superpower Cooperation James M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Index of Cases of Superpower Cooperation James M. Finlay CHAPTER 2: A SOVIET PERSPECTIVE 1943 Agreements at Tehran 34 1945 Agreements at Yalta 34 1945 Establishment of UN 33-4 1948 Superpowers support creation of Israeli state 34 1953-54 Geneva summits and conferences 31 1955 Austrian State Treaty 31,37 1956 Similar superpower reaction to Suez crisis 34 1960 Zorin-McCloy Agreement 35 1%2 Cuban missile crisis - direct military action avoided 40-5 1%3 Hot Line Agreement 43-4 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty 43,45 1%3 US pledge to avoid direct intervention in Cuba 44 1%7 Meeting between Johnson and Kosygin in Glassboro 46 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty 33,45 1971 Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin 37 1971 Hot line modernization 44,49 1972 Basic Principles Agreement 36,40, 48-50 1972 ABMTreaty 46-7,49 1972 SALT 1 47,49 1975 Helsinki Accords signed 47 1977 Joint statement on Middle East signed 52 1977 Convening of the Geneva Conference under Soviet-American Co-Chairmanship 50 1979 SALT 2 47,49,52 415 416 Index of Cases 1982- START 56 1985 Hot Line modernization 44,49 1987 INF Agreement 56 1988 Geneva Accords on Afghanistan 57 Negotiations on the demilitarization of the Indian Ocean 52 Negotiations on Conventional Arms Transfers 52 CHAPTER 3: WESTERN EUROPE 1948 Superpowers avoid direct confrontation during Berlin crisis 68 1949,1955 Creation of two-bloc confrontation implicitly limits German rearmament 6S-9 1953 US acts with restraint to Soviet suppression in East Germany 71 1956 US acts with restraint to Soviet invasion of Hungary 71 1958-62 Superpowers avoid direct confrontaltion over Berlin 70-1 1968 US acts with restraint to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia 71 1971 Four-Power Accord for Berlin signed 80 1972 SALT 1 81 1972 Basic Principles Agreement 80 1975 Helsinki Accords signed 71,80 1979 SALT 2 72-4 1982- START 72, 74, 75 1986 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 71,81,84, 85 1987 INFTreaty 72,74,81 CHAPTER 4: EASTERN EUROPE 1948-49 Superpowers keep Berlin blockade tensions at a manageable level 9fr-7 1951 Soviets permit Finland to join the Nordic Council 98 1955 Austrian State Treaty 98 Index of Cases 417 1955 Soviet withdrawal from naval base in Porkkala 98 1955 Khrushchev makes peace with Tito 98 1955 Khrushchev invites Adenauer to Moscow 98 mid-1950s Resolution of the German question 98-9 1956 US does not challenge Soviet hegemony in Hungary 98,99-100, 108 1958-61 Direct confrontation avoided in Berlin 100-1,107 1968 US limits its response to the invasion of Czechoslovakia to diplomatic warnings 101,108 1971 Agreements over status of Berlin 101 1972 Basic Principles Agreement 109 1975 Certain rules of behavior codified in Helsinki Accords 101,110 1981 US avoids use of force in Polish crisis 102-3 1987 INF agreement 103 1988 Soviets announce unilateral reductions of military forces in Central Europe 114-15 CHAPTER 5: MIDDLE EAST 1947 End of British Mandate in Palestine - creation of the State of Israel 125,126 1956 Response to nationalization of Suez Canal 125,127 1956 Suez and Sinai Campaign 124,125 1957 Soviet Proposal for Four-Power Talks 125 1967 Pre-Six-Day War crisis 125 1967 Johnson Proposal to Kosygin 125 1967 Six-Day War 125,128 1967-70 Negotiations: Glassboro talks; Resolution 242; Two-power talks; Four-power talks; Rogers initiative 125,131 1969-70 War of Attrition 125 1971 Prevention of war 125 1972 Moscow Summit 125 1973 Prevention of war 125 418 Index of Cases 1973 Outbreak of Yom Kippur War 125 1973 Yom Kippur War 128,131 1973 Geneva Conference 125,131 1973-77 Moderation of PLO 126 1974-75 Israeli-Egyptian, Israeli-Syrian Dist!ngagement Agreements 125 1974-75 Preservation of cease-fires 125 1977 Efforts to resume Geneva Joint Soviet-American Statement 126,131 1982 Israeli-Syrian missile crisis in Lebanon 126 1982 Lebanon War 126,128 1982 Brezhnev Peace Plan 126 1984 Soviet Peace Plan 126 American-Soviet presence in Lebanon 126 CHAPTER 6: NORTH AFRICA 1965 Superpowers exercise restraint in Chadian conflict 152 1977 Superpowers support end of French colonial rule over territories of Afars and Issas and transformation into Djibouti 159 1977-78 Change in superpower alliances with Somalia and Ethiopia occurs without conflict 162 1978 Cooperation in containing the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict 161-2 1978- Neither superpower supports Somalll irredentist policy 159 1980s Superpowers press for Mengistu's acceptance of Somali plan 162-3 1986 Soviets do not interfere with US bombing of Libya 152 Superpowers support territorial integrity of Sudan 159-60 Superpowers exercise restraint in Wt!stem Saharan conflicts 152-3 Index of Cases 419 CHAPTER 7: CENTRAL AFRICA early 19608 Zairian crises - real military support for dissidents and insurgents is kept at an inconsequential level by the Soviet Union 188 1963-65 Soviets provide only verbal backing to the wave of rebellions in the region 188 1967-70 Superpowers avoid direct involvement in Nigerian civil war 188 1973-88 Soviets avoid direct involvement in Libyan interference in Chadian affairs 188 1983-88 Number of African states receiving arms assistance from Soviet Union shrinks from 22 to seven 187 CHAPTER 8: SOUTHERN AFRICA 1960 Superpowers avoid escalation of involvement in ShabaI 205 1961-79 Superpowers avoid escalation in Rhodesian revolution 205 1961-75 Superpowers support Portuguese decolonization 214 1977-78 Superpowers avoid escalation of involvement in Shaball 205 1979 Superpowers avoid interference in the transition to black rule in Zimbabwe and share similar goals 205-6 1979- Superpowers provide financial support for the South African Development and Coordination Conference (SADCC) 215 19~ Superpowers support Mozambican government in civil war against RENAMO 209,215 1983-4 Lusaka Accords 209 1984 Nkomati Accords 209 1986 Superpowers meet to discuss regional conflicts 210 1988 Superpowers support Angola-Namibia Accords with joint Appeals Commission with US and Soviet representatives 209--14,215 1989 Superpowers explore possibility of reducing the costs of peacekeeping forces for Namibia 212-13 420 Index of Cases 1980s Soviets accept idea of Western assistance to Angola and Mozambique 208 Superpower sanctions against Rhodesia 214 Superpower sanctions against South Africa 214 CHAPTER 9: THE CARIBBEAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA 1962 Superpowers avoid hostilities during Cuban missile crisis 238 1962- US avoids direct involvement in Cuba 238,239 1962-79 Superpower restraint in Nicaraguan civil war- avoid direct intervention 238 1965 Soviets assume low posture during US invasion of Dominican Republic 239 1972- Soviets refuse direct assistance to msistance in EI Salvador and Guatemala 238,240 1972- Superpower restraint in Salvadorian civil war- avoid direct intervention 238,239 1979- US downscales support for the Contras over time and avoids direct invasion of Nicaragua 226,238, 239 1979- Soviets refuse to provide Nicaragua with MIG fighters and keep military manpower low 226,239, 242 1979- Soviets restrict economic assistance to Nicaragua 237,239-40 1979 Moscow refuses aid to Grenada's New Jewell Movement during coup 240 1981 Soviets refuse to air transport weapons to support Salvadoran guerrilla offensive 239,240 1983 Superpowers endorse the Contadol'a initiative 229 1983 Soviets do not interfere with US invasion of Grenada 226,239, 240 1984 Soviets do not interfere with US mining of Nicaraguan harbors 239 1987 Superpower endorsement of Arias Plan 229 1987 Gorbachev proposes superpower cooperation in region at the Washington summit 242 198~90 Soviets pressure Sandinistas 229,241 Index of Cases 421 1989 Moscow assumes low profile during US invasion of Panama 226 1989 Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Cuba is written with US security concerns in mind 238-9,242 1989 Superpowers meet to discuss Third World regional conflicts 237 1989 Moscow conference to reassess the 1962 Cuban missile crisis 245 1990 Superpowers pressure Nicaragua to hold elections 241,246, 248 US restricts the number of advisers and military personnel in Guatemala and EI Salvador 239 Superpowers agree on UN Observer Group Central America (ONUCA) to end Sandinista arms support to FMLN 241 CHAPTER 10: SOUTH AMERICA 1954 Soviets do not retaliate for US intervention in Guatemala 262 1962 Agreements made between superpowers after Cuban missile crisis 253,264, 266 1979- Acceptance that Nicaragua will not have Soviet military bases, no MIG fighter planes and no subversion of Nicaragua's neighbors 269-70 1987 Soviet proposal that both superpowers cease funding of client states in region 275 1989 US expresses interest in reviving Soviet proposal to end funding to clients 275 CHAPTER 11: SOUTH ASIA 1948 US attempts to mediate India-Pakistan War 292 1962 Superpower support for India in Sino-Indian War 281,283-4, 295 1965 US supports Soviet efforts to mediate India­ Pakistan War 284-5,292, 295 422 Index of Cases 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty 281,288-9 1987 Superpowers urge restraint in Sino--Indian crisis 286-7,292, 295 1987 Superpowers support India in the Maldives 296 1988 Superpowers support India in Sri Lanka 296- CHAPTER 12: SOUTHWEST ASIA 1945-79 US avoids using Iran as a forward base from which to threaten the Soviet Union 312 1945-79 Soviets accept Western orientation of Iran under Shah 322-3 1961--63 Washington resists Shah's requests for massive buildup of bis military 314 1960s Superpowers evolve tacit policies of mutual cooperation in helping Afghanistan develop 316-18 1950s- Superpowers come to tacit agreement to 1970s recognize legitimate interests of the other in Afghanistan 321-2
Recommended publications
  • Implementation of the Helsinki Accords Hearings

    Implementation of the Helsinki Accords Hearings

    BASKET III: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HELSINKI ACCORDS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THE CRISIS IN POLAND AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE HELSINKI PROCESS DECEMBER 28, 1981 Printed for the use of the - Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 9-952 0 'WASHINGTON: 1982 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida, Chairman ROBERT DOLE, Kansas, Cochairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois JOHN HEINZ, Pennsylvania JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island MILLICENT FENWICK, New Jersey PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont DON RITTER, Pennsylvania EXECUTIVE BRANCH The Honorable STEPHEN E. PALMER, Jr., Department of State The Honorable RICHARD NORMAN PERLE, Department of Defense The Honorable WILLIAM H. MORRIS, Jr., Department of Commerce R. SPENCER OLIVER, Staff Director LYNNE DAVIDSON, Staff Assistant BARBARA BLACKBURN, Administrative Assistant DEBORAH BURNS, Coordinator (II) ] CONTENTS IMPLEMENTATION. OF THE HELSINKI ACCORDS The Crisis In Poland And Its Effects On The Helsinki Process, December 28, 1981 WITNESSES Page Rurarz, Ambassador Zdzislaw, former Polish Ambassador to Japan .................... 10 Kampelman, Ambassador Max M., Chairman, U.S. Delegation to the CSCE Review Meeting in Madrid ............................................................ 31 Baranczak, Stanislaw, founder of KOR, the Committee for the Defense of Workers.......................................................................................................................... 47 Scanlan, John D., Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, Depart- ment of State ............................................................ 53 Kahn, Tom, assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO ..........................................
  • Amicus Curiae Brief of Human Rights Watch And

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Human Rights Watch And

    6XSUHPH&RXUWRI&DOLIRUQLD 6XSUHPH&RXUWRI&DOLIRUQLD -RUJH(1DYDUUHWH&OHUNDQG([HFXWLYH2IILFHURIWKH&RXUW -RUJH(1DYDUUHWH&OHUNDQG([HFXWLYH2IILFHURIWKH&RXUW (OHFWURQLFDOO\5(&(,9('RQRQ30 (OHFWURQLFDOO\),/('RQ4/3E\(PLO\)HQJ'HSXW\&OHUN No. S256149 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN RE WILLIAM M. PALMER, ON HABEAS CORPUS On Review From The Court Of Appeal For the First Appellate District Division Two, 1st Civil No. A154269 APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER, WILLIAM M. PALMER and BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND THE PACIFIC JUVENILE DEFENDER CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER William D. Temko (State Bar No. 98858) [email protected] *Sara A. McDermott (State Bar No. 307564) [email protected] Michele C. Nielsen (State Bar No. 313413) [email protected] MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Attorneys for Human Rights Watch and the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center No. S256149 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN RE WILLIAM M. PALMER, ON HABEAS CORPUS On Review From The Court Of Appeal For the First Appellate District Division Two, 1st Civil No. A154269 APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER, WILLIAM M. PALMER William D. Temko (State Bar No. 98858) [email protected] *Sara A. McDermott (State Bar No. 307564) [email protected] Michele C. Nielsen (State Bar No. 313413) [email protected] MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350
  • South African Army Vision 2020

    South African Army Vision 2020

    South African Army Vision 2020 Security Challenges Shaping the Future South African Army EDITED BY LEN LE ROUX www.issafrica.org © 2007, Institute for Security Studies All rights reserved Copyright in the volume as a whole is vested in the Institute for Security Studies, and no part may be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission, in writing, of both the authors and the publishers. The opinions expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute, its Trustees, members of the ISS Council, or donors. Authors contribute to ISS publications in their personal capacity. ISBN: 978-1-920114-24-4 First published by the Institute for Security Studies PO Box 1787, Brooklyn Square 0075 Pretoria/Tshwane, South Africa Cover photo: Colonel Johan Blaauw Cover design and layout: Marketing Support Services Printer: D&V Premier Print Group CONTENTS Preface v About the authors vii CHAPTER ONE The South African army in its global and local contexts in the early 21st century: A mission-critical analysis 1 Professor G Prins CHAPTER TWO Change and continuity in global politics and military strategy 35 Professor J E Spence CHAPTER THREE The African strategic environment 2020: Challenges for the SA army 45 Dr Jakkie Cilliers CHAPTER FOUR Conflict in Africa: Future challenges 83 Dr Martin Rupiya CHAPTER FIVE Regional security 93 Ms Virginia Gamba CHAPTER SIX The alliances of violent non-state actors and the future of terrorism in Africa 107 Dr Abdel Aziz M Shady CHAPTER SEVEN International and regional trends in peace missions:
  • Use of Force in Bloc Situations

    Use of Force in Bloc Situations

    IDEOLOGY AND THE LEGAL REGULATION OF THE USE OF FORCE THE USE OF FORCE IN BLOC SITUATIONS Ross R. Oglesby* My task is to examine the use of force in bloc situations and to discover, if possible, whether there are "rules of the game," or norms of international law, which govern such use. In analyzing the question, two incidents will be examined in particular-the United States use of force in the Dominican Republic in 1965 and the Soviet use of force against Czechoslovakia in 1968. From a study of these two incidents, as well as others not presently under examination, it appears that a pattern is developing. It will be necessary in this context to employ the word "intervention" frequently; hence, it should be mentioned at the outset that the word "intervention" will be used to describe the phenomenon of international life in which a state sends military men and materiel across another state's boundaries.' This use of the word is not to imply that intervention of this nature is the only kind that exists or matters; rather, it implies that such intervention is the only kind congruent with the use of force in bloc situations. This type of intervention is not only the most trau- matic for the international system, but illustrates with the greatest lucid- ity and forcefulness what appears to be the development of a rule gov- erning the use of force in bloc situations. Since the Second World War, both the Soviet Union and the United States have engaged in intervention on a somewhat continual basis.
  • The French Strategy in Africa: France’S Role on the Continent & Its Implications for American Foreign Policy

    The French Strategy in Africa: France’S Role on the Continent & Its Implications for American Foreign Policy

    The French Strategy in Africa: France’s Role on the Continent & its Implications for American Foreign Policy Matt Tiritilli TC 660H Plan II Honors Program The University of Texas at Austin 11 May 2017 ____________________________________________________ J. Paul Pope Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Supervising Professor ____________________________________________________ Bobby R. Inman, Admiral, U.S. Navy (ret.) Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Second Reader Abstract In the post-World War II era, the nature of military interventions by traditional powers has changed dramatically due to changes in political priorities and the kinds of conflicts emerging in the world. Especially in the case of the French, national security interests and the decision-making process for engaging in foreign interventions has diverged significantly from the previous era and the modern American format. France has a long history of intervention on the African continent due in part to its colonial history, but also because of its modern economic and security interests there. The aim of this thesis is to articulate a framework for describing French strategy in the region and its implications for American foreign policy decisions. Contrary to the pattern of heavy-footprint, nation building interventions by the United States during this time period, the French format can instead be characterized by the rapid deployment of light forces in the attempt to successfully achieve immediate, but moderate objectives. French policy regarding Africa is based on the principles of strategic autonomy, the maintenance their status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and the ‘Europeanization’ of future initiatives. In order to achieve these objectives, France has pursued a foreign policy designed to allow flexibility and selectivity in choosing whether to intervene and to maintain the relative balance of power within their sphere of influence with itself as the regional stabilizer.
  • US Foreign Policy Traditions and Cold War Interventions

    US Foreign Policy Traditions and Cold War Interventions

    FOREIGN POLICY TRADITIONS Alexandra Homolar AND University of US COLD WAR INTERVENTIONISM Warwick CONTENTS ¡ Background: § Research Focus § What is Foreign Policy Analysis? ¡ US Cold War Interventionism § US Military Interventions (overview) § US Cold War Doctrines § What Drives US Foreign Policy? ¡ Questions? Answers? RESEARCH FOCUS Speaking International Security § The Uncertainty Doctrine § Enemy Addiction Collaborative Projects § Benchmarking in Global Governance § Crisis Leadership in International Politics WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS? ¡ FPA is : ‘the study of the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, primarily states, in the international system’ ¡ Focus: State conduct and sources of decision rather than workings of the international system (1st & 2nd image/level of analysis not 3rd image/level of analysis) ¡ Key Concern: decision-making (processes, actors, contexts, influences, outcomes) ¡ Normative Position: improving FP decision-making to achieve better outcomes and more peaceful relations Alden & Aran 2012: Foreign Policy Analysis: New approaches US COLD WAR INTERVENTIONISM The World According to America? US COLD WAR INTERVENTIONISM Early Cold War (1946- 1953; Truman) IRAN 1946 Soviet troops told to leave north. YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Response to shoot-down of US plane. URUGUAY 1947 Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE 1947-49 U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. GERMANY 1948 Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. CHINA 1948-49 Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. KOREA 1951-53(-?) US/So. Korea fights China/No. Korea. Stalemate; a-bomb threat (1950), against China (1953). US COLD WAR INTERVENTIONISM Cold War (1953 – 1960; Eisenhower) IRAN 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
  • Contention Between Communalist and Capitalist Inhabitants Escort to the Cold War

    Contention Between Communalist and Capitalist Inhabitants Escort to the Cold War

    ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 4 No 2 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Published by MCSER-CEMAS-Sapienza University of Rome May 2013 Contention Between Communalist and Capitalist Inhabitants Escort to the Cold War Dr. Abdul Zahoor Khan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of History & Pakistan Studies Faculty of Social Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad-Pakistan, Phone Office: +92-51-9019517, Cell: +92-300-5527644, +92-300-7293535 Emails: [email protected], , [email protected] Doi:10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n2p437 Abstract: In retrospect, the question, (what was the cold war about?), seems to a great extent harder to answer than it probably did to contemporaries, some of whom would probably shake their head in wonderment at the above analysis. Yet if we address each of its putative justifications singly, any clear answer seems to fade into the ether. First, from the U.S. side, was the cold war about fighting communism? As long as the Soviet Union remained the sole Communist state, this was a fairly simple proposition, because communism and Russian/Soviet power amounted to the same thing. After 1948, however, with the emergence of independent centers of Communist power in Yugoslavia and then in China, the ideological simplicity of the cold war disappeared. The United States found itself supporting communism in its national variety precisely in order to complicate the projection of Soviet power. The Yugoslav case has been mentioned; and although the U.S. opening to China would be delayed by two, decades of tragic ideological blindness, the United States did undertake, after 1956, to encourage and cultivate national communism in Eastern Europe in the form of the policy of differentiation.
  • Killing Hope U.S

    Killing Hope U.S

    Killing Hope U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II – Part I William Blum Zed Books London Killing Hope was first published outside of North America by Zed Books Ltd, 7 Cynthia Street, London NI 9JF, UK in 2003. Second impression, 2004 Printed by Gopsons Papers Limited, Noida, India w w w.zedbooks .demon .co .uk Published in South Africa by Spearhead, a division of New Africa Books, PO Box 23408, Claremont 7735 This is a wholly revised, extended and updated edition of a book originally published under the title The CIA: A Forgotten History (Zed Books, 1986) Copyright © William Blum 2003 The right of William Blum to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Cover design by Andrew Corbett ISBN 1 84277 368 2 hb ISBN 1 84277 369 0 pb Spearhead ISBN 0 86486 560 0 pb 2 Contents PART I Introduction 6 1. China 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid? 20 2. Italy 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style 27 3. Greece 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state 33 4. The Philippines 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony 38 5. Korea 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be? 44 6. Albania 1949-1953: The proper English spy 54 7. Eastern Europe 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor 56 8. Germany 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism 60 9. Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings 63 10.
  • Did America Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? An

    Did America Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? An

    Did America learn to stop worrying and love the bomb? An examination of the American publics response to nuclear war in newspapers and popular culture, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to The Day After Rory McGlynn [email protected] Erasmus School of History, Communications and Culture First Reader: Dr Martijn Lak Second Reader: Professor Ferry de Goey Rory McGlynn – Did America Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? 1 Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Martijn Lak for his support and advice throughout the year, it has been very helpful. Secondly, I would like to thank my fellow members of the research workshop War and Peace, for their helpful advice throughout the process. And lastly, I would like to thank my family for their advice and support with proof reading among other things. And also thank you to the Goats for absolutely nothing. Rory McGlynn – Did America Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? 2 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 4 Nature of Sources ................................................................................................................. 6 Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................................... 8 Literature Report ........................................................................................................
  • The Helsinki Process: a Four-Decade Overview (Prepared by Helsinki Commission Staff, February 2017)

    The Helsinki Process: a Four-Decade Overview (Prepared by Helsinki Commission Staff, February 2017)

    UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE The Helsinki Process: A Four-Decade Overview (prepared by Helsinki Commission staff, February 2017) In August 1975, the heads of state or government of 35 countries – the Soviet Union and all of Europe except Albania, plus the United States and Canada – held a historic summit in Helsinki, Finland, where they signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. This document is known as the Helsinki Final Act or the Helsinki Accords. The Conference, known as the CSCE, continued with follow-up meetings and is today institutionalized as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, based in Vienna, Austria.1 Confronting the Cold War The Helsinki Final Act was the culmination of “détente” in East-West relations that developed during the administrations of U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to ease Cold War tensions. The idea of a multilateral summit document, however, was initially proposed by the Soviet Union as early as 1954. Moscow primarily wanted this to serve as a post-World War II peace treaty confirming both border changes and the Brezhnev and Ford in Helsinki, communist hold on the countries of East-Central Europe. The Soviets flanked by Kissinger and Gromyko originally also wanted to use an all-European conference to drive a wedge between the United States and its West European allies and to thwart efforts to bring Germany into the NATO alliance. The West resisted, but East-West tensions were becoming more relaxed by the early 1970s, as West Germany’s “Ostpolitik” increased regional stability and the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin removed a barrier to broader talks between East and West.2 As the Kremlin under Leonid Brezhnev continued to press, Western capitals saw advantages in going forward provided that humanitarian concerns could be advanced, their own security concerns could be addressed, and recognition of the status quo in Europe could be formally avoided.
  • Military Aid

    Military Aid

    Presidential succession and United States-Latin American relations. Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Gaarder, Stephen Matthew. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 08/10/2021 17:23:43 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/186120 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to light in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy.
  • Second Semiannual Report by the President to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

    Second Semiannual Report by the President to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

    95th Congress COMMITTEE PRINT lst Session I SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THlE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS JUNE 1977 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 91487 WASHINGTON: 1977 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 052-070-04105-6 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, Wisconsin, Chairman L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, Michigan DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania JOHN H; BUCHANAN, Js., Alabama DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota. J. HERBERT BURKE, Florida BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York CHARLES W. WHALEN, JR,. Ohio LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas LESTER L WOLFF, New York BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York TENNYSON GUYER, Ohio GUS YATRON, Pennsylvania ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Massachusetts WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania LEO J. RYAN, California SHIRLEY N. PETTIS, California CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York HELEN S. MEYNER, New Jersey DON BONKER, Washington GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts ANDY IRELAND, Florida DONALD J. PEASE, Ohio ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California WYCHE FOWLER, Js., Georgia E. (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, Texas GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California JOHN J. CAVANAUGH, Nebraska JOHN J. BRADY, Jr., Chief of Staff III) , .. .. _ _ _ .-_- .-....- .._ . .. , .._-.. .. .... ............. .. 1: ,; do .-> al .r: --~ !-, .: . -,%!:C- ': '-i --. ~ ---. - i. -)-:.t .I' l- {; :.2 FOREWORD HouSE or REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Wa8hington, D.C., June 26,1977.