Exposing “Red Colonialism”: U.S. Propaganda at the United Nations, 1953–1963

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 82-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ann Heiss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The U.S

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.

1986 UNAT Elections

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 720-721
Author(s):  
T. M. F.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

The United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) has elected Herbert Reis of the United States, a former Counselor at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, as its Second Vice-President for the coming year. Mr. Reis has served on the tribunal for 5 years. Samar Sen of India and Arnold Kean of the United Kingdom were elected President and First Vice-President of the tribunal, respectively.

On Other Shores: When is Separate Inherently Unequal?,

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Minow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Academic Scholarship ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

Even before it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education had a global profile. Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal in a work that the Carnegie Corporation commissioned in 1944 in search of an unbiased view of American race relations, supplied a searing indictment of America’s treatment of the “Negro,” and his work, An American Dilemma, became a key citation in the Court’s famous footnote eleven. Initially, President Dwight D. Eisenhower showed no sympathy for the school integration project and expressed suspicion that the United Nations and international economic and social rights activists were betraying socialist or even communist leanings in supporting the brief. But as the United States tried to position itself as a leader in human rights and supporter of the United Nations, the Cold War orientation of President Eisenhower’s Republican administration gave rise to interest in ending official segregation, lynchings, and cross burnings in order to elevate the American image internationally. The Department of Justice consulted with the State Department on the drafting of an amicus brief in Brown that argued that ending racially segregated schools would halt the Soviet critique of racial abuses tolerated by the U.S. system of government and thereby help combat global communism. Ending segregation emerged as part of a strategy to win more influence than the Soviet Union in the “Third World.” African-American civil rights leader and journalist Roger Wilkins later recalled that ending official segregation became urgent as black ambassadors started to visit Washington, D.C., and the United Nations in New York City. Tracking the influence of Brown in other countries is thornier than tracking its influence inside the United States where the topic has motivated a cottage industry in academic scholarship. As this book has considered, the litigation has by now a well-known and complicated relationship to actual racial integration within American schools. Some argue that the case exacerbated tensions and slowed gradual reform that was already under way.

Ethiopia's Great Terror

Worldview ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Magstadt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Immigration And Naturalization Service ◽  
Residency Status ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

Last fall the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, attempted to draw worldwide attention to the “savagery” of Ethiopia's Marxist regime. “It is estimated that some 30,000 persons in Ethiopia were summarily executed for political reasons between 1974 and 1978,” she told the U.N. General Assembly on October 2, 1981. “Twelve-year-old children were among those immersed in hot oil. sexually tortured, or flung out of windows and left to die in the street.”At about the same time Ambassador Kirkpatrick was detailing the horrors of the Mengistu government, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service was busy preparing a review of the residency status of Ethiopians living in the United Stales.

scholarly journals Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benson Ninan ◽  
Albert I Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Products ◽  
Local Decision ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Decision Guidance ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

Since 1979, the United Nations has maintained a list of drugs banned from sale in member countries. Interestingly, there are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries. This report provides a look into the policies for banning drug sales internationally and the role of the United Nations in maintaining the master list for companies and countries to use for local decision guidance.   Type: Commentary

The U.S. and the USSR: Religious Liberty as a Human Right

Worldview ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 26-35
Author(s):  
Robert F. Smylie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Jimmy Carter ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

Speaking before the United Nations, President Jimmy Carter declared that "The basic thrust of human affairs points toward a universal demand for fundamental human rights. The United States has a historic birthright to be associated with this process." He was reiterating his inaugural day commitment: "Because we are free we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere."

The U.S. Congress and the Rhodesian Chrome Issue

1972 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-7
Author(s):  
Gale W. McGee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Institution ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Southern Rhodesia ◽  
The U.S

The passage of legislation late in 1971 which in effect caused the United States unilaterally to breach the United Nations sanctions against Southern Rhodesia surely constitutes one of the most shameful episodes in the recent conduct of our country's international affairs. One commentator quite correctly did not mince words in describing the action as a “chrome-plated treaty violation.” And yet, even today, it is doubtful whether any great numbers of American citizens realize that their government has broken its treaty obligations to an international institution which our country did most to initiate and to promote until very recent times. An especially saddening aspect of the affair is the fact that an Administration which rightly has condemned and often contested growing neo-isolationist sentiment in our society's outlook on the world scarcely lifted a finger to prevent precisely the kind of result it decried.

Immunities and Privileges of Delegations to the United Nations

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
Effective Work ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The United Nations

In the sixteen years since the United Nations on the invitation of the United States established its principal headquarters in New York, there have been remarkably few incidents and little publicity in connection with the immunities and privileges of Members' representatives. This is no doubt due not to the clarity or quality of the relevant juridical instruments but to the tact and understanding of all concerned: the United Nations and more particularly its Secretaries-General, the representatives of the Member States and in a very large measure the Department of State and the United States Mission to the United Nations. It was the violent reaction of Chairman N. S. Khrushchev, attending the fifteenth session of the General Assembly as head of the Soviet Union delegation, against the restrictions imposed upon his movements in the United States by the Department of State which drew attention to the question of the rights and privileges of delegations to the United Nations. For the first time the head of the delegation of a great power and a permanent member of the Security Council was subjected to such restrictions. Speaking in the General Assembly, Mr. Khrushchev referred to “the various restrictions of the rights of representatives of States in the United Nations” and the “instances … of the representatives of young African and Asian States being subjected to racial discrimination.” He raised the question “whether or not thought should be given to the choice of another location for the United Nations Headquarters which would better facilitate the effective work of this international organization.”The nature and extent of these restrictions will be discussed below but it may be well to begin with a survey and analysis of the bewildering array of instruments which govern this matter.

TRENDS

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1951 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-294
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Marked Decrease ◽  
Marked Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Emergency Fund ◽  
The U.S

SINCE it was established in 1946, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has been a powerful influence in marshalling both funds and personnel in the interests of children throughout the troubled and underdeveloped areas of the world. For the needs of UNICEF an appropriation of $5,750,000 has been approved by the Senate and the House for the current fiscal year (July 1, 1951-June 30, 1952). This appropriation, which now awaits the approval of the President, is a marked decrease from the $15,000,000 authorized last year, or even the $12,500,000 requested by the President for this year. Furthermore, a report which still stands on the record as far as the House is concerned, stipulates that the U.S. contribution should not exceed 33% of the amount contributed by other governments, a marked change in the matching formula in which, heretofore, the United States has contributed 72% with 28% from other countries. The funds contributed by the United States, limited as they are for a world program, have stimulated other countries to meet the matching requirement and thus make larger contributions of their own. Forty-eight countries have contributed to the fund. Also, it may be noted that the bill as passed refers to the total amount contributed by other governments; the Senate in its report indicated that the total amount might include internal matching by other governments as well as the regular contributions of donor countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document