Council of Foreign Ministers

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-564
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recent Meeting ◽  
German Question ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Peace Treaties

The sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers met in Paris from May 23 to June 20, 1949, to discuss the German question and the Austrian treaty. The fifth session, held in London in November–December 1947, had closed without agreement as to the drafting of peace treaties for Germany and Austria. At the recent meeting France was represented by Robert Schuman, the USSR by A. Y. Vishinsky, the United Kingdom by Ernest Bevin and the United States by Dean Acheson. A preliminary requirement for the opening of this meeting was the lifting of the Berlin blockade and counterblockade measures by members of the Council. Informal discussions in New York between Soviet and United States representatives (Jacob Malik and Philip Jessup) resulted on May 12 in preliminary agreement on this problem, which had stood for ten months as an obstacle in the way of any consideration by the members of the Council of the German question as a whole.

1. Communiqué Issued by the Council of Foreign Ministers, June 20, 1949

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-593
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
The Right ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers attended by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France, M. Robert Schuman; of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr. A. Y. Vishinsky; of the United Kingdom, the Right Honorable Ernest Bevin, and the United States of America, Mr. Dean Acheson, took place in Paris from May 23 to June 20,1949.

Political and Legal Organizations: Council of Foreign Ministers

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-156
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Political Unity ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Peace Treaties

The fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers met in London from November 25 to December 15, 1947, to discuss the drafting of peace treaties for Germany and Austria. It met without an agreed agenda and adjourned without agreement. The first ten days were devoted to a discussion of the mechanisms necessary for the preparation of a German treaty, with two sessions devoted to the question of Austria; discussion in the last ten days centered around the problem of the related questions of immediate economic and political unity for Germany and the level of Germany's reparations payments. On most questions, press reports indicated that France, the United Kingdom and the United States were in general agreement, with the Soviet Union in opposition.

Security Council

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-517
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Peace ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The question of the threat to Thailand was discussed by the Security Council at its 673d and 674th meetings. After again explaining the reasons for his government's belief that the condition of tension in the general region in which Thailand was located would, if continued, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the Thai representative, Pote Sarasin, again requested that the Peace Observation Commission establish a sub-commission of from three to five members to dispatch observers to Thailand and to visit Thailand itself if it were deemed necessary. The Thai draft differed from earlier Thai proposals, however, in that the original mandate of the sub-commission applie only to the territory of Thailand; if the sub-commission felt that it could not adequately accomplish its mission without observation or visit in states contiguous to Thailand, the Peace Observation Commission or the Security Council could issue the necessary instructions. Representatives of New Zealand, Turkey, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Colombia and France spoke in support of the Thai draft. They denied, as had been alleged by the Soviet representative (Tsarapkin) at an earlier meeting, that Council consideration or action on this question would be detrimental to the success of the negotiations between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Chinese People's Republic, Soviet Union and other states in Geneva. While agreeing that it would be impropitious for the Council to consider directly the situation in Indochina as long as it was being discussed in Geneva, they argued that the question raised by Thailand was quite separate and that the Council had a duty to comply with the Thai request.

scholarly journals Communicating the “Race” for the COVID-19 Vaccine: An Exploratory Study in Newspapers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luisa Massarani ◽  
Luiz Felipe Fernandes Neves
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Understanding Of Science

The search for an effective solution to control the COVID-19 pandemic has mobilized an unprecedented effort by science to develop a vaccine against the disease, in which pharmaceutical companies and scientific institutions from several countries participate. The world closely monitors research in this area, especially through media coverage, which plays a key role in the dissemination of trustful information and in the public’s understanding of science and health. On the other hand, anti-vaccine movements dispute space in this communication environment, which raises concerns of the authorities regarding the willingness of the population to get vaccinated. In this exploratory study, we used computer-assisted content analysis techniques, with WordStat software, to identify the most addressed terms, semantic clusters, actors, institutions, and countries in the texts and titles of 716 articles on the COVID-19 vaccine, published by The New York Times (US), The Guardian (United Kingdom), and Folha de São Paulo (Brazil), from January to October 2020. We sought to analyze similarities and differences of countries that stood out by the science denialism stance of their government leaders, reflecting on the severity of the pandemic in these places. Our results indicate that each newspaper emphasized the potential vaccines developed by laboratories in their countries or that have established partnerships with national institutions, but with a more politicized approach in Brazil and a little more technical-scientific approach in the United States and the United Kingdom. In external issues, the newspapers characterized the search for the discovery of a vaccine as a race in which nations and blocs historically marked by economic, political, and ideological disputes are competing, such as the United States, Europe, China, and Russia. The results lead us to reflect on the responsibility of the media to not only inform correctly but also not to create stigmas related to the origin of the vaccine and combat misinformation.

Altar Call in Europe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uta A. Balbier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Altar Call ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
International Ministry

This book provides a transnational history of Billy Graham’s revival work in the 1950s, zooming in on his revival meetings in London (1954), Berlin (1954/1960), and New York (1957). It shows how Graham’s international ministry took shape in the context of transatlantic debates about the place and future of religion in public life after the experiences of war and at the onset of the Cold War, and through a constant exchange of people, ideas, and practices. It explores the transnational nature of debates about the religious underpinnings of the “Free World” and sheds new light on the contested relationship between business, consumerism, and religion. In the context of Graham’s revival meetings, ordinary Christians, theologians, ministers, and church leaders in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom discussed, experienced, and came to terms with religious modernization and secular anxieties, Cold War culture, and the rise of consumerism. The transnational connectedness of their political, economic, and spiritual hopes and fears brings a narrative to life that complicates our understanding of the different secularization paths the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany embarked on in the 1950s. During Graham’s altar call in Europe, the contours of a transatlantic revival become visible, even if in the long run it was unable to develop a dynamism that could have sustained this moment in these different national and religious contexts.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-650
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Ministers

On April 9, 1951, the deputies of the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union began their sixth week of Paris meetings in an attempt to frame an agenda for a conference of the foreign ministers.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-229
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
German Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Foreign Ministers

Proposed Meeting of the Council: Meeting in Prague on October 20 and 21, 1950, the foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, eastern Germany and the Soviet Union issued a statement in reply to the communiqué on Germany released on September 19 by the foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Charging that the position of the three western governments was merely a screen to conceal the aggressive objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty and that the creation of mobile police formations was nothing less than the reconstitution of a German army, the eight foreign ministers stated that they considered as urgent 1) the publication by the three western powers and the Soviet Union of a statement of their intent to refuse to permit German rearmament and of their unswerving determination to create a united peace-loving German state; 2) the removal of all restrictions hindering the development of the peaceful German economy and the prevention of a resurgence of German war potential; 3) the conclusion of a German treaty and the withdrawal of all occupation forces within one year of its conclusion; and 4) the creation of an all-German constituent council to prepare for a provisional German government. The text of the communiqué was communicated to the United Kingdom, the United States and France under cover of a Soviet note on November 3. Stating that the Prague declaration possessed “the greatest significance for the cause of assuring international peace and security” and touched the “fundamental national interests of the peoples of Europe,” the Soviet government proposed the convening of the Council of Foreign Ministers „for consideration of the question of fulfillment of the Potsdam agreement regarding demilitarization of Germany.”

Anzus Pacific Security Pact

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-400
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Government ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Relationship Of

The ANZUS Council held its second meeting in Washington, D.C., on September 9 and 10, 1953. While the first meeting of the Council had been devoted largely to organizational matters, the second meeting provided an opportunity for the foreign ministers of Australia, New Zealand and the United States to review the developments of the past year and to discuss common problems in the Pacific area. Prior to the opening of the meeting, there had been speculation in the press about the possibility of providing some form of associate membership in ANZUS for other countries — particularly the United Kingdom – and other international organizations. The United Kingdom was reportedly dissatisfied with its exclusion from the organization; Prime Minister Churchill had been quoted as telling the House of Commons on June 17 that he “did not like the Anzus Pact at all” and that he hoped that “perhaps larger and wider arrangements could be made which would be more satisfactory than those now in force”. According to the communique issued at the close of the meeting, however, the ministers “unanimously concluded … that to attempt to enlarge its membership would not contribute directly and materially” to the strengthening and defense of the ANZUS area. The communique pointed out that ANZUS was one of a number of arrangements for the furtherance of the security of the nations of the area; specifically the communique mentioned the mutual security pacts between the United States and the Philippines and Japan, United States defense understandings with the government of China on Formosa and the relationship of Australia and New Zealand with the other Commonwealth nations. Together, the communique noted, these arrangements ‘constitute … a solemn warning to any potential aggressor and represent the growing foundation for lasting peace in the Pacific”.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-180
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Austrian Economy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Subsequent Withdrawal ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Made In

On December 6, 1948, a note was sent to the United States, France, USSR and the United Kingdom by the Austrian Federal Government pointing out that no progress had been made in the preparation of the Austrian peace treaty since the adjournment of the Deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers at London in May 1948. The note declared that Austria was anxious for the conclusion of the treaty, the subsequent withdrawal of occupation forces and the elimination of the four zones artificially dividing the country, as it considered the occupation an impediment to Austrian economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document